Faces from the Chasmas

And the dude is even wearing a baseball cap!

Emanuel

Here are two more.

E1103633, "Musketeers." This is a mosaic of several small faces, but for the key I've outlined only the primary figure. I wonder what the odds of hats forming naturally are?

While I have a little time, I will embellish this description somewhat: Note the brim of the hat; you can see light outlining the brim and shadow of it underneath, and on the man's face. Note the shading of the top part of hat, and the face. Note possible hatband. Note the man's smiling eyes, and hook nose. Note his black mustache, long chin, cheeks, and brow ridges. Note left shoulder (our view), and shading (from head and hat) down neck and shoulder. Note perspective foreshortening of right shoulder, just as a good artist would draw it.

There is enough pixelation to see all these details but for those with poor near vision, a magnifying glass may help.







AB106904, "Landrew."





Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder what the odds of hats forming naturally are?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a misleading question. The question ought to be, "what are the odds of anatomically correct heads forming naturally?" Hats come in all shapes and sizes, and so one would expect to see "hats" on pareidolia-generated faces. The fact that so many of the faces seen on Mars have hats (rather than anatomically correct heads) is evidence favoring pareidolia or natural origin.

Emanuel

A consistent theme among the detractors has been "this must be all pareidolia." That hasn't changed since we began the First Family post. But other than JP Levasseur's MRB paper, I have seen no good examples of pareidolia given. His paper showed a clear difference between much of what is being presented here (though not all), and recognized cases of pareidolia. And I accept that as a guiding principle.


The best argument (of the detractors) seems to be "if it is on Mars, it must be pareidolia." But as Tom has pointed out, that's not a reason, it's pure bias. Until they can do better than that I will proceed.

I challenge official workers who are reading these posts to take good, high resolution images of what we are surveying. Not off-centered images, not darkened or overexposed images, not partial images, not images where the best parts are tantelizingly blocked-out or off the screen, but good professional-style pictures, designed to show the subject in all its glory. Do that, and then I'll take the pareidolia gambit more seriously.

My thought is that the Cydonia Face is a huge, glaring invitation for researchers who have the courage, to undertake the task of finding out what else is there. The reason for all of these faces being on Mars may be something we least expect. I am going to proceed under the axiom that "truth is stranger than fiction."

This will take awhile as there is a lot to see. Hope you are as interested in the subject as I am.

Neil

Neil,

Don't lump me in with the straw men "detractors" you describe. I don't dismiss your work in the least, and and very glad you are doing this. I see most of your faces. They are provocative and suggestive, and may end up revealing something important. However, my argument about hats still stands, and if you don't interpret it as an attack on the entire artificiality hypothesis (which it isn't), you might find it beneficial in helping sort out which images are more likely artificial and which ones natural/pareidolia.

I have said it for months now actually: Most of the faces seen in the Mars landscape have oddly shaped heads, and mostly with "hats." This detracts from the artificiality hypothesis for the specific reason that hats are, themselves, artificially-shaped objects. Hats can be any shape the hat-maker imagines, and in fact real hats *are* the imagined creations of human hat-makers. They are imaginations of the human mind, in other words, and thus easily lend themselves to the paredolia effect. The best candidates for artifical faces, therefore, are those without hats, with anatomically correct heads.

Of course, those who *want* to believe in artificiality might say that the martian builders might be from a race with a more highly evolved brain than humans, and thus their heads are shaped differently than human heads. Even so, my argument still stands. In that case what we should be looking for is consistency in the shape of the heads.

However, what we seem to be seeing is a plethora of head shapes and hats, which strongly supports paredolia. The fact that the faces, too, are inconsistent with eath other and seem to show an unlimited variety of "characters," often even cartoon-ish, also supports paredolia. The less variety among the faces the stronger the claim for artificiality.

And then there's the fact that they are all *faces*. As has been noted before, the mind is hard-wired to see faces. The Mars artifacts hypothesis would be supported much more strongly if we were finding other recognizable objects besides faces. I'm still waiting, for example, for a complete body with arms, legs, torso, hands and feet. This would be symmetry hard to deny.

All that said, I have indeed flip-flopped a few times on my inclination, but I am coming to the conclusion this is because I have never experienced the power of my own pareidolia before. Some of the faces you have found are uncannily real-looking. They are quite astonishingly so, in fact. But in the end I think what this is teaching us is the power of pareidolia. Your Superman III experience suggests a good test. I predict if you look at other landscapes as carefully as you have been looking at Mars, you will find similar faces (with odd-shaped hats) at the same rate/frequency. If so, this would provide a rational dis-proof of the artificiality of most of these faces. It is an objective, falsifiable test with a prediction, in other words.

Either way, I still think your posting of these images is important, and I thank you for taking the time to do it. I am not 100% ruling out artificiality for all of your faces. I am simply trying to be as honest with myself as I can about what you are showing me. It really is t-r-i-p-p-y!

Emanuel

PS - Hey moderators, why is the word t-r-i-p-p-y censored when I type it? I have to use dahses in between the letters or else the system replaces all the letters except the "y" with astericks. *****y is not a four-letter word.

<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 />Hey moderators, why is the word t-r-i-p-p-y censored when I type it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Probably because the censored portion (the first five letters) is part of a banned word you would get by adding an "s" in front and "ed" on the end. The list of censored words is a feature of this Snitz Message Board, not something we added. -|Tom|-