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 />Since the M1301494, "Lovers" is my post it is appropriate that I respond. I never said that possible mosaic was a "statue". If it is anything, it may be an etching of some sort, but no one has done an analysis as of yet as to how these faces were made.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here's a quote from the "Faces" topic:

"The "Lovers" are not "upside down" bro, they are on the ground facing skyward. They are merely south oriented."(Neil)

I had to read it a few times, to make sure I wasn't missing something. But, the only thing I can think of that faces skyward (and is art) is statue of some sort or another.
<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 /> Moreover, no apriori predictions were made concerning this possible mosaic, but my personal opinion is that it ranks fare to medium low as a possible artifact. What it has going for it is the detail of the buxom girl's face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was merely using "Lovers" as an example of something that was not likely to be what you thought it was, a statue. This topic is about seeing things that are random or vague. I thought it was appropriate.


<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 pareidolia is better than your pareidolia. [rd]"

This is purely an emotional statment with no cognative content.(Neil)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It goes to the very heart of the issue. My claim is that pareidolia is a personal trait, and that two or more people can view the same vague or random feature somewhat differently. In one of my early sessions, showing my wife the Profile Girl and Family in E05014298, I asked her if she agreed with what we saw. Basically, her answer was "no", but she quickly answered, "but I do see a Matador". I never posted this before, because I think it's too vague. But, to my wife, it was the clearest image on the monitor at the time. That's not the first time that happened. She never sees what I see, but always comes up with a totally different image that she sees. I think she's being tongue in cheek, but I'm not sure.
Matador:

<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>
The loose thinking in this post is mind boggling. I'm at a loss to understand it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In spite of the negative feedback I've gotten, I still believe I made a cogent argument in the Skullface example. It's true what Tom said about how the scene can be viewed differently, and that there are other theories, but I don't believe that alters the meaning of what I've said so far. Since I don't think it helps to re-state the same points over and over again, I'll leave it at that, and let each individual reader decide if I'm making a point or not.

rd

"I had to read it a few times, to make sure I wasn't missing something. But, the only thing I can think of that faces skyward (and is art) is statue of some sort or another. [rd]"

Just because that is all you can think of does not mean that is all that is possible. Take a stick and etch (scratch out) a stick figure in a sand box or on a beach. Now look at it from above. That is an etching facing skyward, not a sculpture...Unbelievable.

<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 />Take a stick and etch (scratch out) a stick figure in a sand box or on a beach. Now look at it from above. That is an etching facing skyward.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, I stand corrected on that minor point. So, replace the word "statue" with "etching" in my previous messages. That's the extent of the changes needed.

That would be a good candidate for high resolution imaging, like I said. Much would be revealed.

rd

"That would be a good candidate for high resolution imaging, like I said. Much would be revealed. [rd]"

Agreed, I have list of my top 10 in order of their (subjective) probability, that I would like to see imaged at higher resolution. But this particular one would be lower on the scale. I'm assuming that faces ranging between 100 meters and 1 km accross, should be able to show details down to maybe 1/2 meter/pixel, but I'm just guessing. We will have to experiment with the optimum detail required to reveal "artistic markings or intent." But we should agree that the image should not go POOF at any higher resolution. That would be a good indication of pareidolia.

Also I just want to say for the record that I'm pretty well conviced that there are no hackers, perhaps some (unauthorized) obfuscation occasionally, but impossible to prove. But pretty much, what you see is what is there.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Other than "Elephants", I confess total ignorance. Do you have any links?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No links -- the research is unpublished. But independent collaboration is vital, so forgive me for being a minimalist on this matter.

Say what you already know about elephamts. Depending on how much you know, I can point you in the right directions, but will avoid giving anything away just yet.

It might also be helpful to refresh on the most recent related work that <i>is</i> published: "The meaning of Cydonia", MRB 9:33-42 (2000). -|Tom|-

<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 />I'm just pointing out that you can't serve both purposes at once. Analysis of Martian imagery is a whole different game if you are trying to establish artificiality than if you are trying to reconstruct the picture left behind by artists whose existence is no longer in doubt. Decide which goal you are persuing each time you do an analysis, and state your premises clearly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The main purpose of this topic is to discuss pareidolia. That's why I started it. A sub-purpose is to show that pareidolia goes away at some level of detail. As you said, the more pixels, the better. High magnifications, and alot of data. Another sub-purpose is to show that it's personal.

I'm not sure how much I've deviated from this purpose, but you can keep telling me about it, if I do.

Regarding the elephants, I know very little. I've seen a diagram on JP Levasseur's site: marsartifacts.tripod.com/ (in the Skullface link), and some mention of how Skully is in the trunk of one of them, and that the whole West Candor Chama has an elephant's trunk, but that's about it. A couple of bits and peices in correspondences. I didn't know if anyone was actively working on a paper, but I could see how they might be. I don't know anthing about one, though.

Is it possible to get that back issue of MRB you mentioned? Can we buy them on the website?

rd