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 jrich</i>
<br />Better to simply argue that artistic intent is irrelevent. Instead, by providing a plausible intent, are you not implying that it *is* relevent?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Possible astistic intentions have two relevances:
(1) They refute the argument that no reasonable intent can be imagined, so artificiality is not plausible.
(2) Given artificiality, a sampling of plausible creation scenarios helps us narrow the possible origins, which becomes the central question on our minds once we get past the artificiality issue.

Artistic intent is not relevant to deciding the artificiality issue, which is where you currently are. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now in the case of the "Clown" and his ensemble, they probably are "right side up" to some degree, (depending on the slope of the cliff wall), becuse they seem to be located at the base of the cliff wall of the chasma. That would be a good MOLA investigation for someone to undertake. [Neil]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In re-reading my statement here I can see that this is a little misleading, so I want to reformulate it. Here are 2 mattes of the clown posted again the same as previosly. The first is taken from almost directly overhead and the second from a camera angle of around 17 deg. from the perpendicular.





If we assumed that the faces were etched or "painted" on level ground, then it would be fairly easy to calculate what both faces should look like when viewed "straight on" (i.e. from directly above).

But the Clown mosaic seems to be on the Chasma wall near its base, therefore (if that is true) then without knowing the slope of the wall in the area of the face (for example it could be 5 deg. or 30 deg.), we don't know exactly what the face would look like when viewed "straight on." That was why I said this would be a good subject for a hi-res MOLA study.

Neil

Here are some new ones.

M1301494, south oriented, "African King," he is looking right at "Lovers" in that strip, and at the same scale.



King in tint and matte.



M12022412, north oriented, "Bill and Chelsea." This image is fairly close to the "Clown" mosaic, and forms a mosaic of its own, (not shown), apparently on the wall base or floor of the Chasma.



B & C in tint.



And in Matte



I just noticed that instead of a little girl snuggled in profile under "Bill's" chin, you can also see an older woman looking at us full face. Had I seen that earlier I would have given the picture a different name.

Neil

Just for the record. I want to show a type of commonly seen "face" on Mars, the kind of thing that led several well meaning folks to believe that Mars was a "planet of faces." The fact that the mind can play tricks is evident here. The MSSS context images are replete with such "faces." But they turn out to be nothing at all.

Possible "face." From E0401975 south oriented.



Partial Zoom-in.



Reality check.



Neil

Awhile back I posted a possible face M2100050, "Ugly Woman," with the complaint that perhaps someone from JPL/MSSS blocked out the baby being held up by UW, and that this (if true) would be a good test of artificiality. Well, admittedly, that was a bit of loose thinking, because if true, it would mearly have demonstrated that what looked like a "baby" had been covered up, for whatever unknown reason.



In any event, the prediction was probably wrong. In the uncovered image below, it looks like pets or puppets being held up by UW. Judging by the detail below the block however, one of the "pets" is still off screen to the left (and could still be the "baby.") But there is sufficient detail here for me to consider this a possible art work and post it as part of this project.

Here is E1600680, "Ugly Woman with Pets."



"Pets" cropped.



And tinted.



And as a comparison to the previous post, here's a close-up of UW's eyes. One eye is clearly visible with eyelid, outline, white, and iris, (and remains visible down to pixel degredation). The other eye is just barely visible under debris or as a result of damage.



Damaged eye hilighted.



Neil

I should remind readers (again), that this is a <b><i>preliminary investigation</i></b>. I am using the data (MSSS images) and tools (computers, and my ability to reason), to make my case. No one is sayng that they are positive of artificiality in any given case, only that certain faces look more (or less) artificial than others--and why. The opposition behaves as though they are positive that there is no artificiality because they never grant the possibility in any case. Others have no objective criteria at all, but only emotions to go by, as is evident from the content of their arguments. But I will leave them to their own confusion.

For reasons I won't go into here, I now trust the MSSS images to be for the most part, accurate renditions of what's really on Mars. All I am asking is that further research be done.

I know it is possible to imagine "faces," and all sorts of other things. I also know that as humans, we have a very highly developed inate ability to recognize the real thing when we see it. But in cases such as this, (looking at images from Mars) the doubts are much higher than they would be "face to face."

Time will tell who is right. I will continue with this project a little longer.

Neil