Mro--First Looks

<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 />I tend to agree with [Fred] that anything short of that's not going to prove much.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A JPG copy of the negative would reveal much, and likely rule out most possibilities except fraud.

If the image we have is really in color, as Fred claims, what kind of plant has gray and white leaves of that shape? Or is the white from sunlight, and the gray and black are the leaves? Why no colored leaves? What is the surface that the face rests on? A tree trunk? What is the object making the nose shape, that casts such a dark, linear shadow? If we take away that single feature, what's left wouldn't be worth mentioning.

The more I examine the details, the more questions I have about the nature of this image. It badly needs documenting or replication. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />If the image we have is really in color, as Fred claims, what kind of plant has gray and white leaves of that shape? Or is the white from sunlight, and the gray and black are the leaves?Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, he used color film on this picture, but he was photographing shadows of leaves and branches, not the leaves and branches themselves. He just commented that when you use color film to photograph shadows, you get some subtle coloring.

Shadows have no color, that I know about.

rd

rd- No one can prove matter exists. How can i prove my images are pareidolia. First hand experience would be the best proof. Try color film. The shadows look black and white to the eye, but when filmed anomolous colors always show up. Very different colors from shot to shot. i switched to B&W film early on for this and other reasons. The whole process is ineffable and mysterious. Try it yourself is all i can really suggest.
Tom- The leaves are to far away from the board to be seen as they are. Diffraction and overlapping of shadows and light create the effects. The pure white is from sunlight, the pure black from total light exclusion, the greys from partial light exclusion. What looks like a nose casting a shadow is mere coincidence, as is the whole process. The point worth meditating on is why no one bothers to try to duplicate this process her/himself. How many hours have we already spent going around in circles here. There is nothing like first hand experience. i really feel people are afraid to admit that i'm on to something, and chance images,(or any chance- that's why gamboling was considered a sin) were seen as works of the devil by the church for so many years, it is in many peoples DNA at this point so they instinctly shy away from the process. More than a few people have told me i shouldn't be doing what i do because i am involving myself with an "order i should not mess with, that should be left alone." That the topic is so fascinating and so unexplored says much to me.

Two more examples of shadows filmed with color film: "Madonna" and "Mother and Child." Please see
www.yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50
Here's a backward sort of proof. Wouldn't it be to my greater advantage to project these images on canvas paint them in and call it art; and call my self an "artist?" Most artists use pareidolic images for "inspiration." Leonardo we already went through. Here's another-
"As Dali watched the black rocks move slowly past the boat, he could see them changing into curious humanoid and anthropoid shapes that becamse, according to the vantage point, eagles, lions, human heads, the face of a woman, a hunched-up old man. For all these figures the fishermen had names that were part of the local lore. These "double" images would later become a recurrent and highly importent motif in Dali's paintings."
from the Persistence of Memory- A Biography of Dali. by Meridith Etherington-Smith p. 20. thru.

Tom and Neil,

Consider this for a second. Fred has been telling us exactly what his methods are, right from the beginning. I would be much more suspicious if he had been saying that his methods were "hard to explain", or things of that nature.

Based on what he has said out in this open forum, I have a very clear idea of what I'm going to attempt to do.

But, I'm not going say that "I'll give you a full report in the morning", or anything remotely close to that. I'm going to play around with it. I've got the equipment, and the guidelines. Let's see where it takes me.

I can say for sure that I'm beyond the "feasability phase".


rd

<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 />Here's a backward sort of proof. Wouldn't it be to my greater advantage to project these images on canvas paint them in and call it art; and call my self an "artist?" ......... "As Dali watched the black rocks move slowly past the boat, he could see them changing into curious humanoid and anthropoid shapes that becamse, according to the vantage point, eagles, lions, human heads, the face of a woman, a hunched-up old man."....... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You have to remember that there's alot at stake here. If your stuff is what you say it is, what three reputable art dealers say it is, then that single fact alone flies in the face of the whole Artificial Origins Hypothesis (AOH) as it pertains to Mars. That's HUGE.

rd