Juventaean Face

It seemed to work, so let me present another feature from the same strip. This is more obvious than the Face, but I haven't seen it posted.

I'll leave it up to more competent judges to decide if this "Double Mask" could pass the artificiality test on its own, but I find it highly suggestive in a number of respects. Note for instance the hand-like feature appearing to support both masks (one mask at least. The angle is not good enough to be certain the far side is as good)

It is also tempting to interpret the figure as a human-animal hybrid because of the lion-like body and the artistic impression conveyed when viewing it as a whole. This impression is further strengthened when the figure is viewed in the context of the splendid vista. There's even a convenient star in the top left corner to further associate to tribal art and cosmological myth.







Claus

This is the most brilliant example of an apagogical argument that I have ever seen.

Not so fast, Rich. Here is the first image Claus posted, enhanced a bit to bring out the contour:

Another face (like a monkey) appears nearby. Note, that both of the central characteristics of the faces follow the high points of ridges, and they are both in the same orientation.

By the way, the first face to me looks like a gorilla.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Not so fast, Rich. Here is the first image Claus posted, enhanced a bit to bring out the contour:




<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Marsrocks, if we assume that this is a legitimate post by Claus and not a joke that's being played on us by jrich, then this post takes us full circle back to the beginning of an argument that's been played out ad infinitum for a good two years or more.

If you were to ask all of the proponents of Martian Art that have ever posted here or elsewhere on the internet, what they thought about the faces in this thread, I'm pretty sure that they would say, "oh no, these are probably pareidolia" thereby proving a point that I've been making for years that pareidolia is in the eyes of the beholder.

The fact that Claus is equating these with the Cydonia face is probably the most telling point in the argument. In other words, he sees no real difference between these and the Cydonia Face!!

If ever there was a post to rest my case on, this is it. Does that mean I'll never say anything again on the subject again? Probably not.

rd

I've had a chance now to take a closer look at Lionman.

The star to the left of the Lionman was the most intriguing to me, because, it would be an obvious alteration to the landscape. We don't see other star shapes in the area.

I pulled down the largest jp2, and took a look in the IAS viewer. Here is the star shape in the closer view:




The first thing I notice, is that the star pattern has not held up well at this level. It doesn't exactly look like a crater either - it has some straight looking cuts in it. So, is it natural or altered? I'm unsure.


Now, here is a closer look at the LionMan:


And here is the same image with higher contrast:




If this is artwork, it is brilliant, but I can't distinguish this at all from the natural surrounding landscape. Nature can and does produce beautiful images. So, at least for our purposes - search for proof of artificiality, this one is lacking.

Finally, I have a picture of the landscape just to the right of the Lionman face:



This one caught my attention because there are some little figures that jump out in white. One looks to me like an Indian. Are these additional patterns of nature similar to the many other natural white markings nearby, or do they add a complexity that only an intelligent being would have added - (the elaborate paredoila question strikes again). I am again unsure.

But the bottom line on LionMan - at least so far with me - is that we really have little to no evidence of any landscape alteration. You or others might want to study this one further, but I personally think at least for now, our focus should be on finding the examples that are as distinct from the natural surrounding landscape as possible.

This isn't to say that Mars may have once harbored a culture that took pride in the natural beauty of the landscape, and wished to leave it as unaltered as possible, while subtly and almost imperceptibly inscribing their artwork into it.

But, even if that is the case, we'll never have the proof that any of the landscape was altered at all, unless we can find the simpler examples of the less brilliant artists, who ddn't mind making major alterations to nature's beauty.

Lionman is certainly interesting to see (as it would be a brilliant piece of art), but as evidence of possible alteration, it is not as good as the two simian-faced mounds, in my opinion.