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 marsrocks</i>
<br />I think it goes more like this: I see something that looks like the pattern of a face (subjective).

Do others see the pattern? (subjective).

If it is generally recognized as a pattern, (subjective), then therefore all we have is that there is a pattern of a face in the landscape.

We still should have no conclusions at this point. We can't leap from here to the conclusion that just because there is a pattern, that it was created by intelligent design. All art, is after all, an illusion. We see the patterns in our minds. Some of the patterns we see were solely the creations of our minds, while others were the creations of artists.

(I think debunkers get hung up before they ever get past this point, because they think admitting the existence of a pattern, means that they are admitting that it is artificial, which is not the case).

Now assuming the pattern exists, we continue... and really -begin- some analysis of it:

How vague or definite is the pattern?

Can we detect any landscape alterations that may have been required to create such a pattern?

Is the design oriented in a north-south or east-west orientation; or in similar fashion based on previously known poles of the planet?

Is there other evidence of artificiality or intelligent design?

Are there geometric formations (rectangular depressions, pyramids, square grids, etc. etc.) nearby?

Is there a composition involved which include complementary elements? - i.e. a man and woman in the same artwork; a dog and cat, cat and mouse, two or more of the same feature; and if so, are multiple elements represented in the same scale? If there are multiple complementary elements, are they oriented with one another in an intelligent manner, represented by geometry or global polar position?

Are there similar compositions nearby that are in the same scale?

Are there other elements of the design denoting that an intelligently guided hand played a role in its creation?

If we are looking at an artistic composition, how detailed are the features? How great an adjustment must be made to the original image to bring out the features during image processing? Does the feature really exist or is it a creation of the image processing (see the Martian airport).

How permanent/protected is the feature? Is the feature on a cliff or on the ground? Is it in stone or is it in loose soil? How do weather conditions effect the ground or stone of that feature?

How does the feature hold up in three dimensional representations?

Has the feature been imaged more than once, if so, how does it hold up in other images?

...

From here, what I would suggest would be not making a conclusion about the ultimate issue - that is whether the pattern occurred as a result of intelligent design or landform alteration, but how does the feature rank when compared to other discovered features, and why?

This prevents dilution problems, because vague images stay relegated to the bottom of the list, while the better features rise to the top of your list. You also begin to apply more and more objective criteria to make determinations, and explain why a particular feature belongs at the top or bottom of your list. Once these factors become better known, people searching for these features start looking for the ones that fit the criteria at the top of your list, and our search becomes more intelligent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Marsrocks, I agree with the vast majority of this, with the exception that I would probably add the parenthetical "subjective" to way more of these than the few you have at the beginning. Perhap even to all of your points.

Most of your points have been bantered about many times over the last couple of years and have led us no closer to answering the question of "artificiality" vs. "natural origins/pareidolia". Why? Because even though they sound like objective criterea when you write them in this form, in actual practice their implemention is grossly subjective.

But maybe you haven't had a chance to re-read everything that's been written in these threads, which is understandable.

Does that mean you shouldn't try your hand at it? No, not at all. Give it a whirl and see what you come up with.

What I was getting at, and what gorme picked up on, is that there are methods that could be used to actually try to prove some of these claims, if one was so inclined. My contention is that there are not many people out there that have both the math skills and the desire to attempt to prove that there are faces on Mars. They exist (gorme and TVF, for example), but in my opinion most people with a grasp of the necessary math would tend to attempt to prove their own work, rather than the work of others. I'm sure that's not a hard and fast rule, but I would think it's a fairly reasonable assumption on my part, based on my own observations working in a scientific environment for 20 years or so.

What we have left are basically theoretical writings. While alot of it is interesting, it does not really advance the question "artificial" or "natural", even if one were to go point by point through your list.

When I first started the "pareidolia" thread, Tom asked the question: how can we tell whether or not a feature is pareidolic or not? I didn't really know at the time that that was the goal. I was approaching it from the point of view where I attempted to show that "it all <b>could reasonably be </b>" pareidolia.

To make a long story short, it got me nowhere. So now I'm asking the same question Tom asked me, to those that use something akin to your list of criterea. Much as my approach led nowhere to some, that approach has also led nowhere to those who find the primary evidence wholly unconvincing.

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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />I think it goes more like this: I see something that looks like the pattern of a face (subjective).

Do others see the pattern? (subjective).

If it is generally recognized as a pattern, (subjective), then therefore all we have is that there is a pattern of a face in the landscape.

We still should have no conclusions at this point. We can't leap from here to the conclusion that just because there is a pattern, that it was created by intelligent design. All art, is after all, an illusion. We see the patterns in our minds. Some of the patterns we see were solely the creations of our minds, while others were the creations of artists.

(I think debunkers get hung up before they ever get past this point, because they think admitting the existence of a pattern, means that they are admitting that it is artificial, which is not the case).

