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 pareidoliac</i>
<br />These images are more than art, they are also social commentary on global warming that will appear on earth, millions of years from their creation. The giant polar bear taking a bite out of the miniature earth in revenge for our melting of the ice caps is social commentary art. The "cyclops," imbedded in his heart region (to view, viewer should tilt top of her/his head to the left), only adds to the mystical art work, showing cyclops, were on earth. The slightly off center eye, of the cyclops, pre-dates Picasso by millions of years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's the beauty of this stuff. Once you go down the "path", there's no end to it all. And as I stated many times in the Pareidolia Topic, it's all personal. Each of us has our own individual "cyclops" eye to see with, and to see. I spent last Saturday at the library looking at Picasso's work, and his explanations. If he could see stuff that way, I suspect anything is possible.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Rather it is a new theory of elaborate, very detailed, very frequently occurring pareidolia that has been put forward, without a shred of good evidence. That is what has been presented here. But this itself is a radical new hypothesis and quite easy to falsify under strict scientific scrutiny. Conversely, many claims made here and in other threads are not falsifiable. In other words, they are to be accepted on faith, and “proof’s got nothing to do with it.”
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't know how else to explain this; all the arguments have been made several times but obviously we have gotten nowhere. The above array of images amounts to nothing more than "begging the question," a common philosophical fallacy I've explained several times. The point is that any face found anywhere (Mars, Earth, Moon or wherever), is either a real representation of something or it isn't. One must make ones case in each individual instance. Simply posting pictures for the sake of it is worse than meaningless. I try to ignore this stuff but it isn't always so easy.

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 don't know how else to explain this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Start with this:

Suppose we were to acquire this image:


Now, we might get all excited because we see half a face in the circle. Ok, so we "predict" the rest of the face is there. Then, six months later, we get another image:


And much to our amazement, we find that not only is the rest of the face is there (see circle). What did we accomplish?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I try to ignore this stuff but it isn't always easy--Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, we understand that, but one must deal with the <b>whole</b> argument, not just the parts we want to, or can follow.

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 />Before I go on to the next item I'll post a key for "Ben and Betty" with aproximate size of object.


(Is it just me, or does anyone have a clue as to what this is supposed to be?-rd)


Arrow #3 is another larger scale (2-4 km wide, north oriented) face in profile left with characteristic detailed eye, upturned nose, mouth, homo sapiens chin, and good cranial development; even at this scale, shading, proportion, orientation, and detail are not neglected by the artist. In keeping with my custom of naming all faces I feel will stand up to the scrutiny that will ultimately come when the new paradigm is finally accepted, we'll call him "Howard." (Image # to be patched in later.)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">When I read this stuff I'm reminded of a Star Trek where Kirk and the Klingons were trying to fight a war, and some alien raided the game, and made it impossible for them to fight. Then when they were arguing about it, Kirk was upset because someone was interfering. Kirk yells at the alien, "we have the right.......", to which the alien intercedes and says, "to wage war, Captain. Is that what you're defending?"

When I look at the stuff you've actually posted, I can't help thinking........."Is that what you're defending?"

Just saying "upturned nose" don't make it Martian Art.

But, in a way, I can see we're beating a dead horse by now. Your stance is now, and has always been that because you see it, it must be so. Whereas, what I'm saying is that just because we see it, don't make it Martian Art. Minor difference.

rd

Here's a relevant quote I thought some of you might find interesting.

“Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives from the community’s willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost. Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. Nevertheless, as long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research insures that novelty shall not be suppressed for very long. Sometimes a normal problem, one that ought to be solvable by known rules and procedures, resists the reiterated onslaught of the ablest members of the group within whose competence it falls. On other occasions a piece of equipment designed and constructed for the purpose of normal research fails to perform in the anticipated manner, revealing an anomaly that cannot, despite repeated effort, be aligned with professional expectation. In these and other ways besides, normal research repeatedly goes astray. And when it does—when, that is, the profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of scientific practice—then begin the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at least to a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science. The extraordinary episodes in which that shift in professional commitments occurs are the ones known…as scientific revolutions. They are the tradition-shattering compliments to the tradition-bound activity of normal science.” [Thomas Kuhn, <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted - 29 Sep 2006 : 21:14:05

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neilderosa

I don't know how else to explain this.

---

Start with this:

Suppose we were to acquire this image: {see post above}


Now, we might get all excited because we see half a face in the circle. Ok, so we "predict" the rest of the face is there. Then, six months later, we get another image: {see post above}


And much to our amazement, we find that not only is the rest of the face is there (see circle). What did we accomplish? [rd] {brackets inserted}

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

You will accomplish nothing because you are apparently trying not to accomplish anything, or can't understand the distinctions necessary to accomplish something.

Here's why. Weather one were to find the feature referred to here on Mars or on Earth, the same rules would apply. One would make ones case based on selected models. They are called <i>a priori</i>, because we carry out a deductive process based on these models. The argument from unseen features and details is one such; but there are many others. So you follow the procedures and use logic, and you try not to continually drop the context you are working in (as you do continually).

In simple language, the images of the feature posted may or may not be man made, it may or may not be pareidolia; may or may not be trick photography. These are some of the things we seek to find out. But you continually beg all questions and assume, (where your exhibits are concerned—not mine), "no proof needed."

Re: context dropping: for those who aren’t familiar with the term, “context” is the larger whole, or general background to which a particular thing belongs. It is usually difficult or impossible to understand the particular without reference to the overall context, unless the context is so obvious that no mention of it is necessary. “Context dropping” is purposefully or inadvertently ignoring the general information and background (context) necessary to understand the particulars. It is, understandably, another logical fallacy, and is often employed by those making specious arguments. As an example of context dropping I point to the two above images copied by rd (ESA crops of "Ben and Betty," and "Howard") presumably in an attempt to show that they are “pareidolia.” Dropped is the context that both are parts of mosaics previously seen in hi-res MOC images more than once in both cases. Dropped is the context that detail supporting artificiality was demonstrated for the hi-res images, that in the case of “woman with pets,” one face composed a part of a larger over face, a pattern seen again and again. Dropped is the context that in these new color images we see confirmation in color of previous images taken by another agency at very different resolutions. Dropped is the context that many realistic hi-res faces have been found, each supported by a priori predictions all over Mars. It goes on and on.

With all due respect, that is why it is a waist of my time to continue this discussion.

Neil