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 Trinket</i>
<br />The truth of the matter is the art is meant to be seen from ?

a)the sky
b)the right
c)the left
d)In all dimensions of rotation as well..

....But you seem to make progress daily so I'm still happy<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Trinket, while I'll admit a certain fascination with some of the images you've posted, I see no reason why you couch your messages in riddles. Is there some reason why you can't just tell us what your point is? You say that the images can be seen from all dimensions of rotation. Why not take a simple example, and lay it out for us. It makes no sense to just present a riddle. Nobody takes that kind of thing seriously.

The whole point of these message boards is to communicate ideas, not to see how mysterious we can be.

rd

<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 />The original Skullface image strip has a pixel resolution of 4.56m/pixel ... The high resolution image strip has a pixel resolution of 3.08m/pixel, or roughly better by one third.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay, so resolution is not an important factor in explaining any differences.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When you consider the fact that a significant amount of the detail "seen" in AB108403, "goes away" in R1901775, we are left with the task of trying to explain that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The big difference is emission angle, which also changes the phase angle. Many images change greatly from different viewing and lighting angles. Note that neither image was taken from overhead.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the question of whether or not it really was there in the first place goes to the very heart of this topic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Personally, I have not the slightest doubts about that. Change with emission and phase angles are a sufficient explanation, so there is no need to multiply hypotheses in an anti-Occam fashion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if the "brush strokes" were smaller than 3 meters (the high res pixel width), then it wouldn't be possible for detail to go away when comparing AB108403 to R1901775.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Too many unneeded assumptions. It certainly is possible. Consider the opposition effect, in which asteroids are many times brighter when the observer is directly between Sun and asteroid than at other times. The explanation is simple: The surface is highly pitted. Light hitting the tops of pits tends to get scattered. Light that enters pits tends to get absorbed unless it is heading straight out of the pit back toward the light source.

This shows that observers can see a lot more or less light with only a few degrees of difference in viewing angle.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't see how [features] would disappear, if they were there in the first place. They might be a little harder to focus on, but they wouldn't dissappear.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They can disappear even in random geology.

But here's a perspective to help along your thought processes. Under the premise that this is artwork designed by intelligences, what generalizations can we safely make?<ul><li>The artwork we see is sky-directed. If there is artwork to be seen from the ground, we can't yet take pictures of it from a decent viewing angle.</li><li>The artwork we see is large, intended to be viewed from a distance. What distance? Features on our Moon viewed from Earth and smaller than about 100 km can't be resolved by our naked eyes. Even Phobos is too far out for viewing the Mars features. The optimum viewing distance is low orbit.</li><li>We have abundant astronomical evidence that Mars is a former moon. The kinds of features (of all kinds) we see on Mars are much more like what we will someday see on our own Moon than like what we have now on Earth.</li><li>It sems a reasonable inference that the artists were more like future humans than present-day humans because they were doing such large-scale artwork, and apparently doing it on their moon.</li><li>If the artists were more advanced technologically, it is reasonable that they would be more advanced artistically.</li><li>If the art is to be viewed from an orbiting space station, the observer's viewing perspective is continually changing because something orbiting cannot stand still. So an advanced artist would take advantage of that, and create artwork that continually changes as the observer flies over it.</li><li>The features we see in several areas appear to be parts of mosaics and complex, integrated scenes. Some of the complex features have more than one appearance. These varying appearances seem to change with viewing angles.</li></ul>The point of this outline is to show that the puzzling aspects of some of the artistic features, such as disappearing from different viewing angles, are predictable aspects of a readily imaginable scenario. If you roll with it rather than let it frustrate you, I think you will continue making good progress with your original research. -|Tom|-

When I was studying Electron Microscopy, I once asked the director to tell me if a certain sample on the microscope was, "in focus". He walked over to it, and without looking at the image turned the focus knob sharply to the left, then sharply to the right, then back. "That's in focus", he said.

Let's turn the knob to the left. Here's a tantalizing image from ESA of the entire Skullface mosaic. This captures the whole scene. Actually, I even cropped the image a little to make it smaller. The problem, though is that this is lower resolution than the 1998 image.

We can see the Japanese Lady, The Official, Skullface, The Big Fish, The Elephants, but only very blurry, since the resolution is so low. We can also see way to the left of the scene.

This is an example of an image where we can all agree that we want a closer look. It's not clear enough to develop that scenario decsribed in the beginning of the thread. I don't think anyone would find that scene at this resolution.

rd

I'd like to thank Trinket for a clear concise explanation of his position. Since I have begun my extensive survey of the east and west Candor Chasmas, I have come to appreciate his views, and his frustration, and have more respect for them. There are literally hundreds, perhaps more faces of varying "quality" (relative to our ability to discern them.) I'm going to infer that he believes that NASA MUST KNOW about all of this. If <b>I</b> know, (at least I'm fairly certain), and if Trinket knows, and if a few others strongly favor the idea, then NASA MUST KNOW that there are many clearly defined faces, and many others that are strongly suggestive.

So he believes (I'm asuming from all that he has said) that NASA can't be that incompetant, therefore they must be corrupt. But after seeing what happened to my brother recently, and watching the behavior of several others, and having long studied the subject of how most people always react to extraordinary new hypotheses, there is a much simpler explanation, much better than assuming incompetance, or corruption or conspiracies.

The truth is that it is human nature to violently resist the new and the unknown, and the profoundly radical new ideas that come around every hundred years or so. We don't even have to blame it on economic interests, (though that is certainly a factor in some instances.)

One or two faces on Mars (eg, Cydonia and the Profile Girl) was hard enough to deal with, but <b>hundreds or thousands</b>? The idea simply can not be taken in by most people, no matter how clear the evidence is. We will think of a thousand rationalizations to explain them away.

But eventually it will be common knowledge, and people will say "Of Course! We knew it all along."

That doesn't mean that everything we now think is a "face" or a "pyramid" will turn out to be so when all the facts come in. But many will 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 Trinket</i>
<br />I'm just trying to point out that if it looks like a face it probably is And the one your wife see's that you didn't thats there too..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You could be right. And thanks.

rd

<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 />Too many unneeded assumptions. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I could go through and answer all of your points, one by one, but I'm not sure that's in the best interest of the board. I'm trying to make my case, and I appreciate any and all input.

Emission angle could be all there is to it....maybe. But, again it gets back to my theme. At a high enough resolution, with good color, and good contrast, I doubt very much if that small difference would stop you from seeing what it really is.

Here's a little "non-pareidolia" check:

Cat:

rd