My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />rd- Let's give credit where it is due and say YOU are saying the same thing Proust said, and not the other way around. After all he died before you were born. (1922).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Absolutely. That's a given. I was thinking more in terms of the fact that <b>you</b> were posting something that was in harmony with what I said, and was acknowledging that.

rd

For the new reader of these threads, I'd like to do a little demonstration. Usually on these threads, an image is posted, and then maybe a key has followed. I'm going to do it in reverse order this time. Why? Because <b>I want the reader to be absolutely sure they know what feature I'm talking about BEFORE they see the context.</b>. Why again? Because I've always contended that <b>if you believe it's there, you'll see it.</b>

Sit back in your chair and "gaze" (and I don't use that word lightly) at the image for a minute or two, and read the Keys. After you have a pretty good feel for the man, continue on to the two wider context images, and the rest of the post.

I call this guy "Young Founding Father" (with typical contrast/brightness/smoothing adjustments):

IMAGE A

Key:

A. Eye/Eyebrow
B. Jeffersonian hairdo
C. Beard on side of face
D. Chin
E. Mouth with upper/lower lip
F. Nose with convenient damage to nose bridge
G. Forehead with wrinkles
H. Forehead/hairline
I. Ear
J. Cheekbone

Note: I left the trees that are in the way of the bottom part of the sculpture to demonstrate that they don't pose a significant problem in reconizing the structure.

Ok, now here's the image that it came from (unprocessed).

Again, sit back and gaze for awhile, and you'll even start to see a variety of secondary partial images next to it. It all depends on how you choose to discriminate between realistic and semi-realistic. But be very discriminating for the primary one presented in the above key.



rd

Samizdat calls the image at the top of page 23 "Yet another frivolous image." If one tilts ones head (upper part of head to the left) there is one of the better pareidolic images I've seen on this site. The image is near the upper right of the screen, in the large lightened inverted V shaped area. The eye is certainly one of the clearest. Even has a reflection on the pupil, eyebrow, nose with nostril, mouth, forehead, hair. Sort of looks cyclopian. Maybe some of these Martian artists were cyclops'.

Plus there's even a smaller animal face (with cat ears) in his turban. That's the trouble with this stuff. Once you start, there's no stoppin'.

"So many faces, so little time." (rd)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I know you favor impressionistic art and much of your latest effort is very impressive from that standpoint. [Neil] to Trinket <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This brings up an interesting point, and a possible avenue for further study of the pareidolic image.

Since, as I've always stated, the pareidolic image is "personal" in nature, it stands to reason that different people will find different styles of art overall, although, there's certainly going to be crossover effect, because of the fact that we are pointing them out to others all the time.

But if we just consider "first finds" where an observer is looking through the data, looking for faces or structures, it seems reasonable that he will find the type of art that best conforms to his view of art per se.

Neil prefers realism in art (I've seen his art works), so naturally his selection of images will tend more towards realism, whereas Trinkets artworks do tend towards impressionism as Neil noticed. {By the way Trinket your image posted "Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 15:43:40 " on Page 3 of your thread looks very much like one of Fred Ressler's photos, you didn't mix them up did you?[]}.

There's an interesting dynamic about this subject that I came across while reviewing Impressionism and the Impressionists. Edgar Degas, who is considered to be one of the founders of Impressionism, considered himself a realist and "despised the term Impressionism". However:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Technically, Degas differs from the Impressionists in that, as art historian Frederick Hartt says, he "never adopted the Impressionist color fleck",[19] and he continually belittled their practice of painting <i>en plein air</i>.[20] but is described more accurately as an Impressionist than as a member of any other movement. His scenes of Parisian life, his off-center compositions, his experiments with colour and form, and his friendship with several key Impressionist artists, most notably Mary Cassatt and Edouard Manet, all relate him intimately to the Impressionist movement.[21]-Wikipedia<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Similarly, Edouard Manet also did not consider himself an Impressionist, but in fact others did, and history considers him one of the pivotal painters in the transition from Realism to Impressionism.

It's interesting that early pioneers in Impressionism, didn't think they were "impressionists" but rather were capturing life as it really was.

