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 />It's a slippery slope to Lalla Land and pareidolia. Best to follow JP Levasseur's advice and stick to the most defensible faces. I count around 15-20 so far.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But don't you see? The slippery slope is a personal matter. This topic is the result of the slippery slope being crossed before I started it. So, it's really not fair to say Trinket is just crossing it now.

Remember my stated purpose. Here is what I've said in past messages:

"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."[rd]

"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."[rd]



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 />I would have perferred to leave the little (and immense) faces out of consideration for now, especially when they are intermingled. But my brother insisted on putting a "chin" in the middle of <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I was merely reporting that my pareidolia was manifesting itself in a slightly different way than your pareidolia. I don't see how your adding of more pareidoodlia, is somehow a function of my pareidolia?

Am I missing something?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Originally posted by neilderosa

I'm assuming Tom was referring to the tube like structures found in several places on the floor of the west Candor Chasma.

---

No, but that's an interesting point in its own right. If the tubes are a transportation system, which was the most probable hypothesis still standing at the completion of my published analysis (MRB 13#3, 2004), and knowing that they connect interesting features on the surface, we can readily visualize that the canyon walls might be loaded with artwork to be viewed by tube travelers. However, most artwork intended to be seen from ground level could not be seen from orbiting spacecraft because it would be vertical. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wasn't referring to the "tubes" you have written about and reported on in MRB. Perhaps I should have called them "cylyndrical outcroppings." And of course everyone knows that the images are seen from above (vertically).

Here's what I was what I meant.

M0200343, "Totem with symbols."



Neil

"And on the KISS principle again, here are the normal Homo sapiens lines for forehead and jaw to chin outline, and if you assume he has a goatee (small beard) you can subtract an inch at most to find the actual chin. The white line is interrupted by the Jinn (or obstruction) blocking a view of Aladdin's mouth. That is if you assume normal human anatomy, which I have every reason to do here."[Neil]

Also on the KISS principle, here are the normal Homo sapien's lines for bust with head tilted back to match the angle of the eyes looking up, showing neckline (which Neil so kindly drew in for me). If we assume a roundish puffy beard around the mouth area, and a full beard going up the side of his face. We have no reason to believe this man would have the elongated flattened face that Neil described. I actually know someone who looks like the face I'm depicting.

rd

<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 />Keith Laneys original
www.keithlaney.net/mex/H1216Cydoniacolorweb.jpg
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Trinket, what does Keith Laney's original show?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Re: "Cydonia pareidolia" [Trinket]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No need to get defensive. This particular example actually looks pretty interesting, (the little one, not the big one). What's the catalog number for it in the MSSS gallery?

Trinket has a lot of good material. My main point is that I think if one actually wants to make a case for artificiality, one tries to make a coherent case by zeroing in on provable or at least demonstrable items, and then do "show and tell." Show the evidence you have in as clear a manner as you can, and make the best case you can in coherent words. Any other way is conterproductive in my opinion. That is IF you want to make a case for artificiality.

Neil


Neil