<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is not just quantitative “detail” I’m concerned with. My position is closely associated with the “correspondence theory of truth” or knowledge advocated by several philosophers. It therefore concerns not only detail, but any number of the quantities and qualities (such as proportion, symmetry, orientation, relevance to deductive models, context, realism, shading, technique, and so on; all of which have been discussed previously) that can correlate and relate the images under discussion to their referents in reality (i.e., in our experience). I am also very concerned with authenticating the images we are considering. I am not contesting the detail count in your various art objects, and have already given my assessment concerning their artificiality vs. natural occurrence, and do not wish to repeat that aspect of the discussion. [Neil]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
For example, in a MRB paper, Levasseur examined many of the quantities and qualities of the Profile Image, and made a comparison to known examples of pareidolia. In my MRB paper “Innana Ishatar,” (Nefertiti) I continued the analysis of the PI’s art-realism and made some speculative cultural comparisons.
But we always used unenhanced images, except for the Keys, which were so indicated. There has been some discussion on this MB as to which enhancements are legitimate, and I’ve come to the conclusion that for the most part only contrast and brightness are legitimate & the only ones that don’t add significant data; although I’m not an expert in that area.
When he was still in our camp Rich and I did a paper on the “Nefertiti” Family, which he withdrew when he changed sides. It essentially did more analysis of the qualities listed above and showed the context to other faces in the mosaic. It also stressed the importance of corroboration from other NASA images, because this weighs against the possibility of computer fakes for a number of reasons, and showed that the faces persist in other lighting conditions, etc.
This kind of analysis can be done for many of the art objects and artifacts discovered by myself and others. My inclination is to stick to the ones that can best be defended on the basis of their realistic correspondence to known objects of our experience. We are entitled to take that track because the Cydonia Face, the object that demonstrates artificiality most conclusively, is decidedly human-like, and the Profile Image is even more so. This allows us to logically create models whereby more human-like faces and other artifacts of intelligent engineering may be found.
