Nefertiti's Family

"the artist or builder to conform the artwork to the existing landform"

Maybe you have the wrong end of the truth .. Maybe the landform is part of the created sculpture..

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

This image might help the viewer see the three faces in context.

{Image deleted temporarily} E0501429%20family%201.gif

rd

In trying to understand the obvious reluctance of reputable colleagues to respond to this post, even from those who support the artificiality hypothesis, I rationalized that it usually takes time for all important discoveries to “sink in,” or be digested, that is to be incorporated into the existing body of knowledge. We must consider these things carefully lest we jump to hasty conclusions. We don’t want to label things as “faces” that are really only random forms which vaguely resemble a human (or animal) face. Granted. That’s a reasonable concern.

In truth, my first reaction was also that my brother Rich had merely imagined more ephemeral forms which the imagination carries away and calls a “face.” All that’s required are three dots or smudges, a “mouth” and two “eyes,” which don’t even have to be in any particular proportion; and if the “face” is in “profile,” you don’t even need the three. Two dots or smudges will do. The human imagination does the rest. On my desktop, I have a scene from Yosemite. It’s not even a panoramic view, just a creek and one of the cliff-bases with some strewn boulders and foliage. Well, I counted some 15 “faces” in that snapshot. Maybe I have an overactive imagination like some other participants in this website, or maybe it’s just human nature. We see “faces” or likenesses of faces everywhere because we are hardwired to do so. But eventually, as we become rational adults, we learn to separate fact from fiction, the real thing from the “bogyman,” reality from the world of the imagination.

Aside from the fact that JPL is undoubtedly making life difficult for those of us who are fairly convinced that there are artificial structures on Mars, (by perhaps withholding many good examples of such and obscuring others), we have enough evidence to go ahead with tentative hypotheses to that effect, and to call for increased investigation, and eventually for research on the ground—on Mars that is.

In this connection, we should recall two previous analyses of faces in past issues of Meta Research Bulletin. The first was in the June, 2001 issue by Tom Van Flandern, entitled “Preliminary Analysis of the 2001 April 8 Cydonia Face Image.” That analysis was, among other things, a mathematical analysis of the orientation and proportions of the facial features of the Cydonia Face in light of the new high-resolution image released by JPL at that time; (there have since been even higher resolution images released). Its conclusion: the Face is in all probability an artificial structure. The second (December, 2004) was by J.P. Levasseur, entitled “Analysis of ‘Profile Image’ on Mars.” The thrust of this article was to distinguish faces which are artificially and artistically fashioned, from natural occurrences which more-or-less resemble faces. There are established psychological methods and principles which allow us to do so, and the author demonstrated that fact competently. The conclusion: the Profile Image is an artificial/artistic rendition of a young woman’s face, and deserves further investigation.

The additional faces presented in this post fall into the same category as the Cydonia Face and the Profile Image, and deserve further investigation.

Neil

The two DeRosas have done a nice job with finding these subtle faces. We have precedents for mosaics, and a mosaic fits better into the evolving paradigm than an isolated face does.

I am a little reluctant to put these in the MRB because the print quality is often not good enough to see subtle features. Indeed, never forget that many computer monitors are also not good enough, so lots of readers here still can't see what we see, or perhaps can only make out vague outlines without the supporting detail. That is why I adopted "keys" in our anomalies presentations. A key is a photograph to sit beside the original, with an outline of the feature of interest drawn in as a guide to those with less discerning viewers and less-trained eyes. It is usually best to have someone trained in art to prepare such keys.

Another reason why we have few subscribers to this "artificial structures" forum is that it has a checkered history, with people allowed to post their favorite findings without censorship, despite most of them not meeting the criteria for acceptability in science as targets of interest. Because of that, discussion may be minimal, as examination of the number of "reads" of the forum will also show.

With keys and an internet version as back-up, we might be able to put this into the June 15 MRB. See what you can arrange. If that fails, I can send it to one of our existing graphics artists. -|Tom|-

The "checkered history" Tom speaks of is the reason I don't pay much attention to photo claims on this forum unless Tom, himself, chimes in, like he just did. I, too, would love to see a key made.

You know, with mosiacs as well as catagorized/grouped family fauna sculptures on Mars, it feels as if the artists were trying to attract attention, to make it more obvious to future intelligent lookers (like us) that the structures are not natural. Or maybe there's a deeper meaning to the categorization...

Emanuel

<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>
<br /> never forget that many computer monitors are also not good enough, so lots of readers here still can't see what we see...... That is why I adopted "keys"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, Neil and I agree with you that a "key" is a good idea. Neil said he would do this over the coming days. I'm sure his "artistic rendition" will leave no doubt about what we think we're seeing.

I wanted to make a couple of other comments, though. When Neil and I were working on this paper a few months ago, I noticed the other two faces in MGS/MOC M0305549, and mentioned them to Neil, but neither of us made that much of it at the time. As a matter of fact, I wasn't exactly totally convinced that the Profile Girl was artificial, either.

It was only recently, after buying a new computer and monitor, and after studying image strip MGS/MOC E0501429 (at Neil's request) that the significance of the image of the man and women in the vicinity of the girl hit me. It jumps out at you in E0501429. Especially, when you already saw it (barely) in the other strip. It was as if my doubts were gone in a instant.

So yes, I agree emphatically, that it might not be as obvious to everyone else as it is to us, but hopefully the key will make it obvious. I'm pretty sure they're there. Am I positive that this is anything more than random chance, pictures in the clouds? No, not really positive. But one of the things that strikes me, is how these images respond to the various image enhancement algorithms and filters (as you find in programs like Corel Photo Album).

In my previous experience with image enhancement, doing linewidth studies in the semiconductor industry, I found that it was fairly axiomatic that you "can't squeeze blood from a rock."

Thanks for your post.

rd