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 pareidoliac</i>
<br />rd- The "ear," would be a stretch for me as, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fred, you're right, forget the ear. I just blew up the Meph diagram to take a closer look and he does have an ear that I didn't see. That would make what I thought was a "pointy Spock ear" just part of the Hair or Hat. So, I'd say 13 or 15 depending upon how we break down the eyes, and not break up the mouth into many parts.


rd

Hmmm ... anyone reading Sitchin, "The lost book of ENKI"?

<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 />counting features method of enumerating the degree of detail found in pareidolia. {Fred Ressler}<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fred, this is what I get from your post. Let us know if I got anything wrong.

1. Count all features that can be named or described, starting with the primary face or feature.
2. Count features in all secondary faces or objects in the vicinity of the primary feature. These will be added to the total.
3. On the issue of counting tertiary features like "whites of eyes", if you're going to count the tertiary features, you can't count the feature that it's a part of (in this case, the eye).
4. Corroboration by others is required, or conversely, a feature can be "nixed" by consensus (I'm sure there are many possible variations here).
5. Anomalies like scratches and dust spots on the photographic media are excluded.
6. Minimize counts. For instance count "hair", not individual hairs.
7. Repetitive scenes should not add to the total. For instance, one smiley face may count as 4 features, but 2 smiley faces might only count as 2 features (see 6).

The "Total Count" is the measure of the degree of detail in the pareidolic image.

rd

rd- The first 5 are very good. There might be some exceptions and subjectivity with 6 and 7.
With 6. Let's say one found 10 countable eyelashes? i've never run across it but it could happen! It sure would be impressive enough to me, to let it possibly be counted.
With 7. One could count simple repetative sceens and features but personally, i wouldn't give it the weight of one highly detailed single image.
i guess for 6 and 7 some Gestalt or overall factoring weight bias could be added. To me this is where science is shown to falter. i don't believe in total objectivity and Descartian grids applied to everything. Some things can't be perfectly quantified. Maybe this is one of the things that pareidolia is here to show us. So for 6 and 7 i would say the "rarity" or "phenomenality" would be the over riding criteria. i guess features can be counted, but there is usually a (+/-)% factor to be considered.
If Martians made art, perhaps they played music. Maybe NASA could see if any left over sounds left impressions in the minerals there.

Fred, that's not bad, though, for the first 5 to be fairly concrete, and say 6 and 7 having a subjective qualifier like: "Except in rare or phenomenal cases where there is agreement, then 6, then 7".

All things considered, I'd say that's a pretty sound system. It certainly beats government work!

I know you're half kidding about the music, but you have a point. If there are thousands of faces all over the landscape, you'd think there would be other types of artistic artifacts yet to be found, like musical scores etched into the landscape, or something of that nature.

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 there is no "elaborate detail" of the kind I have described elsewhere<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">While I can appreciate the point you are attempting to make, and admit it has a certain amount of validity, I think you are missing the opportunity to make the real point of this whole thread, by doing the wrong comparison. If you did the right comparison, I think you'd find that Mephistopheles is considerably more "elaborate" than a large number of the "faces" that you've posted as candidates for artificiality. That's the point I've been making for months. As a matter of fact, I think your "Pareidolic Face" is more elaborate than many of the artificial candidates.

P.S. Look at the eyes of the Mean Looking Guy under Meph in the context image. I'll do a key, if you can't see him.

rd