T or E

Hi again Neil,

Just kidding on my above post.

And I think your pareidolia reality-check post was very good. Pareidolia may be more powerful than I at first thought. I mean I sure am seeing the faces you are posting, though it took me a while to see them at first. Thing is, once I started seeing them, the later ones came more quickly, strengthening the notion that it is pareidolia, which is a tendency in the mind that can be strengthened.

This is a good link I found from your link above:
thefolklorist.com/Pareidolia%20Project/index.htm

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern

On the issue of artrificiality of these images, I side squarely with JR in agreeing that no amount of detail can guaranty that images are not the products of nature and random chance.

---

Originally posted by rderosa

I guess I inherently have a small problem with this statement, though, and that's the root of my problem with what jrich is doing. It's counter-intuitive to me, that "no amount of detail" changes things. Is that really true? That seems a little like the trained monkey argument, but I will admit that if that's true, that would change things. But only slightly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I mentioned before that although Tom is being accurate above, in some cases the odds become diminishingly small for "nature and random chance," and quite good for artificiality of some kind. Tom also said that (my words) we should remind ourselves every few pages that we are working within a context where other artificial structures have been more or less confirmed on Mars. Of course even this is denied by mainstream science.

I think that another thing we should remind ourselves of often is that we are dealing with images, and so far they are all from one source (NASA and its contractors). We'd like to trust and respect this great institution, but we have to do so with caution. I agree with Rich that the amount of detail matters very much, as long as we remember this context. When we get new images from MRO, and the Europeans, and eventually possibly someday the Chinese and the Russians we will know more.

Untill then, I think that detail, proportionality, and other things matter, if we never forget that this is all preliminary. Sooner or later we will need confirmation or falsification.

Neil

Hey Neil,

I'm wondering, with all the new faces you have found, and with your self-analysis after seeing faces in Superman III, if you understand better now why I became less inclined to believe artificiality after I discovered 3 or 4 new faces myself a while back. At that time you couldn't understand why I suddenly switched my position (and you even suggested that because I had found those new faces so quickly, this cast suspicion on my character). So now that you have found so many new faces (and some of them are way cool, btw) and are starting to grapple yourself with the pareidolia effect, I wondering if you understand what I went through a few months ago.

Emanuel

[neilderosa] "When we get new images from MRO, and the Europeans ... "

There are pictures available at the Mars Express site. I see face images (and other things) in some of them.

From last 3 posts:

Emanuel; I prefer to concentrate on the project--but thanks.

Larry; does EAS have a catalogue system so a person can do research, so far what I saw looks like public consumption stuff.

Trinket: I can't uderstand what you are saying.

Neil

Note this image of lava tubes from the ESA site. This is from Pavonis Mons.

Note the curvy nature of the walls. This is what you might expect as the lava works it's way down the mountain.

Much different than the straight carved walls of the Upright of the T, and other gullies in the area.



www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mi...le=y&start=10&size=b

rd