Now assuming the pattern exists, we continue... and really -begin- some analysis of it:

How vague or definite is the pattern?

Can we detect any landscape alterations that may have been required to create such a pattern?

Is the design oriented in a north-south or east-west orientation; or in similar fashion based on previously known poles of the planet?

Is there other evidence of artificiality or intelligent design?

Are there geometric formations (rectangular depressions, pyramids, square grids, etc. etc.) nearby?

Is there a composition involved which include complementary elements? - i.e. a man and woman in the same artwork; a dog and cat, cat and mouse, two or more of the same feature; and if so, are multiple elements represented in the same scale? If there are multiple complementary elements, are they oriented with one another in an intelligent manner, represented by geometry or global polar position?

Are there similar compositions nearby that are in the same scale?

Are there other elements of the design denoting that an intelligently guided hand played a role in its creation?

If we are looking at an artistic composition, how detailed are the features? How great an adjustment must be made to the original image to bring out the features during image processing? Does the feature really exist or is it a creation of the image processing (see the Martian airport).

How permanent/protected is the feature? Is the feature on a cliff or on the ground? Is it in stone or is it in loose soil? How do weather conditions effect the ground or stone of that feature?

How does the feature hold up in three dimensional representations?

Has the feature been imaged more than once, if so, how does it hold up in other images?

...

From here, what I would suggest would be not making a conclusion about the ultimate issue - that is whether the pattern occurred as a result of intelligent design or landform alteration, but how does the feature rank when compared to other discovered features, and why?

This prevents dilution problems, because vague images stay relegated to the bottom of the list, while the better features rise to the top of your list. You also begin to apply more and more objective criteria to make determinations, and explain why a particular feature belongs at the top or bottom of your list. Once these factors become better known, people searching for these features start looking for the ones that fit the criteria at the top of your list, and our search becomes more intelligent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Marsrocks, I agree with the vast majority of this, with the exception that I would probably add the parenthetical "subjective" to way more of these than the few you have at the beginning. Perhap even to all of your points.

Most of your points have been bantered about many times over the last couple of years and have led us no closer to answering the question of "artificiality" vs. "natural origins/pareidolia". Why? Because even though they sound like objective criterea when you write them in this form, in actual practice their implemention is grossly subjective.

But maybe you haven't had a chance to re-read everything that's been written in these threads, which is understandable.

Does that mean you shouldn't try your hand at it? No, not at all. Give it a whirl and see what you come up with.

What I was getting at, and what gorme picked up on, is that there are methods that could be used to actually try to prove some of these claims, if one was so inclined. My contention is that there are not many people out there that have both the math skills and the desire to attempt to prove that there are faces on Mars. They exist (gorme and TVF, for example), but in my opinion most people with a grasp of the necessary math would tend to attempt to prove their own work, rather than the work of others. I'm sure that's not a hard and fast rule, but I would think it's a fairly reasonable assumption on my part, based on my own observations working in a scientific environment for 20 years or so.

What we have left are basically theoretical writings. While alot of it is interesting, it does not really advance the question "artificial" or "natural", even if one were to go point by point through your list.

When I first started the "pareidolia" thread, Tom asked the question: how can we tell whether or not a feature is pareidolic or not? I didn't really know at the time that that was the goal. I was approaching it from the point of view where I attempted to show that "it all <b>could reasonably be </b>" pareidolia.

To make a long story short, it got me nowhere. So now I'm asking the same question Tom asked me, to those that use something akin to your list of criterea. Much as my approach led nowhere to some, that approach has also led nowhere to those who find the primary evidence wholly unconvincing.

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

One of the problems with a team effort in this field is that many researchers are very sensitive to criticism. If they see this as putting forward an argument for artificiality then they also tend to see skeptics as against them in some form. However the roles are reversed, they should be doing the job of the skeptic and then eventually the skeptic might become the true believer.

To falsify an argument is to be a skeptic, to assert something can never be proven is to be a cynic. One should approach these formations by trying to prove they are natural, which is what the skeptic should really be trying to do. The reason they don't do this is probably because they don't care enough, are afraid of their peers, or don't think there is a sufficient chance these formations are artificial.

Many arguments researchers use are doomed from the start. For example it is futile to show that some formations look like known artificial objects because many natural formations do this. One could argue in the same way that clouds might be alien artifacts because sometimes they look like people and animals. I could make a study of clouds and come up with thousands of surprising faces and have the same chance of proving they are artificial as faces on Mars.

This is why proving they cannot be natural is the only way, by excluding the natural hypothesis there is nothing left but to say they are artificial.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />For example it is futile to show that some formations look like known artificial objects because many natural formations do this. One could argue in the same way that clouds might be alien artifacts because sometimes they look like people and animals. I could make a study of clouds and come up with thousands of surprising faces and have the same chance of proving they are artificial as faces on Mars. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe I never said this quite this clearly, but in one small paragraph you have hit on the essential point in the argument I've been trying to make for over two years.

