Faces from the Chasmas

We are not that sure of our facts. Though I have great respect for your work, I disagree with several of your premises. I hope I can continue to do that and give my reasons, without having the function of my brain questioned (although you did that only by inference and only indirectly, whereas my brother on the other hand does it directly and explicitly. Ironically though, he may be the best intuitive anomaly hunter we have [he or trinket], till he lost his nerve anyway).

That aside, I want to make a few points:
1- As you have mentioned many times, we can’t ever forget the context of other artificial structures on Mars. If you (a person) accepts even one as viable, then a world of possibility is opened up.
2- As long as we maintain certain standards, as I do, as to what constitutes possible artificiality, and give our reasons in each case, we can continue to have a reasonable discourse.
3-Never forget that cutting edge ideas are always looked upon askance (with raised eyebrows), you of all people should know that.
4- No scientist can completely disallow intuition as a scientific tool. It can be indispensable in forming preliminary (as you call <i>a priori</i>) hypotheses. The trick is to make intuition the subject of exacting tests that can confirm or refute them (falsifiable tests, as Popper would say).
5- I have never questioned the reality of pareidolia. And I agree that there are objective limits on the types of enhancement allowed in our photo management systems (e.g. no mirroring, no unwarranted enhancement that adds data and details).
6- There are no doubt individual differences in our ability to recognize (hidden) patterns and pick out details. Psychologists have long recognized this fact. I happen to be good at it; Rich and Trinket are better.
7- I recognize the validity and trustworthiness of the vast majority of the data supplied by NASA, and use it in my analyses constantly. But I reserve the right to question that data when warranted, if I can back it up with facts and reasonable arguments.

In any event I congratulate you on a great website, and on your pioneering attitude. Now does that sound crazy to you?

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />I hope I can continue to do that and give my reasons, without having the function of my brain questioned<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In writing my sentence, I never gave a moment's thought to the possibility that you would take my remark as personal to you. So allow me to explicitly clarify. Please change my last sentence to read: "Can anything come from such imagery other than calling into question the proper functioning of the brains of those <i>of us</i> who see the images clearly (who, sadly for the science, outnumber the skeptics on this forum)?" I count myself as one of "those". -|Tom|-

Though not officially posted in the MSSS Gallery yet, the new releases come with individual acquisition data. Here are a few of the basics.

S19800106's location is just north of the Flammarion Crater in Syrtis Major. Low resolution M0100808 was imaged at the same coordinates.

Scaled pixel width: 3.17 meters
Emission angle: 17.9°
Image center longitude: 311.72W
" " latitude: 27.98N
Image width: 3.25 km
" " height: 17,58 km
Local time: 13.97 (around 2pm)
North azimuth: 93.38°

Without a map-projected (or raw data) image we can’t be sure if the gif image we have is mirrored or not, (meaning flipped horizontally). But judging from experience the gif probably has north on the top of the screen; so the face is probably north oriented. But the viewer can’t use this information to see where the shadows should be falling, or which way is east or west. If there is a way to tell these things without a map-projected image, I don’t know it.

The location is in the same sector as the Crownface around 800 km north and 2000 km west of it but still on the edge of the Isidis basin and presumably near the dichotomy border. I don’t have a MOLA map with me and can’t see the elevation, so it’s hard to see from this if the new image fits the location prediction of being on or near the dichotomy border.

I hesitate to mention this, but I’m pretty sure the “profile with outreached hands” is part of a mosaic, though I don’t have much more than vague images and intuition to back that theory up. (It looks like his wife is standing behind him along with some "officials," and “little people” are in front of him.) If true, it would fill two predictions; the mosaic prediction, and faces at multiple scales. As it is, it fills the human appearing, and the artistic predictions, and a few others.

One thing I should stress for those who expect very clear faces all of the time is that we don’t know how old any of these faces are, and there could be extensive erosional damage from many millions of years of wear.

