Keys

Thank you for your comments. I find them most instructive. Here are a few more keys to ponder.

Neil

25-

26-

27-

28-

29-


30-



31-

32-

33-

34-

35-

<u>To neilderosa</u>


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am a late convert to the need for good “keys” to support the many faces I’ve found. They were (for the most part) so easy for me to see that I didn’t appreciate the need for them. But gradually I have come to the realization that because of <b>individual differences in viewers</b>, they are essential to my argument.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><u></u>

Hi:

Thank you for the keys; as I am both far and near-sighted, I can tell you that many of the images you posted are only now visible to me in the originals (and I spent a long time looking).

Some of these are beautiful.

This being said, I am already almost 'converted' to artificiality, and you were right not to rush in using keys.

When I show Martian images and keys to friends never exposed to them before, keys often reinforce their first impression and snap-judgment, as in: 'See, I had spotted it!, or in: 'Well, if I show you a key, I can make you see any face in the world...'



Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I can tell you that many of the images you posted are only now visible to me in the originals (and I spent a long time looking).

Some of these are beautiful.

This being said, I am already almost 'converted' to artificiality, and you were right not to rush in using keys. [Ephemeral]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks. It wasn't on purpose, but gradually dawned on me after prodding by Emanuel, Tom and others.

Still we shouldn't forget that this is slow, gradual process, and hopefully the hard evidence (the kind you suggest) will follow--eventually.

Neil

Here are more keys. To newcomers to this stuff, you can find the original or earlier treatment of these artifacts in earlier topics by me or Rich. Or you can go to the MSSS (or HiRISE) website and find them by index number.

Neil

36-

37-

38-

This composite includes faces too small to treat in the same way, components available on request.

39-

40-

41-

42-

43-

44-

45-

46-

47-

48-

49-


50-

Four more HiRISE faces. [ND]

51-

52-

53-

54-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ephemeral</i>
<br />When I show Martian images and keys to friends never exposed to them before, keys often reinforce their first impression and snap-judgment, as in: 'See, I had spotted it!, or in: 'Well, if I show you a key, I can make you see any face in the world...'<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, you're right, but the problem goes even deeper than that. The keys help one see the face you are pointing out, just as RobRatliff now sees the Mephistopheles face in the pareidoia thread. They serve to eliminate the ambiguity in what is being discussed, whether it's being presented as "artifact" or "pareidolia". But, as I have shown, since one can so the same thing with pareidolia, they don't serve as proof. Also, the Coprates Lady, and the Nili Fossae faces offer the final proof that the question of artificiality or not will never be solved by imagery alone. These particular images are very high resolution. We are in fact "there" looking at it. Neil is dogmatic in his belief that they are "artifacts". Most others would consider them run-of-the-mill pareidolia. It's no different than if two people were standing by one of the walls of Yosemite discussing faces they see. One might say it's chance contrast, while another might say they must be some Indian artifacts. There is no way to prove who is right, independent of some hard evidence, or more importantly by some historical record, or written evidence.

As a matter of fact, even with hard evidence of artificiality, like a mechanical device, for instance, that still wouldn't mean there were faces all over the planet. For that to be "proven" it would take historical records like heiroglyphics or something of that nature.

The bottom line? It's going to be a long time before this is "settled", so I wouldn't lose sleep in the meantime.

But they are "pretty".

rd