Faces from the Chasmas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't think I've proven anything regarding these faces. Nor do I think I have ever claimed to. But for a number of logical reasons I think there are strong suggestions of artificiality on Mars, typically in the form of several anthropomorphic (human-form) faces, a few known animal forms, one or two pyramids, or three-sided artificial-like mounds, a spiral trench or strip mine, a T or E shaped trench with uniform slopes and corners, some possibly hermetically sealed structures, and some possible wrecked machinery or ships. But I don't think any of these objects are proved to be artificial either logically or scientifically. But they do indicate the need for further study. [to be continued]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't wish to ignore the valid arguments of others and I won't. Gorme's central argument seems to be that the scientist wishing to prove artificiality to his peers must demonstrate that the anomalous formations in question can not have been formed by natural processes. I agree with this, but most of this type of work will not get done during the preliminary stages of this investigation. It will be done (later, perhaps much later, as the time scales of paradigm struggles are reckoned sometimes in decades, or even centuries) by specialists using a variety of tools both on the ground and by using sophisticated remote sensing devices in addition to continuous analysis of high resolution photographic data.

Much of MR's line of reasoning is in sync with my own so I won't go into details. I would differ only with his statement that; * I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature.* I have stated that many can not, or at least not with any statistical frequency. In other words, certain forms or combination of forms such as detailed *elaborate* faces will not occur frequently on the surface of Mars, especially not with the same types of repeated themes, scales, techniques, orientations, and so on, we have seen over and over.

The only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. The reason that the Crown face, the Nefertiti face, the Cydonia face, and a few more, are compelling is precisely because they are not vague but are elaborate anthropomorphic faces that have been verified with respect to the question of the legitimacy of their data, nothing more arcane than that.

These facts stated before, and being reiterated here; we have every reason to be curious about what we see on Mars, and the mainstream ought to be curious too. They ought to be taking every possible advantage of the technology at their command to confirm or falsify what think we see on Mars, namely artificial structures. That they are not following my priorities or my sense of urgency on this matter does not surprise me, but progress is being made...slowly. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In other words, certain forms or combination of forms such as detailed "elaborate" faces will not occur frequently on the surface of Mars, especially not with the same types of repeated themes, scales, techniques, orientations, and so on, we have seen over and over.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Re. a repeatedly seen theme, that of faces in a mosaic with some discernable relationship: here's the same face we have been looking at (Cathy) with a smaller male appearing face juxtaposed with both faces "looking at" each other. The smaller face is somewhat less detailed but in the context of a mosaic, still compelling.

<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 only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
gorme, this is what I'm talking about. This is what is being presented as a "scientific" theory here on these threads with regard to the Artificial Origins Hypothesis as it pertains to Mars. It's almost impossible to believe.

This statement (in the above quote) is like saying Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" can't be authentic because there are no melted clocks in nature.

Amazing. But I imagine it's possible that some "specialist" will come along some day and make sense out of all this, although I doubt very much if the conclusions would bear any resemblence to what's been said up to this point.

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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't think I've proven anything regarding these faces. Nor do I think I have ever claimed to. But for a number of logical reasons I think there are strong suggestions of artificiality on Mars, typically in the form of several anthropomorphic (human-form) faces, a few known animal forms, one or two pyramids, or three-sided artificial-like mounds, a spiral trench or strip mine, a T or E shaped trench with uniform slopes and corners, some possibly hermetically sealed structures, and some possible wrecked machinery or ships. But I don't think any of these objects are proved to be artificial either logically or scientifically. But they do indicate the need for further study. [to be continued]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't wish to ignore the valid arguments of others and I won't. Gorme's central argument seems to be that the scientist wishing to prove artificiality to his peers must demonstrate that the anomalous formations in question can not have been formed by natural processes. I agree with this, but most of this type of work will not get done during the preliminary stages of this investigation. It will be done (later, perhaps much later, as the time scales of paradigm struggles are reckoned sometimes in decades, or even centuries) by specialists using a variety of tools both on the ground and by using sophisticated remote sensing devices in addition to continuous analysis of high resolution photographic data.

Much of MR's line of reasoning is in sync with my own so I won't go into details. I would differ only with his statement that; * I have come to believe that almost any form can be created by nature.* I have stated that many can not, or at least not with any statistical frequency. In other words, certain forms or combination of forms such as detailed *elaborate* faces will not occur frequently on the surface of Mars, especially not with the same types of repeated themes, scales, techniques, orientations, and so on, we have seen over and over.