Source:

www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/publicresul...5/S1800106_00107.tab

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Without a map-projected (or raw data) image we can’t be sure if the gif image we have is mirrored or not, (meaning flipped horizontally). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here's the processed context image S1800107. We can see the small crater in which the profile with hands is found. Noting the shading showing the sun coming from the left, we can see that both processed images 106 and 107 are in the "normal" position though not yet map projected. So the profile face is north oriented; its width BTW is around 600 meters.



Here's a MOLA map showing the coordinates of the PWH face area and the elevation. The image location is just north of the large crater (Flammarion) as noted in the previous post. The small crater can be seen and confirms orientation. This map also confirms the coordinates of the artifact.



Here is a compressed version of a MOLA map showing the relation to Crownface and Cydonia, note that all three are (roughly) on the dichotomy border at similar elevations.



Neil

<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 />And if anyone has any relevant knowledge in physical psychology, is there any way to objectify this process so we can do more than marvel?
...
Can anything come from such imagery other than calling into question the proper functioning of the brains of those who see the images clearly (who, sadly for the science, outnumber the skeptics on this forum)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Far from being surprised or even troubled by the variation in the contributors' aptitude for seeing the "art" patterns, I believe it is further evidence of pareidolia. One would expect a natural variation in the pattern recognition ability of individuals, just as with any other ability, but this variation would diminish as the quality of the pattern increased. The propensity to recognize false patterns would likewise be proportional to the quality of the pattern in the imagery. I think the fact that we see just this variability in this exercise means that the patterns are of sufficiently low quality as to be indistinguishable from pareidolia. So one way to objectify the process would be to measure the rate of recognition among a sufficiently large population sample and compare it against a control group exposed to known pareidolia in imagery of similar character.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />So one way to objectify the process would be to measure the rate of recognition among a sufficiently large population sample and compare it against a control group exposed to known pareidolia in imagery of similar character.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree fundamentally with this logic. In fine, it amounts to a kind of “collective subjectivism equals objectivism; otherwise known as, ”fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” Let men give an example; if one were to take a survey of x number of people to see how many of them understand the theory of relativity (probably a bad example for this forum, but I’ll use it because it’s well known) he would find that out of say 10,000 surveyed maybe 10 or 20 could give a good qualitative rendition of the theory. If one were to present the actual mathematical formula for “pattern recognition” to the same survey group, the number able to recognize it, i.e. give the right answer, might be down to one or two, if any.

Does this survey have any relation or correlation to the truth or correctness of the theory of relativity? Absolutely not. If it is wrong, it is for reasons that have nothing to do with surveys or public opinion polls.

I am not comparing myself in any way with anyone, just trying to express a principle in terms of an analogy. New faces are judged by me on the basis of criteria I have laid out, and given a certain intuitive or qualitative level of probability. I’m never positive of artificiality, but there are levels of confidence which, when reached, warrant further study and cry out for better imaging. One might also add that several of the new faces presented in the last few months could pass the same quantitative (objective) tests given the Cydonia Face and Profile Image: probability tests for detail, proportion, orientation, and other modeled predictions.

But I’m quite certain that there are some interested in this project who will never see anything but natural features on Mars by definition. But that is the textbook definition of bias. A simple example comes to mind: when an image is readily recognized by everyone, such as the "Jesus like" M0300647, Saint, it's pareidolia. When a face is difficult to recognize but sudenly "pops" out on you and then becomes indellible and very clear and detailed, such as the present profile with hands, or the "Family" faces, or M0203051, Barbara, it's pareidolia. Here's a description of E0600269, Curiosity, posted again.

"Although relatively small and only of fair resolution, this is one of the best faces we have for the following reasons: This is one of the very few faces large enough to see the details, which possesses bilateral symmetry and excellent proportions and orientation. Both eyes are visible, including irises, whites, and oval shaped outline. Two v-shaped eyebrows are visible, a well formed nose, a furrowed, symmetrical forehead, two symmetrical cheeks, a well-formed v-shaped chin, and a rounded head. The exception is the unknown object in upper right part of the head (our view). Tilted, symmetrical broad shoulders are also visible, and a small, puckered mouth."



Neil