That's why I find the subject of pareidolia so interesting. As interesting, or maybe even more interesting than the subject of whether or not there are artifacts on Mars.

rd

Just to add my 2 cents here because I don't think it can be emphasized enough. Any evidence that must be interpreted by human beings is by definition subjective. There is no such entity as an objective human and the likelihood of objectivity is not enhanced in proportion to the number of people involved. However, subjective humans are capable of building instruments to objectively measure the various physical quantities of the natural world. Unfortunately for us, the whole exercise of looking for artificial structures in the pattern of sand and rock on another planet cannot be instrumentized. It is ALL subjective in every way except when looking for patterns that cannot exist in nature and even then we must be very careful as nature is full of surprises.

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 />Just to add my 2 cents here because I don't think it can be emphasized enough. Any evidence that must be interpreted by human beings is by definition subjective. There is no such entity as an objective human and the likelihood of objectivity is not enhanced in proportion to the number of people involved. However, subjective humans are capable of building instruments to objectively measure the various physical quantities of the natural world. Unfortunately for us, the whole exercise of looking for artificial structures in the pattern of sand and rock on another planet cannot be instrumentized. It is ALL subjective in every way except when looking for patterns that cannot exist in nature and even then we must be very careful as nature is full of surprises.

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

jrich, there are many thousands of geological papers written on Mars, and these were done with the same kind of data people are looking for artifacts with. Granted there are some papers using other data instruments such as spectroscopy, MOLA terrain mapping, sub surface radar, etc but the vast majority are from people just looking at images.

Geologists are quite capable of determining whether formations on Mars are natural, and how they are likely to be formed, at least to get past the peer reviewed process in journals. This might be debatable, but the whole mainstream system of journals about Mars assumes this is true. So the mainstream is quite happy with the idea that scientists can determine the origin of Martian landforms, only a small number of them and the times they were made are controversial.

Artifact research to be accepted by the mainstream has to work on the same principles, one cannot invent a new way of doing things and expect the mainstream to accept it. An artifact by definition cannot be explainable by geological processes. It may be that some hypothetical artifacts could be so similar, perhaps through erosion, to natural landforms that proof is impossible. However it is unlikely that hypothetical aliens by chance or design would consistently build artifacts that were indistinguishable from natural terrain. There would be no point in it other than for camouflage in which case we likely do not know if there are artifacts there or not.

But this is a blind alley, if there might be artifacts we must assume they are not camouflaged because that would lead to simply giving up. If people do have reasonable grounds for suspecting artifacts then either the camouflage was not very good or it is wearing away over time. The alleged artifacts on Mars don't look like camouflage wearing away, nor do they look like flimsy and ineffectual attempts at camouflage. So the likely explanation is that if artifacts exist at all then they were built and can be eventually provable as different from natural terrain.

I see some formations researchers say look artificial and the argument seems weak, but I think there are clearly formations on Mars that could not or are very unlikely to be formed naturally. That's the main reason I am optimistic about this kind of research. One can look at the Crowned faces and debate whether they might be formed naturally, or look like faces in clouds. One can also look at the eyes and see the likely natural explanation is craters and they look nothing like craters. Or the noses are probably impossible to form naturally because they are mounds on a slope with two holes in them for nostrils. With the level of erosion on these faces, assuming they wore down to this shape from the wind, the nose should have fallen down long ago if natural because the hollow nostrils would have collapsed.

So proving artificiality is much more powerful by instead trying to disprove nature. Not as glamorous perhaps but that's how science often does it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any evidence that must be interpreted by human beings is by definition subjective. There is no such entity as an objective human and the likelihood of objectivity is not enhanced in proportion to the number of people involved. However, subjective humans are capable of building instruments to objectively measure the various physical quantities of the natural world. Unfortunately for us, the whole exercise of looking for artificial structures in the pattern of sand and rock on another planet cannot be instrumentized. It is ALL subjective in every way except when looking for patterns that cannot exist in nature and even then we must be very careful as nature is full of surprises. [JR]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thousands of objectivists around the world would disagree with you. The issue of objectivism vs. subjectivism is essentially an epistemological issue. It is mainly concerned with the question of whether we (humans) can know the world as it "really is." Objectivists say we can, subjectivists say we can not; (Kant and Bishop Berkeley were subjectivists, Popper and Rand were objectivists; just to give some examples of the representatives of the opposing schools.) To say that we are hopelessly subjective yet can somehow build instruments which will render our subjectivity objective is to ignore all of the subtleties of the debate in question, especially the one which says we cannot trust our senses. [Neil]