The only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. The reason that the Crown face, the Nefertiti face, the Cydonia face, and a few more, are compelling is precisely because they are not vague but are elaborate anthropomorphic faces that have been verified with respect to the question of the legitimacy of their data, nothing more arcane than that.

These facts stated before, and being reiterated here; we have every reason to be curious about what we see on Mars, and the mainstream ought to be curious too. They ought to be taking every possible advantage of the technology at their command to confirm or falsify what think we see on Mars, namely artificial structures. That they are not following my priorities or my sense of urgency on this matter does not surprise me, but progress is being made...slowly. [Neil]

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

Much of this kind of research will have to wait for landing on Mars. However the mainstream community of Planetary Scientists have no trouble making hypotheses, even asserting proofs about Martian geology right now. For example:

[url] www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/lpsc2007.download.shtml [/url]

Look through some of the papers and you can see the incredible amount of details we know about Mars now. By comparison working out if a formation can be falsified as natural is not impossible. Gone are the days when we only had a few grainy Viking photos to look at, now there are hundreds of thousands of images, and all kinds of other probes to look for sub surface water, chemistry of different areas, magnetic fields, etc.

<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">In other words, certain forms or combination of forms such as detailed "elaborate" faces will not occur frequently on the surface of Mars, especially not with the same types of repeated themes, scales, techniques, orientations, and so on, we have seen over and over.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Re. a repeatedly seen theme, that of faces in a mosaic with some discernable relationship: here's the same face we have been looking at (Cathy) with a smaller male appearing face juxtaposed with both faces "looking at" each other. The smaller face is somewhat less detailed but in the context of a mosaic, still compelling.







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

The problem with these kinds of images are they are nearly impossible to falsify as natural. They are composed for example partially of dunes and since dunes can be in many shapes the face like shapes are perhaps impossible to distinguish from nature. They may be artificial but faces and formations that are different geologically from the surrounding terrain are easier to build an argument with.

<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 neilderosa</i>
<br />The only possible counter-thesis, that of frequently occurring elaborate pareidolia on earth, has been shown to be fatally flawed, is fraught with misrepresentations, and has never been verified by anything resembling a legitimate scientific method. Awhile back, a poster on this message board (*pareidoliac*) had the opportunity to demonstrate that his elaborate pareidolic images were authentic, (meaning natural forms and not artistic enhancements), but could not or would not do so. The only thing the counter-thesis has ever demonstrated is that the human mind has the propensity to interpret vague forms (in clouds, etc.) as *faces*. [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
gorme, this is what I'm talking about. This is what is being presented as a "scientific" theory here on these threads with regard to the Artificial Origins Hypothesis as it pertains to Mars. It's almost impossible to believe.

This statement (in the above quote) is like saying Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" can't be authentic because there are no melted clocks in nature.

Amazing. But I imagine it's possible that some "specialist" will come along some day and make sense out of all this, although I doubt very much if the conclusions would bear any resemblence to what's been said up to this point.

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

Ultimately it makes no difference how many wrong arguments people make, or how many formations are alleged to be artificial, only whether some turn out to be be artificial. I can go to sci.astro and find as many crackpots claiming Einstein was wrong, but that doesn't invalidate physics, only that science often slowly climbs out of the pit of superstition and irrationality. I'm not accusing the poster above of being irrational, but in general terms this happens in every science.

I don't really have a criteria of faces in general, because we don't know how humanoid hypothetical aliens. However if faces tend to be associated with formations that are arguably not explainable geologically then they are likely to be faces.

I think there are plenty of qualified scientists looking at this right now, for example in SPSR. Also I suspect NASA is reimaging the Cydonia face because a small group are taking it seriously.

The thing is, people really have no clear theory yet as to what aliens might have been doing, so since there is no real overall theory to fit evidence into it becomes much harder to avoid misconceptions. I tend to think we are looking at, if artificial, evidence of some terraforming and settlement 300 or more million years ago for a short time. It may also be that this settlement followed a path of polar wander because formations may relate to 3 different pole positions all different from the current pole.

But it took me many years to even come up with a tentative theory beyond a few enigmatic faces, and even now it may well all be natural. However I do see a strong pattern now, and if real is making it much easier.