My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 />BTW, there are at least two higher resolution images of the Cydonia face than the 2001 image Tom Posted; they are E2001532 (west side of face, in which you can see some good detail of the eye) at 1.63 m/p, and E1501347 (damaged east side of face, in which you can better see the nature of the melt and the fissure/cracks) also at 1.63 meters. For example, you can see that the melt inside the east eye socket is probably not an "iris" but is just a round melt.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See Page 10. Those are the two I used.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Incidentally, I have no problem with the slight misalignment rd pointed, out for two reasons; 1- whoever said an artist has to precisely line everything up? 2- a catastrophic impact and meltdown is bound to knock things out of line a little--one would think..Neil
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I was showing inconsistencies in Kelly's claim. If someone says, "x, y, and z, are located in such and such a place", and then goes to all the trouble to make an animation, one would think that would be taken seriously in subsequent images. Using the best image available, I showed they are not in such and such a place. Everybody can choose to ingore that point, but in my observation those are critical flaws in the theory.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> was showing inconsistencies in Kelly's claim. If someone says, "x, y, and z, are located in such and such a place", and then goes to all the trouble to make an animation, one would think that would be taken seriously in subsequent images. Using the best image available, I showed they are not in such and such a place. Everybody can choose to ignore that point, but in my observation those are critical flaws in the theory. [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Possibly critical flaws, but I think minor. Let's think context here for a minute. The scientific mind and scientific world feels compelled to make a formal model and to quantify it, and this is of course as it should be. But one should never lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with hypothetical constructs. They are used to 1- provide evidence for such and such a theory, 2- demonstrate or "prove" to varying degrees of confidence that the theory is valid.

My personal feeling is that the various demonstrations for the Cydonia face are reasonably good but not infallible. They are used to build a case based on a preponderance of evidence which will be ongoing and of long duration and will eventually include many other faces. But one should not make the logical (or rather illogical) leap of concluding that since the process has not yet drawn to a conclusion--is actually barely begun, that one should jump to the far more indefensible conclusion that all is illusion and tricks of the mind.

Why even Fred, who is presumably and expert in the field of optical illusions, when he first saw the image of the Profile girl, intimated that it was only mediocre art, (thus implying that it was real) and hinted in such strong political words to the effect that there must be an official conspiracy. Most readers probably did not pick up on this little tidbit, and unfortunately Larry B unceremoniously deleted the post, so it is now impossible to refer to it (unless Larry saved it).

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</i>
<br />It's funny how not-so-drastically different such a line would be on the 2001 image shown here, without your line to bias the eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bias is in the eye of the other beholder. I thought I was presenting evidence.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The odds against those predictions coming true by chance for all 16 <i>a priori</i> predictions made are 1000 billion billion to one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes that's true, but only IF (and it's a big if) we buy the premise that those features are really there.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> our goals for the east side image were confirmation of the east eyebrow, eye socket, and iris. Those were all confirmed, and quite precisely located in mirror-perfect positions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">???
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now, given the melt flow or similar hypothesis, we can readily see that the east side mouth feature is present, and is just as long as the west side feature, but is slightly displaced to the north and west, presumably by the impact. Look closely at the above rendering. It is easy to see what is foreign (melt flow material) and what is native to the mesa. And the foreign substance is all that stands in the way of perfect bilateral symmetry<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Now I can see that you're saying the middle of the mouth is somewhere other than what I thought it was. But if true, there is nothing symetrical about this face with reference to the mesa. I suppose that's possible, but all this stuff seem very convenient to me.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Note also how barren the surroundings are, with the mesa an anomaly apparently dedicated to the Face. Contrast this with your Mt. Rainer pictures, where the noisy background allows one to find numerous faces. There is no noisy background for the Cydonia Face mesa. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I'll grant you that, but that alone is not enough to dispel the pareidolia theory of the face. That type of face is a dime a dozen, and once you get it into your head that it's there, it's very difficult to get it out again. It does't need a noisy background.

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 />But one should not make the logical (or rather illogical) leap of concluding that since the process has not yet drawn to a conclusion--is actually barely begun, that one should jump to the far more indefensible conclusion that all is illusion and tricks of the mind.Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Everything is based on the senses. Maybe you were busy and didn't have chance to read some of the earlier messages, so I'm going to repost a message from Page 10 here:

Start of Page 10 post:
Ok, here's another one. This is the 2002 image www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E15/E1501347.html
which is at 18 deg emission angle, and the highest resolution at 1.63m/p. This is one of the images Neil and I used in the investigation of the crack on the east side. We're pretty much looking straight down on it.

Again, this was from the raw data, saved as an *img file to NasaView, with gifs and jpgs made from Nasaview.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to where the mouth and nose and area above the upper lip (what did Fred say that was called?) is? Or anything, for that matter?

It's no wonder to me that mainstream science has ruled that (paraphrasing) "upon further investigation the Cydonia face was found to be a pile of rocks", and that they still use the original 1978 Face as an example of pareidolia. The simple kind.

rd
End of Page 10 Post

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Start of Page 10 post:
Ok, here's another one. This is the 2002 image www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E15/E1501347.html
which is at 18 deg emission angle, and the highest resolution at 1.63m/p. This is one of the images Neil and I used in the investigation of the crack on the east side. We're pretty much looking straight down on it. [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's no wonder to me that mainstream science has ruled that (paraphrasing) "upon further investigation the Cydonia face was found to be a pile of rocks", and that they still use the original 1978 Face as an example of pareidolia. The simple kind.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The logical leaps in this post are astounding [Larry, Mark, and Tom, am I allowed to say that? I don't really know anymore, as we become more and more deeply mired in confusion here, my choice is either to ignore it all or risk getting "into trouble" with the powers that be.]

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 />my choice is either to ignore it all or .....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Anyone care to venture a guess as to where the mouth and nose and area above the upper lip (what did Fred say that was called?) is? Or anything, for that matter? In E1501347 just posted. That's really all there is to it.



rd