Keys

I don't have any trouble imagining that it could happen.

===

But if it did, it would take as much effort to convince me (and just about everyone else, I suspect) of it's natural origin as it is now taking to convince most people of the artificial nature of anything on Mars. Perhaps more.

===

Think about it. A naturally occurring human bust. Sure.

But it would be neat.

I would have to go there and see it. Or listen to the account of someone else who had been there. Pictures taken from a distance would not cut it.

Boots on the ground ...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /> A naturally occurring human bust. Sure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> No not quite a bust, Larry, just a face. Take a look at Alexander Boe's photos again. Specifically the bottom two. www.home.no/stoneface/

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The landscape is mostly valleys and big lumps of bedrock sticking up everywhere. So a lot of blasting through this rock is done when builing roads. these steep (often vertical) “walls” is where i have found most of the faces. I doubt any of mine have been deliberately crafted, although I see your point.--Alexander Boe<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> As you can see some of the faces do have the requisite shadows and illusions, but the bottom two not really. According to Mr. Boe most of these are seen as he walks through this area at night with over head lights, and that they do disappear on different lighting, so we are in agreement there. But Mr. Boes uses the term "most" when he makes this statement. I submit that the bottom two would look pretty much the same no matter how we looked at them.

So, the only thing left is: did some indigenous peoples craft these. Mr. Boe thinks not, because he knows how the area was blasted to create the roads, and his belief is that the dynamiting of the bedrock causes these fractures that tend to create more facial like features.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />I would have to go there and see it. Or listen to the account of someone else who had been there. Pictures taken from a distance would not cut it.

Boots on the ground ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Agreed. All I'm adding to that is the fact that there now appears to be a case where we could be there and still not be certain. Aside from the Alexander Boe exampes there's "Coprates Lady" and the "Nili Fossae" faces. Among others.

rd

Larry, go to page 1 of this thread and look at:

Coprates Lady
Data
Ms. Data
Long Nose
Nili Fossae

Pareidolia or Martian Art? Remember, these are high resolution images. For all intents and purposes, it's like hovering in a hover craft, directly above this massive object in the terrain. "Boots on the Ground" in this case might be a little too close. Maybe.

As they say: "That's what I'm talkin' about...."


rd

[rd] "All I'm adding to that is the fact that there now appears to be a case where we could be there and still not be certain."

For 2D face images, yes. Even though the pictures you mentioned have a little relief to them, they still fall in the category of 2D. (IMO, comments anyone?) You can't walk 180 degrees around them and see their right cheeks.

Given the stated history of these images I'd have to agree that they are most likely natural. I'm not so sure about the illusion holding up under most lighting and viewing conditions (as a true 3D object would), but I think these would fare better than the average image in that regard.

I'm also curious about the agressive cropping of the pictures. It leads one to suspect that there could be nearby features that detract from the illusion.

===

It is within the realm of possibility that a true 3D object could have similar uncertainty about its origin. But just barely. That's why the Face is so important. And it is why images of it from different viewing angles and at different lighting angles that still agree with the "its a face" hypothesis are so intriguing. IMO.

===

The third diemnsion is worth a dozen first and second dimensions.

LB