Faces from the Chasmas

8/5/07
In my opinion the artificial / pareidolia debate is not going to be easily solved. I myself do not know exactly where the borderline lies, though I have made my case (in logical terms) many times, that there must be one, and I do accept the a priori principle properly understood. New researchers will have to go back over the posts of the past year, which in this user friendly MRMB website is easy to do, but it takes some effort.

But thanks to the HiRISE project, and the University of Arizona, the new hi-res MRO images are now easy to download and crop at almost their highest resolution. (This was an unexpected development for me.) Therefore it is totally legitimate to continue the research and to try to find evidence that will shed light on the riddle of artificiality on Mars.

Neil DeRosa

The following feature was posted by me last year (on page 6 of this thread I believe). It was a mask-like face with a smaller human-like small face imbedded the forehead in the strange way we’ve seen over and over. I argued for its artificiality mainly because of the difficulty to explain “gem-like,” light-toned, reflective feature where its “chin” should be. The large face was ~ 400 m wide and the small 90 m.

This object has now been imaged again by MRO. The bad news is that the difficulty of this settling the artificial / pareidolia debate is still with us here on the basis of the face-like appearances alone. Though, because I am convinced that planetary scientists and geologists could go a long way in solving this one on the basis of an entirely different line of evidence, I therefore give this feature “smoking gun” status on that account.

I am referring specifically the gem-like cut out. It seems obvious that the mound on which it appears had its top neatly cut off, and that the material removed was used to fill in some of the features of the two faces. On earth, we are told, glaciers can make such drastic cuts. But there is no evidence of that here. The “chin” reveals debris around the border or edge of the cut-off mound. It seems to be a relatively new cut. The plateaus in the surrounding terrain all have a much more “weathered” and natural appearance. Here is the image I posted last year followed by the MRO retake, and the surrounding terrain.

Links:
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_002432_1730
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r10_r15/images/R11/R1101782.html

Zarkan, R1101782


Jinn, R1101782



Zarkan, 2432 1730


Jinn, 2432 1730



Zarkan’s chin, 2432 1730



Segment of cut-off



Segment of cut-off 2



Segment of cut-off 3



Segment of cut-off 4



Surrounding terrain

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would that enhance the planet of art theory to you? [Trinket's referred to quote has been deleted, ND]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You know, I gotta admit, when you discard reason and objectivity the answers are a lot easier to come by and its a helluva lot more fun too. JR <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did say the "constellation" business was a speculation, and I guess it's always open season on speculations. So I have no problem with that.
ND
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The question isn’t whether the speculation is true but whether the evidence allows us to speculate. I can’t answer that, but I am working on it.

I predict (not speculate but predict) that once Nefertiti is imaged in a high resolution MRO image, she will bear many characteristics similar to the following. The natural terrain is modified and enhanced and an overall artistic effect is sought. Following is one possible interpretation of an artist’s intent. (Image is brightness and contrast adjusted only, and of course framed and labeled.)



Neil DeRosa

The faces I’ve chosen almost always have detailed eyes. But experience has shown that the following may be hard to see for some without keys. Try standing back a little or try focusing first on the smaller version. I noticed these even before I saw Prometheus. They are what I call “jinn” and are located in Prometheus’s head or headdress. There are two faces here. The top is frontal view and feminine with Betty Boop eyes and pouting lips. The bottom, shown previously, (Aug, 4 Face 2) is a masculine, semi-profile (to our) left with detailed eyes and nose, with a possible “Janus face” in frontal view.

Now that I'm reminded of it again, here's a new Barbara key from a composite of M0203051 and adjacent strip M0303483. I’ve never been happy with the chin area. If Barbara is “thinking” of the inverted Crownface in her head, her hand should be under her chin in a “thinking pose.” And that’s just what we see—in this interpretation.