Keys

<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 guess if you had qualified "viewing angles" to "viewing angles of greater than 180 degrees", I might have gotten your point sooner. Like with the "Sparky" demo I did awhile ago on Page 4. She's no pareidolia.rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you go back and look at that post (USA 550 Posts Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 22:26:34) you'll see that we're really saying the same thing. I showed how there existed a level of detail or resolution that superceded "emission angle". In that example of a 3D object (a cat in this case) I showed that it was clear what it was, even though some features came into view, and some went out of view. I used 65 deg (or 295 going the other way) to show that something that clear could survive any angle.

That's really the same thing you and Tom are saying.


rd

New and improved keys for 56 and 69.
56


69 could double as an Xmas card, in fact has. Again, the only "touch-up" here is tint and B&C; nothing else added to what's really there.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Good job on learning how to use the "clone tool", though. Welcome to the 90s.

rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There's a song I'm reminded of (as rd likes to quote songs and such). It's "Mrs. Robinson," by Simon and Garfunkle. The Saint key reminded me of it. It starts out; "where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?" I'll say no more.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[rd] " ... a 'sculpture' ... &lt;is&gt; not exactly what we've been dealing with."

But it was the focus of Tom's argument all along. At least, that was my impression. Until one thing is known to be artificial, nothing else matters much. And it is so much easier to show artificiality for a 3D object than for a 2D object that it amounts to a waste of time to work with 2D candidates when a 3D candidate exists.

Once a 3D object is shown to be artificial, all of those 2D objects can be viewed in a different "light". [LB]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There are several faces posted in the Keys list that can only be described as sculptures and are hence 3-dimensional. The Cydonia Face is the obvious one.

Easter Island man is also clearly a sculpture. As my posting in "Faces from the Chasmas" clearly indicates, it casts a shadow.



All of the bas-relief faces, of which there are many, are 3-D; but I won't repeat them all here.



Scullface is clearly 3-D.



Face in triangle is 3-D
As are Data, and Sculptured Faces.







Wil Faust's Parrot and Tetrahedron are clearly also 3-D.



True none of the cited (and many more) are <i>statues</i> (with the possible exeption of Easter Island Man) but they are sculptures in the sense that Mt Rushmore is.

What's needed before "boots on the ground" (although that too will be needed eventually), is for professionals to get involved in analyzing the artificial structures; archeologists, geologists, artists, metallurgists, physicists, and so on...and much more and better imaging of all objects.

Neil

You missed my point (ya think). I thought <b>everything posted</b> was 3D. That's where the confusion came from. Tom was referring to them as 2D.

When I say "everything", I mean everything. All Mars photos (Cydonia Face, all the way to Coprates Lady and beyond), plus all pareidolia, with the exception of the shadow pareidolia. {The jury was out on some of them because of the poor quality, like the PI}

I thought everything was 3D. But, the way Tom and Larry were looking at it, The Parrot, and most of the others would be 2D because you can't see the other side (including presumably the Skullface Scene - can't see Japanese Lady's right cheek). Cydonia Face and maybe that Easter Island doggie would be all that fit their criteria.

rd

<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 />"Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Some Spanish Proverbs:

www.cybernation.com/quotationcenter/quot...?type=author&id=7303

Changing one's mind is more often a sign of prudence than of ignorance.

A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will.

A person who talks a lot is bound to be right sometimes.

A man too busy to take care of his health is like a mechanic too busy to take care of his tools. (I like the high tech variant on this: I'm too busy chopping wood to sharpen my ax)

Dance to the tune that is played.

<i>On Change</i>:

That's the risk you take if you change: that people you've been involved with won't like the new you. But other people who do will come along. --Lisa Alther

The first step toward change is awareness. The second step is acceptance. --Nathaniel Branden

The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything or nothing. --Lady Nancy Astor

That things are changed, and that nothing really perishes, and that the sum of matter remains exactly the same, is sufficiently certain. --Francis Bacon

Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. --James Baldwin

When you're through changing, you're through. --Bruce Barton

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly --Henri L. Bergson

Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others. --Jacob M. Braude

rd