Keys

Richard Hoagland established mathematical relationships between the famous Cydonia “Face,” the “D&M Pyramid” and the “City.” These included so-called “hyper-dimensional relationships,” linking the Mars structures to structures on Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and the Egyptian Pyramids of Giza. For this work, which some critics considered quite unsubstantiated if not bizarre, he received the endorsement of some well-respected scientists and institutions worldwide. But if the “City,” the “Pyramid,” and the “Face” on Mars are nothing but “piles of rocks,” there remains little meaningful substance standing between the ridiculous and the sublime. Even if the Face turns out real, but the other structures prove to be natural outcroppings, the credibility of the mathematical relationships will still remain but a distant hope.

Similar statements can be made about the “statistical proofs” for the artificiality of the Cydonia Face and later the Profile Image, likewise for subsequent 3-D analyses of same. All will hinge on whether or not confirmations eventually come in from other sources and other disciplines.

But none of this means that we can’t in the meantime employ logical proofs and demonstrations of likely artificiality. And so far, this forum seems like a likely place to do just that. But in as much as the works have been gummed-up by specious arguments about “pareidolia” and “anthropomorphism,” it has proven difficult, sometimes in the extreme, to make the common sense arguments. But one keeps trying. It was stated at the beginning of this topic that the purpose of the Keys was primarily to allow the viewer to “see what we see,” not to “prove” artificiality. That will come, but by other means. And many logical arguments have already been made.

Neil

<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 />the works have been gummed-up by specious arguments about “pareidolia” and “anthropomorphism”, it has proven difficult, sometimes in the extreme, to make the common sense arguments.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The common sense argument is that it's all pareidolia. That's the default of the entire world on first hearing of possible artifacts in imagery of Mars.

To overcome that, we must first rule out a natural origin for at least one image. Some of us have argued that the Face and a very small number of other features meet that standard, indicating that primary artificiality exists. That opens the door for secondary artificiality, and means not all face-like images are necessarily pareidolic. But we still have only two indicators for which secondary images are artificial rather than pareidolic --
(1) the absence of a noisy background and a pool of shapes from which our minds can form faces; and
(2) 3-dimensionality, or persistence through a broad range of lighting and viewing angles.

Very few images meet these criteria; yet we have a sense that face-like images appear far more frequently on Mars than on any other terrain yet studied. So we need more criteria, such as related images or interacting images. Isolated images in noisy terrain are the most suspect.

But the bottom line is that, IMO, the discussion of pareidolia and even anthropomorphism has been of great value, and shows us what we need to do to have any hope of communicating with the rest of the world. -|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 />But we still have only two indicators for which secondary images are artificial rather than pareidolic --
(1) the absence of a noisy background and a pool of shapes from which our minds can form faces; and
(2) 3-dimensionality, or persistence through a broad range of lighting and viewing angles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And even number (2) is a little shaky, because it doesn't allow for the case of faces in the terrain that are persistent at all viewing angles and lighting, but are still pareidolia, or non-man/Martian made.

I'm leaning towards there is no way to be sure.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the discussion of pareidolia...has been of great value, and shows us what we need to do to have any hope of communicating with the rest of the world. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is important to repeat myself here because this is one of my key points. A study of pareidolia WOULD BE of great importance, IF it were to be treated scientifically. My working hypothesis is that there is no elaborate pareidolia (more specifically, that the odds against it are directly proportional to the degree of elaborateness.) Place a face in the clouds on one end of the spectrum, and Mt. Rushmore on the other end. BOTH could conceivably be pareidolia, (i.e., by aposteriori or inductive logic), but the odds for or against, both or either, vary astronomically. In reality, only one (the cloud) is pareidolia because of this odds discrepancy.

I'm talking logic here, not empiricism or mathematics. My whole position depends on this working hypothesis being correct. I am logically sure of it, but not scientifically sure. That is why I agree with Rich and others that other kinds of confirming proof are needed. I think the case for ”faces all over Mars” could be proven logically, IF a proper, controlled study were done on the subject of pareidolia, to demonstrate that if you have a relatively high degree of proportion, detail, orientation, and tell tale construction clues; and IF you could certify your data beyond any reasonable doubt, my hypothesis could be proven.

I do not expect that such a test will be done anytime soon, but it would be welcome if others who understand logic could see the dilemma. Anyway this is why I think the faces are artifacts and not pareidolia. I am willing to wait for confirming evidence. I would also like to see re-imaging of many of the faces I have discovered, and especially of Levasseur’s PI. I think there will be many surprises.

Neil

<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 />number (2) is a little shaky, because it doesn't allow for the case of faces in the terrain that are persistent at all viewing angles and lighting, but are still pareidolia, or non-man/Martian made.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would agree if this were not a null set. Did I miss something? I hope you are not simply meaning biological faces that are not man/Martian made, but are nonetheless real, DNA-produced faces and not pareidolia (face illusions). -|Tom|-

According to Z. Sitchin in the Lost Book of Enki, 600 Igigi people sorjourned on Mars for several millenia with nothing much to do except tranship gold. He says they carved a face near the tomb of the first explorer. He claims that his conjecture is based partly on ancient cuniform tablets.

Unfortunately, how much is based on actual records and how much is a logical construct by Sitchin is not disclosed. Regardless, it makes for interesting reading.