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 neilderosa</i>
<br />You will accomplish nothing because you are apparently trying not to accomplish anything, or can't understand the distinctions necessary to accomplish something.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I'm trying to accomplish, and have been quite successfully I might add, is to show that faces are a dime a dozen, given the right medium. As a matter of fact, Fred has shown that he can even extract faces with a level of detail as least as great, and far greater in many cases than the ones you're posting, from shadows of trees. What that demonstrates is that there is nothing all that significant in finding a face. No matter what kind of words one uses. (I am eagerly waiting the results from Dr. Schyn's recent study using faces, instead of Ss.)

By demonstrating how easy it is to find faces, I am suggesting that all faces <b>could in fact be</b> pareidolia, whether found here on Mother Earth, or in the valleys of Mars. Samo samo, as the saying goes. It seems to me that falling back on the argument that all faces found here on Earth are somehow fraudulent, or that Fred's photos are fraudulent or can be ignored, or that all the famous postcard faces are examples of how I'm dropping context, is somewhat of a specious argument in and of itself.

And since all faces <b>could be</b> pareidolia, probably <b>are</b> pareidolia, it would seem that the logical approach would be to assume pareidolia, study pareidolia, and take the notion that <b>Martians did it</b> with a stong dose of suspicion. Regardless of how complex a model someone thinks up that would explain how Martians did it. You see, as far as I'm concerned I'm being eminently logical and consistent. Whereas your argument seems to be that everything else besides your "theory" is fraudulent. That's not much to hang one's hat on. True it's possible that some of the postcard heads have been chiseled a little, but that doesn't explain it all, by no stretch of the imagination. And as long as all the stuff your posting is on Mars, you can't fairly use the term "proof" in anything you're doing, anyway. It's all speculation at this point.

My little "a priori" demonstration from the Ranier rock pile shows how the mere prediction of another section of a face <b>can be, in and of itself, meaningless</b>. No more, no less.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I'm trying to accomplish, and have been quite successfully I might add, is to show that faces are a dime a dozen [rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You say. All you have done was to show pictures as "proof" of your would-be critique. We have no idea what we are looking at for all the reasons stated ad-nauseum.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And since all faces could be pareidolia, probably are pareidolia,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Stated without proof, without demonstration of any kind. "Just look at the picture,” is the implied mantra."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My little "a priori" demonstration from the Ranier rock pile shows how the mere prediction of another section of a face can be, in and of itself, meaningless. No more, no less.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But not accomplished.

"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 a priori, 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."”


With all due respect, that is why it is a waist of my time to continue this discussion.
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 />All you have done was to show pictures as "proof" of your would-be critique. We have no idea what we are looking at for all the reasons stated ad-nauseum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This was fed "live" to the world, and there are tapes to prove it. Do you have any such "Proof".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stated without proof, without demonstration of any kind. "Just look at the picture,” is the implied mantra." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The proof exists for this and Fred's pictures, and probably most of the stuff I've posted. Do you have any such "proof"?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Here's why. Weather one were to find the feature referred to here on Mars or on Earth, the same rules would apply. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I took that picture myself, so I know it's not doctored. I climbed that mountain. I suppose it's possible that someone setup some sort of rig, and chiseled that in there......but I doubt it.

You keep ignoring Fred's photos. They alone win the argument as far as I'm concerned. How is what you're doing any different? You're posting something that you think is an artwork. You name them, and you tell us what you think is there, I guess for some future date when we get higher resolution images, or someone goes there. But, until then, there just things with no proof, right? And a story. Interesting, but hardly proof. Some of them appear to be blobs, with no discernable features at all, like the one I re-posted.

Like I said a long time ago, I think what you are doing is important, just not for the same reasons you do. I think this could in fact be the greatest collection of pareidolia in existence. Right now, I believe it's likely that Fred is the pareidolia champion of the world, but you may un-seat him, when all is said and done. So, this collection is very valuable, and I suggest you copyright them.

rd

To continue with the project:

Here' a sector of the Chasma wall base. Note the little black and white figure reminiscent of "Little Red Riding Hood" at bottom right (profile right looking down, wide circular eye outline, open mouth, black hood/cloak, white sleeved arm reaching forward).



Here's the same face in E1800047, "Little Red."



Here's a close-up of the ESA color image.



And a close-up of the high resolution E18 face. We can see that all is not as it seems but still apparent are marked signs of artificiality (to be continued).




Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The proof exists for this and Fred's pictures, and probably most of the stuff I've posted.[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well said, and as proof we post the "face in smoke" once again. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />What that demonstrates is that there is nothing all that significant in finding a face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Neither of the DeRosa brothers seems to have fully understood the essence of the <i>a priori</i> and <i>a posteriori</i> principles. What you just stated is an example of the latter: No matter how detailed, when one comes upon an unexpected non-random pattern in an otherwise pseudo-random data set (e.g., a combination of geology and fractality), the first instance is not significant and can only be used to form hypotheses and propose tests (usually predictions). A second finding that passes those tests is significant, but only to the extent that alternative hypotheses such as chance were excluded by the tests.

The degree to which the hypothesis is placed at risk by the tests determines the degree to which a passed test is convincing for the hypothesis making the predictions. If there remains wiggle room for a hypothesis that fails a test, then passing the test will generally not be convincing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am eagerly waiting the results from Dr. Schyn's recent study using faces, instead of Ss.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought we agreed that the results, whatever they might be, would have no applicability to interpreting Mars imagery. The design protocol for the test should, in principle, allow any pre-selected pattern whatever to emerge. I see no reason why face patterns should be different.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By demonstrating how easy it is to find faces, I am suggesting that all faces <b>could in fact be</b> pareidolia, whether found here on Mother Earth, or in the valleys of Mars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You need to work on your wording here. Your statement seems to say that Mt. Rushmore and what you see in a mirror could be pereidolia.

I also thought we had agreed that essentially all pereidolia is 2D, even for 3D landscapes. I.e., it is confined to a narrow range of viewing and/or lighting angles. It might be possible to get a 3D pereidolic face in a really noisy background, but certainly not in one devoid of numerous face elements that our minds can use to assemble into our memorized pattern for what constitutes a face.

3D faces against featureless backgrounds should never be pereidolic because they lack the most basic element needed for forming pereidolic images -- lots of shapes that we can mentally piece together into familiar patterns.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And since all faces <b>could be</b> pareidolia, probably <b>are</b> pareidolia, it would seem that the logical approach would be to assume pareidolia<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, this is ground already covered. What you say is the logical position in the absence of proven artificiality elsewhere. But once one feature is proved artificial, then pereidolia and artificiality are on a level playing field, with neither entitled to a presumption before inspection of the particulars.

I agree with you that some of Neil's images are pereidolic. And if you were just trying to persuade him of that, you would have an ally here. But when you revert on the major distinction I keep emphasizing -- proving first artificiality on the one hand, versus interpreting possible later examples to learn about purpose and functionality on the other -- then I can't go there with you.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My little "a priori" demonstration from the Ranier rock pile shows how the mere prediction of another section of a face can be, in and of itself, meaningless.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To correctly apply the <i>a priori</i> principle, keep referring back to my example about being dealt a hand of 13 cards. Every deal results in a hand that had odds of 635 billion to one against happening by chance. So it is not the odds nor the particulars of the hand (such as 13 spades, analogous to "what it looks like") that allow us to judge whether the deal resulted from chance or not. It is the presence or absence of a prediction before the actual hand is known. If someone predicts your hand in advance, you know that was no accident at 635-billion-to-one odds.

Moreover, this process does not work backwards because it is not the particular odds that made the result significant, but the reality of a genuine prediction. In fact, the whole argument is undercut if the predictor has any hints of the actual outcome before making the prediction, or argues after the fact that something could have been predicted (unless a neutral party is prepared to concede that the prediction was obvious and compelling). So you cannot take a pareidolic face and hide some of its features and say someone could have predicted those features from the simpler view that remains, because such predictions will be wrong millions of times for every success unless you pick a special case <i>a posteriori</i>. Do you see that, or does the point need elaboration and examples?

Going forward, let's try harder to avoid so much repetition. Decide whether you want to argue with me about first artificiality, or with Neil about his standards for secondary artificiality vs. pereidolia in the context of first artificiality as a given. If you chose the latter, it <i>must</i> be in the context of given artificiality elsewhere or it makes no sense. Review the arguments already advanced, then see if you can come up with anything new.

Neil seems to be having fun, and I see no reason to start blocking his posts just because some of the images are far fetched. Xterrester posted here freely for a long time with many things a lot less likely to be of lasting interest than Neil's stuff. And both came up with the occasional gem. We'll have to leave it at that unless we can develop some objective standards as a result of these discussions.

Fred's stuff reminds all of us how easy it is to be fooled. But I don't see how it is helping us develop objective criteria. -|Tom|-