Faces from the Chasmas

Re: "Phil," That's why Tom calls this an "evolving paradigm." As we get better imaging we will know more.

Re: Trinket. You and I may well be a minority of two. But I suspect there are lots of readers who agree with us at least to some degree. As the paradigm evolves, and if we keep our wits about us, more will see what we see as time goes by.

Neil

Perhaps the Meta Research advisory board should have named the category in which I have busied myself for the past months, “Possible Artificial Structures on Mars,” the present title being a little too positive and presumptuous in my opinion. Nonetheless, it gives me tacit permission to make my best guesses that fit this category.

I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed “proof,” for any of my possible structures, preferring words like “evidence” or “compelling evidence.” We have at present a set of data which can be considered as quite reliable, although limited, and sometimes containing mistakes. But this is true of all data. I’m referring of course to the NASA/JPL images in the MSSS gallery, and its offshoots at other websites. There is nothing wrong with taking this data and using it to build a case. Sometimes the case can be quite good and other times it is very limited and tentative. More and better imaging will make the case better, and better still will be on the ground investigation. But this is an ongoing process, as is any acquisition of knowledge.

I disagree with the notion that we can not evaluate the data on the basis of what it “looks like.” This is done in science all the time. In paleoantropology for example, a century of specimens have been gathered and compared on the basis of what they look like. They are then classified by means of similarities and differences to known species or hypothetical new species, or known extinct species. It is an ongoing process and eventually a paradigm evolves. Measurement and statistical tools are important also as they can confirm or refute what something “looks like,” confirm the time period, the strata, and so on.

We are at the beginning of such a process now in our analysis of possible artificial structures on Mars. Our “specimens” are the 200,000 MGS images at our disposal, plus others that came before them and others to come. Should we ignore this data on the assumption that there “can’t be” any such structures, or that we must “go there” before we can start investigating the subject? I agree we must go there but in the meantime this is what we have.

With the board’s permission, I intend to continue to build a case to the best of my ability, using this forum. Where it goes from there is out of my hands.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Later I'll tell why I think my theory is a falsifiable hypothesis, and not simply fantasy. [Neil]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The image in which the south oreiented "Crownface" and the new north oriented overlay image (which I'll call "Barbara") are contained is labeled by MSSS "M02-03051 several crossings of a winding valley in Libya Montes." The "winding valley" appears to have once contained water. You can see the ripples (moving from left to right through the center of the image) apparently from the last water flow--perhaps from the water dump proposed in Tom's 3.2 Ma EPH event. Here's Barbara in context on the bank of the dry river bed. The ripple forms the "part" in her hairline. The outline of her head (start from ripple and move down to right) also forms the jaw and chin of the inverted Crownface. Perhaps the continuation of the head/hair outline was interupted by the ripple, which formed possibly the last time water flowed. An apriori prediction would be to see if the etched outline continues through, or under, the sediment of the ripple, upon closer examination. The etched continuation of the head/hair outline as well as the wavy ripples of Barbara's hair (as well as Crownface) are on the south bank of the river bed.




Here's a crop of the same outline. The ripple and the inverted Crownface are more easily visible.



This crop of Barbara's eye and nose area shows several markings which may have been etched to form the eyes, irises, brows, and nose.



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 />I disagree with the notion that we can not evaluate the data on the basis of what it “looks like.”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Once again, I must stop you and point out that there are two different purposes at work here. One is proving artificiality without reference to anything else. That is where most people are coming from. And for that purpose, there must be no subjectivity to the analysis, so most of your findings do not qualify, and "what something looks like" is too subjective to be considered. You should not allow yourself to be drawn into arguments about whether or not any of this "proves artificiality". It doesn't, and no amount of a posteriori coincidence can change that.

The other purpose is figuring out functionality, given proved artificiality elsewhere on Mars. For that goal, "what something looks like" is important. I previously suggested that you remind everyone of this frequently. You might need to remind yourself of that too. If your images required anything stronger than "more likely artificial than natural" on a planet with lots of proved artificiality, they could not stand up to scrutiny.

