My pareidolia knows no bounds.

rd- i think it's great what you're doing. Nothing like getting beyond science, beyond art, beyond separation of inerior unconscious and what dualists call the external world; beyond words and into first hand experience. One, i hope minor correction, the board i use is 30"x40" (not 20"x30" as i believe i previously inadvertently and erroneously stated).

Tom- The thing to be learned is that these faces are common, detailed can be predicted "a priori" and they are pareidolia not man made, and can be captured by anyone. It seems to detract from the artificiality hypothesis of Martian phenomena of similar appearance.

Although this thread of patchy web-like faces was entertaining at first, it has run for far too long and I can’t understand why the membership here has invested so much bandwidth in such a discussion.

This entire thread has become an exercise in futility. Looking for faces in bushes and trees, I agree, can be fun but it has nothing to do with digital images of the Cydonia Face or the tendency of certain geological formations to project “generic” facial profiles.

This idea of “searching” for faces in bushes and trees and equating it to finding “faces” on Mars is a faulty premise – from the start. Walking around your back yard or through a Park pocking your head in and out of trees and all around the thick foliage and pulling off leafs and branches and tilting your head, just right, in an effort to create the precise arrangement of leafs, branches and empty sky is not a natural observation. It’s what we call a stages photograph. All pareidoliac has created here are patchy web-like faces that have no real detail.

These abstract “faces” are made up of angular patches of black and white shapes and lines that only project the most general suggestions of an eye (by a dot or an almond shaped leaf), a nose (by a hook branch) or a mouth (by a simple line) that are set within an overlapping field of fragmented patterns. When looking at these so-called “portraits” you can’t escape the sense that the viewer is aware that they are seeing a jagged “face” mixed within a fragmented picture plane, much like an abstract painting. It’s nothing extraordinary.

Furthermore, due to the optical nature of a small forest or a few trees arranged in an expansive filed with adjoining foliage from other trees and branches, poles, cable wire etc. – you are able to angle your viewing lens “just right” in order to create a portrait of just about anything - maybe even one of T.V.F.

This is all really silly and I haven’t even suggested the possibility that these images could have been “tweaked” in the dark room (or with PaintShop Pro).


Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />This entire thread has become an exercise in futility. Looking for faces in bushes and trees, I agree, can be fun but it has nothing to do with digital images of the Cydonia Face or the tendency of certain geological formations to project “generic” facial profiles. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. I wouldn't have invested so much time in it, if I didn't.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This idea of “searching” for faces in bushes and trees and equating it to finding “faces” on Mars is a faulty premise – from the start. Walking around your back yard or through a Park pocking your head in and out of trees and all around the thick foliage and pulling off leafs and branches and tilting your head, just right, in an effort to create the precise arrangement of leafs, branches and empty sky is not a natural observation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's because you're operating on a misconception. True, I first started out taking pictures of the trees, themselves. While this has a certain validity, I was missing the point. Really, all one has to do is intercept the shadow with a board.....and wait, and move the board....and wait. And, nobody was ever "pulling on leaves and branches." So, the reality of it, it is NOT staged photography, it is an observation of a natural phenomenon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> All pareidoliac has created here are patchy web-like faces that have no real detail.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Aside from maybe the Cydonia Eye, have we really seen any "real detail"? What is the "real detail" in Skullface, or just about anything else we've seen here. You start to really zoom in (if you can) and what "real detail" are you talking about. That's my whole point. Sure Fred's photos only have suggestions of features, but when the mind's eye fuses them (I have a couple already that blow me away), they are as real and detailed as anything we see in our normal lives. Do the details go away, if you zoom in on it? Yes, of course, but they're pareidolia. So what?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These abstract “faces” are made up of angular patches of black and white shapes and lines that only project the most general suggestions of an eye (by a dot or an almond shaped leaf), a nose (by a hook branch) or a mouth (by a simple line) that are set within an overlapping field of fragmented patterns. ..... It’s nothing extraordinary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> See previous answer. And you're missing the point. At the risk of repeating Fred's mantra, you really have to try it to appreciate it. Sometimes there are so many faces that you can't separate them out.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> you are able to angle your viewing lens “just right” in order to create a portrait of just about anything - maybe even one of T.V.F. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Forget the trees, we're now just talking about shadows intercepted by a board. But, you're right. Like Fred said, he might be able to capture "The Last Supper".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is all really silly and I haven’t even suggested the possibility that these images could have been “tweaked” in the dark room (or with PaintShop Pro). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To each his own. My biggest concern now, is do I want to bother trying to convince anybody. Judging from Tom's last remarks, I wouldn't exactly say he (or now you, and I already know Neil) are in the right frame of mind.

One has to be gazing, just like with the original Skullface, willing to accept that they are there. Otherwise, it would be like trying to get my friends back east interested in viewing the so-called Martian Art. Their response to me is always, "no that's ok."

The whole point is that given the right combination of spacial detail, that's abundant in nature, our minds can fuse faces out of the detail. Very easily. Going to the next step, showing them to others is a little harder, because some people are open, some aren't. Same for pareidolia, or Martian faces. It works both ways. Some want to analyze them, some take them at face value.

Incidentally Zip Monster, thanks for at least not having "suggested the possibility that these images could have been “tweaked” in the dark room (or with PaintShop Pro). " That part of the discussion has become tiresome.
rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />One, i hope minor correction, the board i use is 30"x40" (not 20"x30" as i believe i previously inadvertently and erroneously stated).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Fred, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I can see how that might be better. That's only 5 bucks, so don't worry about it. I'll get one today.

rd

rd- Just thought i'd add this tip in case you haven't discovered it yet. It's generally best to look for highly dappled areas of light and shadow,(many light arears and many dark, seen right on the ground, before intercepting them with the board), as opposed to areas with few light and dark areas. Also when the shadows look un-stretched or un-distorted is better, than when there is a skewed look to the shadows. i glue a thin piece of wood to the back of the foam board, drill a small hole in it, and glue a tripod screw in receptor (female) into it. That way the board screws into the tripod just the way a camera would. The 30" x 40" board is readily available and isn't so big as to get un-manageable. Don't let the skeptics get to you. "many are called, but few are choosen." LOL? fred.