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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />[emanuel]The "upright" part is probably the most suspicious. But it is also the easiest to fix. Next time you feel like spending a few hours scanning the data from Mars, why don't you invert the images first?

The results of this experiment could be important. Or it might just be a waste of time. If you do it, please keep us posted.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have to admit I've always found that somewhat strange myself (finding something I'm looking for, and it turns out to be right side up). Is it that we only find them because they are upright to the MOC (after map-projecting), or is it because our minds only conjur up images that are upright?

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 /> Then I asked him if he thought these new images added or subtracted to the artificiality hypothesis. He responded, "they definitely subtract from it." I was really surprised. I said, "even considering the proximity to Nefertiti?" He maintained his position.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would think the greater the complexity of the "scene", the less likely it's being conjured up. But I must admit, I don't really know if that's true or not. I would love to take a closer look, and also to have the camera pan right to see if there's anything behind the girl.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe are brains are more apt to discover faces, and profiles are the easiest kind to conjure, given that they are pretty much just an outline (perhaps mountain ridge) forming a kind of forehead, nose, mouth and chin, with one "eye" in the appropriate place.

Not conviced either way, but playing devil's advocate because we need to be self-critical.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think most of us are extremely skeptical at first, and then move more towards believing these things to be real, rather than the other way around.

Another thing to remember is that it's not just us seeing these features. The computer "sees" them also, and has no trouble enhancing them to make them even easier to see.

rd

<i>rderosa writes: "I asked Tom a very important question: (paraphrasing) does the existence of more images increase or decrease the odds that this scene is real?"</i>

You probably already know what I think, but it helps to spell it out. If by "more images" we mean the kind that could stand on their own and, in addition to the <i>a priori </i>argument, some scientist could do an analysis of the odds against those proportions existing in just the right place, proportions, etc; and also are the kind which a discerning person could look at and say with confidence "not only is this a real picture of a face, it is also good art."

If we mean that kind of images and not "dots and squigglies" then I say positively that every one we find adds an order of magnitude to the artificiality hypothesis, (or to the hoax hypothesis if that is possible at all.)

Three reasons why I think the hoax hypothesis highly unlikely, besides the economic and legal reasons given by Tom.

1- The Face at Cydonia has a history that couldn't have been planned. It has been imaged numerous times beginning in 1976, and each image confirms the other images of it, and also adds more variables that confirm it, such as different lighting and different incidence angles of the camera, and the sun. There are too many variables to be planned in advance by any hoaxer, and they span many years. Conclusion, the Face at Cydonia is real.

2- The "T" image is confirmed as to size, shape and dimensions, both by our analysis, and by around 10 different context images many of which are cited by us on our paper on the subject. The context images also confirm the same coordinates in each image. Again, each can be confirmed further by correlating the lighting with the known position of the sun in each image. Although artificiality is less certain here, still it is compelling, but it’s existence is confirmed

3- The Profile Image and parts of the "First Family" are found in two images taken over a year apart, and all the same correlations mentioned above apply here also. Although this one could conceivably have been faked, it doesn't seem likely. MRO context images which will be at 6 meters / pixel, will easily confirm the Profile Image and Co. in the coming years, if they image it.

Neil

"The Profile Image and parts of the "First Family" are found in two images" [nd]

I stand corrected. The Profile Image, or at least part of it, have been imaged four times, not two. We are working on bringing you more information about that.

Neil

Larry,

I might just do the experiment you suggest, but before I do let's get straight what the outcomes will tell us. Assuming I find profiles when I turn the strips upside down, what will that mean? And what will it mean if I don't?

Emanuel

Neil,

Not suspicious in the hoax sense, but in the mind-plays-tricks sense.

LB