How does any of this tie in to Pareidolia? I think the obvious answer would be that Pareidolia is in fact a type of art, in and of itself, so that the same types of dynamics are in play as they were with real art and artists. However, instead of the artist "painting" or "sculpting" or "carving" or "brushing" or "knifing"..........he's merely "finding" the face in the soup. But even though he's just finding, he's still using artistic techniques, knowledge, flair, originality, etc., to help him get there.

rd

Sorry if I am misinterpreting the discussion I assume this is about the MOC image. I looked at this when it came out, it may well be the one I requested for targetting. it is indeed easy to see things that are not there on Mars, but I find a few rules I developed over the years help.
1. Avoid any objects that are pixellated, compressed or close to the limit of resolution. If you think you have a good eye for these things try looking at details on a lower resolution image and then see if you are right on a higher resolution one. Many areas were reimaged by the MOC and one can test one's eye with these. In my experience people are not very good at this unless the features are very smooth. The Crowned Face is good for this because it is relatively large. Also the reimaging of part of it looked more face like rather than less, so indistinct features amount to a prediction. One believes it may be a face and predicts higher resolution will increase this impression. For example the nose on the right face (out of the 3 connected ones) under higher resolution had nostrils similar to the central face:

www.ultor.org/noses.htm

The Skullface looked much less artificial under reimaging:

www.ultor.org/atlantis5.htm

2. The more the feature is distinct from known geology nearby, the more likely it is artificial. So if an anomaly is partly composed of dune like shapes, and there are lots of dunes nearby, then perhaps random dune shapes produced this feature. Some areas of Mars are full of highly random shapes, and the odds are that one will look artificial to some degree. On the other hand if a feature is different from most of the surrounding geology then it is less likely to be random. The Crowned Faces have a defect in that they use part of the cliff for a crown. This may be because builders saved themselves some time with this, but it is consistent with a random impression. On the other hand the hat shape in itself is not a big part of the impression of artificiality. Other cliff faces in the area and in other places of Mars don't look much like the Crowned Face, so there doesn't seem to be a geological process forming face like shapes on slopes on old rivers. I made a study on geological landforms similar to possible artifacts here:

www.ultor.org/like%20cydonia/likecydonia.html

I don't think the Cydonia face is like other mesas, except 2 that might be weathered faces themselves:

www.ultor.org/like%20cydonia/m0903566.jpg.htm

www.ultor.org/eo301768.htm

more geological but who knows:

www.ultor.org/like%20cydonia/m1900860.jpg.htm

www.ultor.org/like%20cydonia/m2001802.jpg.htm

3. Don't forget to accumulate information against your own theory. George Haas is becoming very good at fair scientific analysis of formations, particularly Parrotopia. Ultimately there is not much to be gained by asserting something is artificial when it is not. You get lampooned by the skeptics/cynics which makes it harder to admit you were wrong later. Better to take some shots at your own work and take the wind out of their sails, it also stops you from becoming too attached to your own impressions. I must have removed over 90% of the images from my site over the years, and it is better for removing mistakes. I happen to think the case for artifacts is stronger than ever, and if there are artifacts on Mars it is highly likely there are some still in images no one has noticed yet. Until it is proven though, no one really knows.
4. Try to look for common patterns and themes. If there was a civilisation or visitation that produced artifacts then it is likely there will be some common theme, way of building, etc. the 3 Crowned Faces, the Cydonia Face and the KK Face are highly similar to each other in overlays:

www.ultor.org/3overlays.htm

www.ultor.org/kkface.htm

www.ultor.org/faces_files/

www.ultor.org/king/King.htm

The implication here is that the faces are either all of the same alien or of aliens that look similar to each other. This is stronger evidence than faces that are very different from each other, because this is like the different faces people see in clouds. It's better to try and find an anomaly that looks like one previously found, and if geological process can be ruled out then you have either coincidence or artificiality. Like seeing 2 people who look like each other but are not related, random faces are unlikely to be very similar. It literally took more 8 years or more before I started to see any common themes.

Other studies by myself and Horace Crater show some angles between mounds near candidate artifacts are more common than others and have some mathematical significance. So finding more mounds elsewhere with the same angles is highly unlikely, and the odds against chance can be measured as hard evidence.

5. Don't be afraid of criticism and don't be afraid to criticise. Most artists have difficulty in assessing their own work without a muse or unbiased audience. If you think you see a pattern which is hard to assess scientifically, ask other people and pay attention if they think it is not as good as you think. On the other hand look for evidence that is less a matter of opinion and more scientifically justifiable. A lot of people over the years have posted nonsense on artifacts and some still do. It is hard to criticise because there is a feeling of circling the wagons against the cynics. However if you cannot say things openly try to be skeptical in private, to them if you can. In the long run it only avoids them embaressment. If they respond by criticising your work welcome it as a fresh viewpoint. I used to put up with rapid skeptics for years simply because I had no interest in defending artifacts that were natural formations. Ultimately they only do you a favor by making you look at the stronger evidence.

6. Don't feel obligated to join the fringe. Just because you think there might be artifacts on Mars doesn't obligate you to believe in UFOs, conspiracy theories and the occult. The question of Martian artifacts is a purely scientific one, and should be decided on its own merits. In my opinion if there are any artifacts on Mars at all, they are likely to be at least hundreds of millions of years old from the erosion. So they would in that theory not be connected to anything we see today, even historically.