Faces from the Chasmas

<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 />But the fact that *two* faces can be seen overlapping here is more evidence for pareidolia.Emanuel<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I tend to agree. I think the notion that two different people might see it differently, but yet be very convinced that they're right, is evidence of pareidolia. Very possible, and logical.

A person taking an objective view of the two different possibilities might say, "hmmm, yes I can see how both might be viewed as images of people." But meanwhile, the two proponents are arguing for their interpretation, and their interpretation only.

In my opinion, there's a good chance that's a sign of pareidolia.

rd

No Escher equivalents among the Martians, then?

<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 />No Escher equivalents among the Martians, then?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good point (if I understand you correctly).

There's always the possibility that they were designed to be seen two ways (or more). We've already seen cases of "two faces" depending upon how you look at it.

rd

<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 />The "Lovers" image is south oriented in this strip.

[Hint: To do your own independent verification, download the gif image to your computer, use the context image or the map projected jpg to make sure you have the NSEW orientation right, then search the hi-res gif, adjusting contrast and brightness and zooming in as needed.]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That means that the "Lovers" are upside down, relative to the "Clown" which is in the same image strip M1301494. And since the Clown mosaic is apparently on a wall, it's hard to imagine they are upside down. So, that would mean Lovers is upside down.

The artists clearly wouldn't have created upside down statues. I guess it's possible that they fell upside down in the collapse of the chasm, and landed on their heads directly opposite to the Clown mosaic, but if you look at Lovers upside down, it doesn't look like a statue standing on its head, more suspended in air.

Plus, there's Occam's razor to deal with.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, that would mean Lovers is upside down. RD
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The "Lovers" are not "upside down" bro, they are on the ground facing skyward. They are merely south oriented. This, and several other faces in this strip are south oriented (a subject I have not gotten to yet, but thought I should answer this point out of order, because it is an important one.) Trinket hinted at this awile back, but I blew him off because I didn't understand what he meant at the time. I'm not going to go into detail here because I want to make my case in a different order, but this fact that some images are south oriented answers the question someone raised early in the Family post, namely, why do all the faces seem to be north oriented. I suspect the question has been here answered partially. They're not; we just haven't been searching much on south oriented strips, (meaning with south facing up on our computer monitor).

Now in the case of the "Clown" and his ensemble, they probably are "right side up" to some degree like you meant it, (depending on the slope of the cliff wall), becuse they seem to be located at the base of the cliff wall of the chasma. That would be a good MOLA investigation for someone to undertake.

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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, that would mean Lovers is upside down. RD
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "Lovers" are not "upside down" bro, they are on the ground facing skyward. They are merely south oriented.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I guess that's what Ann Coulter means when she complains about being taken out of context. This is what I said:

"That means that the "Lovers" are upside down, relative to the "Clown" which is in the same image strip M1301494. And since the Clown mosaic is apparently on a wall, it's hard to imagine they are upside down. So, that would mean Lovers is upside down."


Very important distinction. Unless we assume a cave in, or some catastrophe that changed their relative orientations, that means one is "upside down" relative to the other. Not necessarily standing on their heads. What I'm saying holds true, even if they are just rotated in a flat plane 180 degrees relative to each other. One is "upside down" when looking at the other "right side up".

No head stands necessary.
(added material)
Let me elaborate on this a little. After re-reading your message a couple of times, I see your point about how it could be like viewing the Eiffel Tower on Google Earth, where depending upon the angle from the camera to the object, it could appear to be oriented in one direction or the other. I understand that point.

But remember, all along we've been talking about features that were intended to be viewed from space. That's a whole different issue. In that case, Clown and Lovers are upside down relative to each other.

rd