Nefertiti's Family

<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>
So additional artifacts in the vicinity has been regarded from the outset as a pro-artifact finding; whereas isolation is somewhat anti-artifact.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In my case, this was the key consideration, although admittedly it was more intuitive than objective.

I had already been leaning somewhat to the right of artificiality based on the Cydonia Face (and all writings on the subject), the Profile Image, and the "T" and other possible "mining on Mars" images I've seen.

I wouldn't say I was at 80/20, maybe something closer to 60/40. But then to see that the Profile Image was part of a mosaic of sorts, with many parts, a "cast of characters" so to speak, and that I wasn't the only one seeing it, and that it showed up at two different times of the year at slightly different acquisition angles, was just a bit too much for me to think it wasn't really there.

As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say I think it's somewhat absurd to say it isn't really there. Of course it's there, but the question is: is it artificial, or is it a hoax, or is it just some lucky combination of a natural arrangement. That I don't know, but I know I'm farther to the right than 60/40 at this point.

<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>
I notice that these latest messages have once again blurred the distinction between the two different reasons we examine these images.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, we expressed a little concern about that in the middle of the thread. We felt we might have opened Pandora's Box. So let me re-state our original premise:

We felt the case for artificiality of the Profile Image had been fairly convincingly stated in the past by others, and that with the addition of the new images, the case HAD to be enhanced, or bolstered.

rd

Commenting on the last statement made by Tom, I would add this: Because no one has yet done a formal analysis of the Man (Piccard) in the montage of faces presented in this post, doesn't mean "he" wouldn't pass such a test with flying colors. Compared to the PI, he is slightly, but only slightly, lower on detail, has as good or better shading, is as good or better on anatomical proportions (assuming he's human), and is slightly lower in intensity (the Man is fainter than the Profile Girl).

All things considered, I think that any image or feature that would pass an independent test for artificiality if one were conducted, adds to the overall case for artificiality. Obviously, increased certainty comes only <i>after</i> such a test is conducted and passed, but it is not unreasonable to predict that the Man in this image (and probably one or two of the other faces), would pass such a test. Each new test or experiment that has a positive outcome confirms or adds to the artificialty hypothesis as a whole.

It is true that very few features on Mars have as yet undergone the rigors of such a comprehensive analysis. To my knowledge, only the Face at Cydonia and the Profile Image have, the Cydonia Face being by far the most extensively tested. On the other hand the Profile Image and the Man adjacent to her, are intuitively much more anatomically correct, proportional and realistic looking as apparent works of art than any other face, including the Cydonia Face, due to the damage to its left or east side.

Neil

My question still remains... why are all these images *profiles* (either humans or dogs)? To me, this subtracts from the artificiality hypothesis.

And Tom, I do not think that all the new images are of "lesser quality" than the older images. Nefertiti is still the highest quality, but the profiles I posted just a few replies up are of a higher quality than any of the others in the Nefertiti area, and most of the slides in your press conference. By "higher quality" I mean better proportionality to actual human (or dog) profiles, as well as more facial details (two defined lips, eyelashes, etc.) Your comment would apply here if indeed the new images were all of lesser quality, but that's not the case.

And to answer Neil's question, my "case" for each of the new images has already been made. I am inclined to think they are all natural landforms. Find me more triangles, or a complete body with head, arms, legs, fingers, etc., and I will be more inclined to believe those are artificial. Or find more symmetrical faces even. But profiles are just too easy, it seems.

Emanuel

So close yet so far..
Hopefully Neil and his brother will keep looking at the images they presented, With the frame of mind they are pointing out flowers in a "garden"

God created the Internet in 6 days and on the seventh day he ... beta tested

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />So close yet so far..
Hopefully Neil and his brother will keep looking at the images they presented, With the frame of mind they are pointing out flowers in a "garden"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mr. Trinket,

I take that as a compliment. Thank you. Any help you can give us would be greatly appreciated.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />My question still remains... why are all these images *profiles* (either humans or dogs)? To me, this subtracts from the artificiality hypothesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Emanuel, on page 2 of this thread you were ecstatic in your discovery of the Darth Vader Twin Heads. And rightfully so. They may prove to be real, as I stated at the time. You made this statement:

"So I downloaded it and reduced the view size. When I did this these two "warrior twins" jumped out at me. Here is my attempted redition of a "key" (the right side image) so you can see what I saw. My outlines are very haphazard, keep in mind. And I've also highlighted Nefertiti and family down below so you can see their relative location."

Can you please explain to us what changed in your thinking? What is the significance of the fact that we're dealing with "profiles" (remember we all know about "pareidolia", and we're not discussing "imaginary" images, we're discussing posted images). Plus, in the case of the "Family Scene" it's not really all profiles, anyway.

The original PI is a profile. Piccard is looking at a slight angle. The Mother is looking towards us about 45 degrees, and the Dog is looking at the Mother, where he should be looking.

So, I don't really see the connection between these new images you are posting, and the Family Mosaic. No comparison in my mind. But I will grant you this: the new images you posted may in fact be artificial. So, you may be arguing against yourself.

rd