My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Let's take a look at the newest, highest resolution HiRise image of the Famous Cydonia Face. The landform is huge, so I start at 5%. This was a Public Requested image, so it's pretty much a photo from directly above, 300km away.

<b>PART 1</b>

This is the link: www.uahirise.org/PSP_003234_2210

At 5%:



10%:



<b>Some features at 25%:</b>

The West (original) Eye:



The next image below is the flat lands just off the Mesa to the West. This is something, to my knowledge, nobody has ever done before. At least not in this detail. I show this to show the overall texture of the land in the area of the Face. This is important because much was made of the "mottling" just under the west eye. In Neil's view, the texture under the eye was more evidence of an intelligent hand in artistic technique. Neil believed this to be an example of a higher level of detailed proof that the Face was artificial. But if you look at the surrounding area, you see that it's all like that.

One of the major tenets of pareidolia (modern) is that if feature is totally different than the surrounding area, it's less likely to be pareidolia, and has a greater chance of being artificial. As you can see here, that mottling is common place, and it's highly likely that it's a natural feature of the landscape. Notice how the mottling is identical to the area below the West Eye, totally ruling out "artistic technique".

Off the Mesa to the West (25%):



Next is the much ballyhooed "Predicted East Eye", still at 25%:



<b>What eye??</b> I can't begin to tell you how many times, in how many different ways, some of us said those words, "what eye?" There were all these diagrams predicting where the eye was supposed to be, and then in subsequent MOC images there were drawings showing the so-called predicted east eye. But I never saw it, and in this image I still don't see it. In reality, I say it's not there.

(to be continued)

rd

Thank you Rich,

***

Can you do a 1%, and/or a 0.1%?

To put the face into a larger context? (I realize that the original image may not allow this.)

<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 />
Thank you Rich,

***

Can you do a 1%, and/or a 0.1%?

To put the face into a larger context? (I realize that the original image may not allow this.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is 1% magnification and is the smallest it will go:



Larry, if you were asking to see a wider context, I can't do that since this is the whole image capture by HiRise and there is no other in the area.

White Box is Suggestion.
Red Box is www.uahirise.org/PSP_003234_2210
Blue are all the MOC images that were done over the years.



As you can see, this is the only HiRise of the area.

rd

Oh well ...

I don't suppose they have done any low angle (45 degree or so) shots that might allow us to verify any of Tom's claims about the 3D nature of this (pile of stuff)?

<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 />Oh well ...

I don't suppose they have done any low angle (45 degree or so) shots that might allow us to verify any of Tom's claims about the 3D nature of this (pile of stuff)?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think there's any question about the 3D nature of this stuff.

Here's a mesa in the neighborhood (need blue/red 3D glasses):



Here's the link:

www.uahirise.org/PSP_010143_2215

rd

For those not familiar with the computer generated "Kelly" Face (by computer specialist Mark Kelly) this paper documents that chapter of the Cydonia Face tale:

www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/newface.htm

This image is the current one from HiRise www.uahirise.org/PSP_003234_2210 The image is rotated to make the face upright, magnification is 10% of the original data, and contrast and brightness was adjusted slightly to make the east side of the face appear to have the same relative contrast and brightness of the west side.



I find it interesting after all these years of speculation on the face, that nobody to date has attempted to use this, the most detailed image of the Face, to corroborate the original theory. If you look at the link posted at the top of this message, you'll see all the details that were speculated to be there back when this image wasn't available. I submit that this current image is the "make or break" of the Cydonia Face mystery, and in my opinion it totally falsifies the <b>a priori </b> predictions of secondary features that weren't available in the original 1976 Face image.

Based on this image alone, anyone predicting an eastern eye, mouth, eyebrow, or headdress would have to admit they are not there.

In my opinion, the face is dead. Long live the face.



rd