Nefertiti's Family

I take it as north is up on these pictures
What I was trying to say earlier was that isn’t it strange that the faces in fact are like you expect faces to be, with their hair up and neck down.

Why I brought this up is because of Mars polar switch which should have tilted all original "drawings" from being like the pictures you show here to something like (got no idea but) 33 degrees tilt?

My point is of course invalid if the drawings were made after the polar shift. But if they were made before it we should by my opinion have much more success in finding drawings based on another tilt than the tilt Mars got today.

Im sorry if I sound sceptical but that's becouse I am. I would love to be proved wrong though and Im greatly looking forward to any new images from the orbiter

Hey Tom,

This is actually a good question. How many degrees did Mars' pole shift after the explosion event? And is our assumption correct that the MGS photos show due north at the top?

Also, are these images in the northern hemisphere of southern hemisphere of Mars? We can't know which hemisphere that civilization considered as "up" (or whether they even had a preference), but we can learn whether the faces are "upright" in relation to the hemisphere in which they are located.

Emanuel

<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 />How many degrees did Mars' pole shift after the explosion event?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">About 45 degrees across the surface, but that is not very relevant to the question. The angle between the new and old poles can be anything from 0 to 180 degrees depending where on the surface one looks from.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And is our assumption correct that the MGS photos show due north at the top?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Definitely not. The azimuth of north and of the Sun are specified with the spacecraft data supplied with the images. So are the coordinates of the strip image, which is somewhere around 108W, 14S if I recall correctly.

When looking for the direction of present north, read the definitions of terms carefully. The formulas for comparing locations with respect to the new and old poles are toward the end of my paper at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/...nia/new-evidence.asp

At least two of you should undertake this calculation and compare results to develop some confidence you have it right. However, because this "profile image" strip is not that close to either current or old equator, it is not clear what the preferred orientation might be. For example, if these images were to be viewed from a space station, it must have had a non-zero inclination orbit, in which case the preferred orientation might be well off-north.

So the orientation information, while interesting, probably cannot be used in the way Phoenix_VII was hoping. OTOH, the absence of features at any orientations but a single preferred one and its exact opposite is an indication of non-randomness. -|Tom|-

While we're at it, we might as well get the great Gorilla into the mix. He's located just below Nefertiti's back in the original strip M0305549. Note that in this image, the gargoyle is in the ear of the great ape, and the Mother's neck ends its hair.

{Images deleted temporarily}

In a recent correspondence, I asked JP Levasseur if he had seen the new "family" images.

He commented:

"Numerous additional faces and patterns have indeed been noted in that image, but in my opinion none compare with the primary profile and all its detail and proportion. It seems to me that if the strongest of the faces, the primary profile, is not considered strong enough evidence for artificiality, then the rest, which in my opinion are weaker, only serve to weaken the overall case for artificiality, something that can be construed as support for the claim of overactive imaginations. I'm not saying those additional formations are not artificial, only that claiming too many can be counterproductive. But the day a single shred of solid proof of an artifact emerges from the Martian sands, the rest will automatically have integrity. Until then, even though they certainly add to the science, I think they dilute the overall case for Martian artifacts."

I told him that I respectfully disagreed, and that the addition of images in the same area was more convincing, not less.

While these additional images posted by Emanuel, and the gorilla image do conform to the theme Neil presented in an earlier post, of "good above/evil below", with the family in between, I have to say that it is a slippery slope indeed.

Maybe JP instinctively knew that once you take that first step, all bets are off. There is definitely a difference between the family scene and what Emanuel is pointing out, and the gorilla. In the case of the family scene, it's normal looking people. In his it's ghosts and goblins (my gorilla also falls into this category). It seems like a fairly safe bet that "ghosts and goblins" are easier to conjure up than real people.

But now we have opened the can of worms, so we'll have to wait to see if we get confirmation.

P.S. Can anyone see what's close to the gorilla's mouth, in the real image on the left? (it's not included in the key)

rd

Thanks Tom. That answers my question, and as usual things are never as simple as we imagine. More important is that the orientation of all the profiles in this strip match each other. That is definitely evidence for non-randomness.

And rd, the gorilla definitely seems like a stretch to me. So does rin tin tin. The upper images have more going for them because they are profiles in the same orientation as Nefertiti and the man below.

And is anyone else noticing that all these profiles show people either with taller-than-normal heads or else wearing tall hats. Maybe we should call this strip, "Land of the Coneheads."

Emanuel

<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>

And rd, the gorilla definitely seems like a stretch to me. So does rin tin tin. The upper images have more going for them because they are profiles in the same orientation as Nefertiti and the man below.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The gorilla I agree is a stretch, and I said as much. I was lumping him in with your Darth Vader heads.

But Rin Tin Tin (a German Shepard from an old TV series when we were kids) has way more detail. He looks very much like a dog, with good shading, a mane and whiskers, and white hair around the muzzle. Plus, the outline of his head and ears defines what we see on the bottom of the man's neck.

I'm relatively new to this, but I think I read that all it takes for a profile to seem like a face is a couple of dots or circles and a squiggly line. I think that would be especially true, if we include the types faces that we've seen in science fiction movies and video games like your Darth Vader guys.

Like I said, you could be right, and they do sort of fit the theme, but Neil and I would say that the German Sheppard has a thousand times more detail. In any event, only time will tell.

rd