Crowned Face noses

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />the two main crowned faces have similar shaped nose tips<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Welcome, Greg. This touches on something we have been discussing over the past year or more: How does one tell if this is significant (i.e., implies intelligent biology at work) or is pareidolia (a product of random natural processes)? You have vast experience with Mars images. Have you found any objective way to make that distinction? Your thoughts would be very welcome. -|Tom|-

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />the two main crowned faces have similar shaped nose tips<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Welcome, Greg. This touches on something we have been discussing over the past year or more: How does one tell if this is significant (i.e., implies intelligent biology at work) or is pareidolia (a product of random natural processes)? You have vast experience with Mars images. Have you found any objective way to make that distinction? Your thoughts would be very welcome. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I suppose I try and point out unlikely aspects of various formations that are independant of each other. In that way these improbabilities would multiply together and reach high odds against chance of them happening randomly. In this case it is difficult or not impossible to give an estimate of how unlikely these nose tips are.

However most would agree that it is unlikely for two faces like these to have such similar nose tips, so that the left nostril is bigger than the right. The right Crowned Face had an indistinct nose in M0203051 and so there is a prediction that with better resolution the various faces will become more not less facelike. When reimaged the nose tip becomes more realistic and more like the middle Crowned Face (what I call the main face).

It is more significant to me that the nose tips are similar to each other, because random geology should make this unlikely to occur. There is no known process that makes nose tip like shapes, so this is either coincidence or design.

It is also helpful that overlaying the 3 main Crowned Faces gives so many correlations. This is because it is no longer just a question of whether they are sufficiently face like to be artificial. It also becomes whether random geology should not only create faces, but faces that are almost identical to each other when overlaid. For example if the Crowned Face was a building shape, then the presence of other building shapes nearby that overlaid very accurately over it would be unlikely to occur by chance if geology did not produce such building like shapes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />It is more significant to me that the nose tips are similar to each other, because random geology should make this unlikely to occur. <b>There is no known process that makes nose tip like shapes</b>, so this is either coincidence or design.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">{Welcome Greg. At first I didn't realize that it was "the" G. Orme.}

When you put it that way, it sounds reasonable (emaphasis added). But if one were to ask what the likelihood of random geology making squiggily like objects that could be interpreted as noses at low resolution, we would get an altogether different answer.

There are face ingredients all over the US. They are in fact commonplace.

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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />It is more significant to me that the nose tips are similar to each other, because random geology should make this unlikely to occur. <b>There is no known process that makes nose tip like shapes</b>, so this is either coincidence or design.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">{Welcome Greg. At first I didn't realize that it was "the" G. Orme.}

When you put it that way, it sounds reasonable (emaphasis added). But if one were to ask what the likelihood of random geology making squiggily like objects that could be interpreted as noses at low resolution, we would get an altogether different answer.

There are face ingredients all over the US. They are in fact commonplace.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


The difference is how probability works. Because there are billions of people it is likely that a face like mountain, etc would look like somebody. Say however you pick one person, e.g. George Clooney, and then have to find a face in nature that looks like him.

In the same way faces on Mars are bound to look like somebody, even if they are likely to be natural. So if you have one face on Mars it is unlikely a second face that should be formed independantly and randomly would look very similar to it. In the King's Valey there are 3 faces, each of which in itself might not have enough features to prove artificiality. However if they overlay well enough then either someone was making copies of the same face, i.e. the same alien, the geology repeats these kinds of patterns or it is very unlikely to occur randomly.

The breakthrough in this overlay theory then depends on that one hypothetical alien had his face inscribed on Mars in different places. If each face was of a different alien then there would be no way to calculate probabilities.

Hi Greg,

I also welcome you to the message board; some of us have spent so much time here in the past year that it feels almost like home. I hope more of the pioneers of the artificiality hypothesis for Mars like yourself will eventually see the benefit of participating in the ongoing discussion.

