Faces from the Chasmas

Even Fred's photos which are totally 2D snapshots of a brief moment in time, would for that instant that they existed pass the viewing angle test (not lighting though, since they are exclusively shadows). If you imagined 12 photographers standing in a semi-circle around the easel, and on the count of "now" by Fred, all snapped their picture, they would all essentially get the same picture. Does that make it real? I don't think so. I think too much has been made of the viewing angle part of this.

rd

<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 />Seed Capsules.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Very cute. Wherever did you find those?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you can explain to me, how this wouldn't survive any "lighting/viewing angle test" that a normal human head wouldn't also survive, then you might have me convinced.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Real faces in general do not survive the test because they are not pareidolic. Remember, in my definition (intention vs. illusion), no faces that result from biological programming (DNA), including animal, inssect, or even bacteria, count as pareidolic. And even by your own definition, these are "living entities", and are therefore excluded from pareidolia by your criteria too.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I still don't see what makes "Pompador Rock" in Mt. Tamalpais any different than a normal human head (albeit larger), and why that one wouldn't survive the test any more than a statue of a human head, made by man would.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It loses its face-like appearance when viewed at other angles, just as all the other examples of landform faces do. Moreover, if that weren't so, we would be able to conclude at a high confidence level that it was man-made precisely because faces with 3D features have too much complexity for chance.

However, to avoid being circular here, I will agree that you have found your one example if you can show that it still looks reasonably like a face when viewed head-on or from the opposite side. My point is that natural features don't have that much complexity. And your example has so few face-like features that the face illusion might go away even at a different time of day because if the lighting did not cast that one shadow, the face would not appear to have that "eye". -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think too much has been made of the viewing angle part of this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Losing the illusion with a change of either viewing angle or lighting angle qualifies a face-like image as potential pareidolia. Real faces and face sculptures do not lose their face-like impression when either angle is changed. -|Tom|-

Some 3D pareidolia might disappear with a different viewing angle or different lighting, although not all necessarily. One would need multiple angles or lightings and/or viewing angles to find out. Tom's point is that this would not happen with "art," (the disappearance) and he uses this point to give credence to Cydonia face being non-pareidolic. Correct? This also shows that Mt. Rushmore is non-pareidolic, as are human faces.

<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 />Very cute. Wherever did you find those?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
On the internet. They are snapdragon seed capsules (both Antirhinum majus (Sawyers Old-Fashioned Mixed) and our native snapdragon, Antirhinum orontium. Mar 1997.Nigel Fairman (from FT101:12)

If you look at the picture again, you can see that some are facing us, one is facing our left and one is facing our right. Also, if you look closely, you can see that we are seeing right into the "eye socket" because this is normal photo resolution, not Mars resolution. So, there's no doubt to me, that if I held one in my hands, and turned it around, it would look essentially the same as they do in the picture. A Martian viewing this picture would not know, nor would he have any way of knowing, under any test we've yet to come up with, whether or not these were natural or man made (as in "art").


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Real faces in general do not survive the test because they are not pareidolic. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Tom, you lost me here. Did you mean to say "do not" or "do"?

rd

<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 />Some 3D pareidolia might disappear with a different viewing angle or different lighting, although not all necessarily. One would need multiple angles or lightings and/or viewing angles to find out. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, this is the point I'm trying to make: "although not necessarily", but Tom keeps dismissing all of my evidence, except for the seed capsules, so far.

rd

<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 />there's no doubt to me, that if I held one in my hands, and turned it around, it would look essentially the same as they do in the picture.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you failed to notice that the seeds do not qualify as pareidolia by my definition (because they are the result of biological programming) or by yours (because they are living entities).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom keeps dismissing all of my evidence, except for the seed capsules, so far.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm sorry I left any ambiguity. I dismiss those also because they are real biological faces, not pareidolic faces.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Real faces in general do not survive the test because they are not pareidolic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, you lost me here. Did you mean to say "do not" or "do"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry about that. I meant "do survive" the test. -|Tom|-