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 neilderosa</i>
<br />I found a corroborating image for this 2km wide face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have to admit that she's impressive once you see her.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Had I made the right predictions, which I didn't, they may have been succesfully fulfilled.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The test does not depend so much on the literal speaking or writing of predictions in advance, as it does on broad consensus of believers, neutrals, and skeptics that the predictions are obvious and could have been made by almost anyone in advance. For example, you might have predicted a dimple, and a dimple might have shown up. But if others do not see the obvious necessity of the prediction, it doesn't count. And vice versa. If there was obvious necessity, it counts even if no one made the prediction out loud.

In the case of Barbara, I don't see any obvious necessity that was confirmed by the second image. But given the already impressive "crowned face" right there <i>in her head</i> (as if she were dreaming of him), we have the beginnings of a context with a relationship.

However, we are all just feeling our way along here. Given artificiality elsewhere, I can accept "crowned face" and "Barbara" as legitimate flat art. But I don't yet see a way for them to stand on their own as artificial. Does anybody?

I would be very appreciative to hear from all of you about where you personally stand on this issue, and why. Is it all pareidolia? Is it all flat art? Is it some of each? And how do you judge the difference? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it all pareidolia? Is it all flat art? Is it some of each? And how do you judge the difference? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'd like a shot at answering these questions, but at this point I think it should be done carefully, in a way that is easy to understand and is believable, but it will take some time to do. In the meantime I want to lay out a little more evidence.

As anyone who's paying attention can see, I left the "Chasmas" to go to Lybia Montes, but I'll go back soon. Most of the good faces I found in proximity to Crownface, (which is located on the opposite side of the globe from the Valles Marineris system, but at a similar latitude), were on the same bank or slope of the same dry river bed as crownface, in fact quite near. NASA calls this river bed a "valley," which is true, but the valley seems obviously to have been made by running water. I think this is significant and should play a role in any model concerning the purpose of the faces.

Here's another face from M0303483. There were others, but this one was the easiest to see. I hope you can see it without a key. We'll call him "Alex." He's in profile to our right. Although resolution is limited (4.33 m/p) the eye is well defined, showing outline, iris and lid; the nose is well formed. He has classical greek features, including strong chin, angular brows, thin mouth, and straight forehead. He's around 416 meters wide measured with a ruler. And I forgot to mention that like the Crownface, he is south oriented.



Here's a possible artifical structure, the small apparently upright white structures are around house-size, or the size of small buildings. The camera (emission) angle is 18 deg. from the perpendicular, so the upright appearance is feasable. It's on the bank or shore of the same "river," like a power generating facility of some kind. Here is E1100360, "Facility." The structure nearest us looks cylindrical with a wider cylinder at its base and a possible domed roof.



Here's a close up to the limit of pixelation.



Neil

I neglected to say that the image of the "facility" I posted is south oriented. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the spacecraft camera was at 381 km altitude, and 113 km north of the image center, which it was, then this is how the "facility" would look to an observer on the spacecraft (telescopic view of course).



Here are some acquisition parameters:

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/images/E11/E1100360.html

Longitude of image center: 275.49°W
Latitude of image center: 2.72°N
Scaled pixel width: 6.09 meters
Scaled image width: 3.11 km
Scaled image height: 73.18 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 283.42°
Local True Solar Time: 13.58 decimal hours
Emission angle: 18.02°
Incidence angle: 35.69°
Phase angle: 50.33°
North azimuth: 93.10°
Sun azimuth: 312.14°
Spacecraft altitude: 387.01 km
Slant distance: 404.76 km

To which I'll add:
Spacecraft Longitude: 275.59W
Spacecraft Latitude: 4.64N

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern 30 Jul 2006 : 15:40</i>
Faces of the Chasmas; Pareidolia, or artificial art?
I would be very appreciative to hear from all of you about where you personally stand on this issue, and why. Is it all pareidolia? Is it all flat art? Is it some of each? And how do you judge the difference? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I have been, pretty much, keeping up on this string and I can appreciate all the efforts put fourth by all involved. I do feel that there is evidence of humanoid occupation of Mars, However, all the images being depicted in this string are, in my modest opinion, pareidolia of natural cause. I would even go so far as to say it is flat art of natural causes. But there is nothing I have seen so far, in this string, that I would consider artificial. How is it that I make that judgement you ask? Symmetry! Not the symmetry of eyes, ears, nose or mouth but the symmetry of the outline of the images. If the images were of artificial construction the outline of the images would either be the result of digging (or chiseling) or by mounding and therefor the curvature of the outlining would be smother and be more well defined with little need for a “key”. I admit that not all images need a key but they all need to be “looked” at. There are no stark features that stand out from the surrounding landscape. The one single predictable feature that should be found in at least one of the images is a path, or trail, leading to the image. I suggest that the images were constructed over a period of time, the result being a trail leading to the image. The starting point, or trails end, for an artificial image of those depicted would be the lower rear of the image (not) the lower rear of the photograph. You might ask a professional artist, a painter preferably, for their opinion. Otherwise I think everyone has done a stand up job.
thebobgy

Suppose that the entire point of this phase or period of Martian art was to make images that looked so much like natural accidents that no one (no other Martian) could point to any evidence that the art was not natural.

The evidence so far suggests that they came very close to succeeding.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Suppose that the entire point of this phase or period of Martian art was to make images that looked so much like natural accidents that no one (no other Martian) could point to any evidence that the art was not natural.

The evidence so far suggests that they came very close to succeeding.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course! <i>(hand slapping forehead)</i>

Those damn Martians were sick puppies.

JR