My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Here are couple of fairly good random face images from the internet. The first one is "Lenin in a shower curtain." Here's the source, and description. I realize this is "flat art", but there's quite a bit of detail for this totally random image, which was caused my a man leaning against the shower curtain:

www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html

Here's one from Mark Philips Chan9 News. You can read this and decide for yourself if it's legit. Seems like it is to me:
In the Table of Contents on the left, click on WTC, then Satan Smoke, then News9-Mark Philips, and read what Mr. Philips has to say.
thefolklorist.com/Pareidolia%20Project/index.htm

Quote from article:

"Phillips stands by his photo and says he has been a journalist for 25 years and would never alter a photo. He says he has the original digital photo untouched, with the date and time. "

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Here are couple of fairly good random face images from the internet. [rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There are so many things wrong with your logic, indeed your whole approach, that it is hardly worth comment, but I will anyway for the obvious reason.

1- Again there is no chain of evidence, without which we can say nothing conclusive about anything. This fact alone makes me worry that something is dreadfully wrong.
2- Nobody would argue that these pictures (if real renditions of something) could not be pareidolia, they are not all that detailed, and they would go POOF the minute you moved a muscle.
3- If real renditions of something, (random occurrences of something that is familliar to us), they are extremely RARE; that is what makes them news worthy.

On the other hand there are many realistic, repeatable under different seasonal and lighting conditions, amiable to computer manipulation, able to be seen at several scales, detailed, anatomically correct, verifiable, faces on a system, (NASA/JPL/MSSS), that affords an exellent chain of evidence and repeatability.

I'm sure you have an answer but it will be more of the same.

Neil

First I thouht I would mention in my version of keiths image.. the one with four image insets. the upper left corner image with the small Face... is the infamous 5 sided pyramid
at cydonia... You can imagine that dont go to well with the cydonia city theory too much..

Although I am constantly working on "my material" I haven't displayed any of it yet..

Usually the stuff I post are Images posted by others that I have worked on. For purposes of conversation with those individuals.. Where as two years ago I was kinda doing what you are doing now.. I believe proof exists that this planet of Mars is a created Object..

The fact it is called a "planet" in this case may be a stereo type.. Once "enlightened" I started looking at the "Planet" from top down. If you can prove that the empire state building is a building.. You don't need to argue whether or not the bricks exist or were created ..

This thing we are doing here can not be accomplished by any "one" but only as a group can we ever expect to succeed..

And the lord said know what is in front of you.. And what is hidden will be revealed..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />1- Again there is no chain of evidence, without which we can say nothing conclusive about anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Other than the one I posted? What were those people, wood?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
2- Nobody would argue that these pictures (if real renditions of something) could not be pareidolia, they are not all that detailed, and they would go POOF the minute you moved a muscle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was going to let this post go unanswered, but you continue to make my case for me so beautifully, that I just couldn't let this go by. Plus, I need the material.

Let me give it a shot.

Obviously, no sane person is going to think wtc_devil_smoke is anything but pareidolia. We all know it's a random image. (By the way Neil, it would be helpful if you read every message. I think that would resolve some of your confusion.) But here's the key: we know it's not an artwork from an ancient Martian civilization. We all know that. No question. So, we're not choosing between pareidolia and real, like we are with the msss images. We know wtc_devel_smoke is real. We're just exploring images that we know are pareidolia, in the context that I've laid out before. (I know that's a mouthful, but what can I tell you?)


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
3- If real renditions of something, (random occurrences of something that is familliar to us), they are extremely RARE; that is what makes them news worthy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Maybe. But who's really looking?

rd

Let's do a quick test of "emission angle" when resolution, contrast, brightness, and color are not an issue.

Cat.
Emission angle X:

Same Cat.
Emission angle X - 65 degrees (rotated around the horizon).

Assume roughly the same angle of elevation from the cat to the camera. Note how all features that are visible in both views, can be seen clearly, with no question as to what they are. The front paws in Sparky1 are still front paws in Sparky2. Same with the ears and tail. Nothing disappeared that should still be in view. As a matter of fact, things came into view, like the rear legs and paws, and the chain around the neck, with bell and name tag. The eyes and face are no longer in view, but that's understandable since we can see that they would have to be looking in the other direction in the second picture. In other words, there are no mysteries.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Assume roughly the same angle of elevation from the cat to the camera. Note how all features that are visible in both views, can be seen clearly, with no question as to what they are. The front paws in Sparky1 are still front paws in Sparky2. Same with the ears and tail. Nothing disappeared that should still be in view.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are saying the obvious, but your point is completely lost on me.

If this is to have any applicability to Mars, why not simulate a comparable resolution, contrast, lighting, and degree of erosion so you can plainly see what a major difference emission angle makes for the cat, just as it did for the Cydonia Face? Then we could see some possible applications to this discussion. -|Tom|-