I was also hoping that these many threads would help to develop some objective criteria for "real" vs. "pareidolic", something which is sadly lacking right now. Without some degree of objectivity, the features will remain the objects of scornful reproach by skeptics. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there must be no subjectivity to the analysis, so most of your findings do not qualify, and "what something looks like" is too subjective to be considered. [Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Could you please repeat for the record which objects on Mars have proven artificiality associated with them. Also could you give us the difininitive study or studies in which this was done.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You should not allow yourself to be drawn into arguments about whether or not any of this "proves artificiality". It doesn't, and no amount of a posteriori coincidence can change that. [Tom]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again, I don't claim to be proving anything, only building a case based on a preponderence of evidence. I read more than once, your 2001 preliminary analysis for the face at Cydonia. It seems to me that similar analyses could be done for many of the faces I have posted recently, although that is not my forte; I'll leave it to someone else.

The analysis made by JP Levassseur on the Profile Image made no apriori predictions or discoveries, but it seemed like an important paper in other ways, in particular by layng out the difference betwen a real representation of a face, and known cases of pareidolia.

Several of my specimens or exhibits seem to pass muster on the criteria you and he laid out in this regard, and have included apriori predictions which further imaging will verify or refute. A few have been corroborated by two or more MGS images and sometimes at much higher resolution, showing further detail that supports the hypothesis. And many look realistic, in the same way as when I look at another person's face it looks realistic, in my opinion, and I might add, in the same way that the Cydonia face "looked" like a face after the first Viking images came in, thereby inspiring further study. All I'm trying to do is to inspire further study, in the same way for the same reasons.

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 />Could you please repeat for the record which objects on Mars have proven artificiality associated with them. Also could you give us the definitive study or studies in which this was done.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See spsr.utsi.edu/ and click link to "peer-reviewed journal publications", then scan down list to: "Evidence of Planetary Artifacts" by T. Van Flandern, M. Carlotto, H. Crater, J. Erjavec, L. Fleming, J.P. Levasseur, originally published in Infinite Energy 7, #40, 23-31 (2001).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't claim to be proving anything, only building a case based on a preponderence of evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We are not communicating. Subjective appearances cannot be used as part of a case for absolute artificiality (meaning independent of other artificiality). It is not a case of building enough of it because each instance adds zero to the total, not some small number that can accumulate. A posteriori findings per se can never be used to build a case for absolute artificiality, even at odds against change of 10^68-to-1 (as in a recent example I gave).

The value of your work is toward understanding functionality, given absolute artificiality elsewhere. So the only thing you have to argue is that a feature is more likely to be another artifact than to be of natural origin. The operative word here is "another", because without proven artificiality elsewhere, pereidolia becomes the most probable explanation for all the faetures, which is indeed the opinion of most of the professional world. For that matter, IMO, it is the most probable explanation for some of the features even when artificiality is an active prospect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I read more than once, your 2001 preliminary analysis for the face at Cydonia. It seems to me that similar analyses could be done for many of the faces I have posted recently, although that is not my forte; I'll leave it to someone else.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That 2001 analysis was attempting to understand the history and origin of the Cydonia Face in the context of already proven artificiality. It bolstered some earlier a priori prediction arguments, then went on to discuss context and relationships. None of that can be done for many of the faces you have posted. At best, you can use them to make predictions of possible future findings. For example, in many cases, if color images provide context-specific colors (such as appropriate colors for eyes, lips, and flesh tones) where we now have only shades of gray, that would be very persuasive.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The analysis made by JP Levassseur on the Profile Image made no apriori predictions or discoveries, but it seemed like an important paper in other ways, in particular by laying out the difference betwen a real representation of a face, and known cases of pareidolia.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the best study we have of pareidolia and how to avoid it. In what way have you applied the lessons of that article?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All I'm trying to do is to inspire further study, in the same way for the same reasons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Does it matter to you that, when you cannot provide objective criteria, that tends to turn off many (most?) people and discourage further study? -|Tom|-