<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>24 Nov 2006 : 12:34
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />If the image of the Sistine Chapel were to be recreated so that it could be observed from low orbit even a floor mop might be insufficient but the fine detail could very easily be reproduced.<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">That's true, but we seem to be spiralling away from the fundamental point I was trying to make: what are the requirements for finding pareidolic faces?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Without sounding sarcastic rd, are you referring to your fundamental point being made on this thread or the point you are making to me? I have been following along for some time and I agree with your point on the thread that I read to be; ‘If you look for faces you’ll find faces. However, I read your message to me as ‘looking for pareidolia in leave less tree branches is a virtual waste of time’, and with that I disagree. If I am wrong I truly apologize but, to be wrong I obviously must have missed your point. Here is a reprint of your first message to me; posted 23 Nov 2006 : 14:39 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">thebobgy, if you mean shadows of branches without leaves, I would think that would make it significantly harder to find faces. Imagine if DaVinci tried to paint everything with a broad brush, there would be a certain level of detail that would not be attainable. Same difference. There's a certain minimum requirement for detail. The leaves provide it, for all the reasons Fred mentioned. rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As to “what are the requirements for finding pareidolic faces?” On Earth pareidolic faces would be considered artificial (natural) on Mars artificial would mean (not natural). In my honest opinion, finding pareidolic faces is in the eye of the beholder. In my numerous years here on Earth I have yet to see the “man in the Moon” face but I have little doubt others do. It is not my intent to look for faces in branch shadows; I intend to look for pareidolia, be “it” what it may. The remainder of your message I agree with. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On one end of the scale we might have a sea of sand, for instance, totally homogenous, high spatial frequency data. The chance of finding a face is twofold: slim and none. Ok, now add in a rock every 50 yards or so. That might increase the odds to: no way, no how. Then a stick every 10 yards: 1%. A shell every yard; Some crab shells; Bigger sticks; Bigger rocks: 20%. Let a few storms stir up the mess: 50%. That's all there is to it. At some combination of spatial frequency data that can be seen from whatever distance or resolution you choose to look at it, there exists an optimum combination for finding pareidolic faces. The leaves help, when we're talking about shadow faces. rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">thebobgy