Re. your Crownface post: I tend to agree with you that there are two (what I would call) “shadow faces” for the central face. This is a pattern I’ve seen in several other places with some variation. The one to our right is a little stronger; the one on our left is weaker. But I don’t see the statistical analysis as being particularly convincing, simply because there are too many variables. Poor resolution of the M0203051 image, which is only 5.8 m/p is one problem, lack of confirmation in another and higher resolution image is another. We’re not that sure of what we are looking at yet. The possibility that we are looking at pareidolia is always with us, less so in the central face, but more so in the shadow faces.

Beginning Feb. 28th this year, Rich and I had a discussion of the Crownface and related faces that you may be interested in commenting on. It is found in the Faces in the Chasmas thread toward the bottom of page 11. (I realize that Crownface is not in the chasmas, but the title has become a catch-all.)

Neil DeRosa

<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 />Hi Greg,

I also welcome you to the message board; some of us have spent so much time here in the past year that it feels almost like home. I hope more of the pioneers of the artificiality hypothesis for Mars like yourself will eventually see the benefit of participating in the ongoing discussion.

Re. your Crownface post: I tend to agree with you that there are two (what I would call) “shadow faces” for the central face. This is a pattern I’ve seen in several other places with some variation. The one to our right is a little stronger; the one on our left is weaker. But I don’t see the statistical analysis as being particularly convincing, simply because there are too many variables. Poor resolution of the M0203051 image, which is only 5.8 m/p is one problem, lack of confirmation in another and higher resolution image is another. We’re not that sure of what we are looking at yet. The possibility that we are looking at pareidolia is always with us, less so in the central face, but more so in the shadow faces.

Beginning Feb. 28th this year, Rich and I had a discussion of the Crownface and related faces that you may be interested in commenting on. It is found in the Faces in the Chasmas thread toward the bottom of page 11. (I realize that Crownface is not in the chasmas, but the title has become a catch-all.)

Neil DeRosa

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The idea of the overlays is not to be convincing, but to build a statistical method that allows us to use mathematics on these formations. As long as we can only say something seems artificial then we have little hope of proving anything. In statistics though it is universally recognized that high enough odds against chance are virtually impossible to occur through coincidence. So the idea is to present these correlations, attach some conservative mathematics to them, and start to get numbers associated with those odds.

That these faces are similar, perhaps to the point of being reproductions of the same image or statue gives an opportunity that statistics is designed for. When you do an overlay of two faces, then they match up or they do not. For example if one picked a thousand people off the street, photographed them in random poses (without telling them what it was for), and then tried to overlay the faces then few parts would line up. By contrast a lot do on the Crowned Faces, arguably more than any two out of the thousand people would. In fact it would be possible to do this experiment and come with quite precise numbers on just how well people's faces overlay. This is different from the vague assertions that something is face like or not.

So even if some of the features in the overlay are not clear, many are very clear and so the odds against chance still remain very high. There are a limited number of photos on Mars and so this makes it more unlikely such faces would be found, if we had photos of every sqaure meter on Mars then more random faces might be found. However the amount of image area we have is relatively small. For example 100,000 narrow angle images of 100 square kilometers each gives an area of 10 million square kilometers, as a rough calculation. This is roughly a square 3000 kilometers on a side. The US is about 9 million square kilometers.

But most of Mars is relatively featureless, perhaps 10% of this is polar, and perhaps 1/3 or more of the images are of craters which by their formation rule out artificiality. So we may have the equivalent of perhaps California in actual imagery that could contain faces, etc.

The object of all of this then is not to be convincing because that implies a subjective evaluation, but to get what mathematics can be brought to bear on the subject. It is much more difficult for a skeptic to argue against numbers because they would know there is nothing basically wrong with the mathematical method. They might whittle the odds against chance down but to do so they must come up with numbers themselves rather than handwaving.

So I don't maintain this proves artificiality, but that these numbers shouldn't be occuring with random terrain. If someone comes up with a mathematical refutation of that I'll accept it, but I don't believe they can reduce these numbers to not being statistically significant.