Clean Copies

<b></b><u><center>A quiz for Members of the MRMB</center></u>

Which image in the <b>Clean Copies </b>thread is definitely not pareidolia? Or let's put it this way: definitely not a natural formation, and even more definitely not pareidolia than the Cydonia Face?[?][]

I'll post the answer in a couple of days if no one gets it.

Neil

Since I got snowed in tonight, (we’re having one heckova nor’easter); I thought I’d button up this post a little early. It seems that except for a few die-hards like me, there isn’t much interest in the artificiality hypothesis anymore. Or it could be that pareidolia theory won the “battle.” I’d like to think that the “war” is still a long way from being decided, but I don’t know.

I placed one fake in my group of “finalists” because I wanted to see if a known famous painting could be smuggled in with the Mars faces without being noticed. I don’t know what that proved, maybe nothing. It could be just that the class is burnt out.

Anyway, here’s the answer I promised. # 18 really is an “Old Man.” It’s Michelangelo’s rendition of Noah, in the Sistine mosaic.



And lastly, here’s our old friend again. The image to the left is a high resolution MGS MOC image at 1.5 m/p of the undamaged half of the face. The original of this image shows very good eye detail in addition to some other surprising details. The image to the right is an intuitively correct ESA computer enhanced composite showing the Face at nearer to ground level, from an oblique angle of perhaps 30 degees to the ground.

#1 Cydonia Face

Well Neil,
it proves a lot. It proves a lot more than you may think. It proves – no matter how precise and properly arranged the facial features appear in any human profile that may be found on Mars - the skeptics will deny its an intentionally produced work of art.

I must admit – I did a similar experiment, almost ten years ago on another board and nobody noticed ... and nobody commented on its precise proportions either. Just because the "face" was presented as a Martian geoglyphic structure - it was dismissed as an optical illusion.

Nice work,

Zip Monster

<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 don’t know what that proved, maybe nothing. It could be just that the class is burnt out.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Definitely nothing. I could explain it, but I'd have to do it in the vernacular.

rd

There is a certain logic to what is going on in this area, which ought to be made clear. The ball is now in NASA’s court to go back and re-image in an unambiguous way, many of the human-like (or familiar animal-like) face objects and other objects of possible intelligent engineering, in order to verify or falsify them. I am not so naïve as to expect them to do this anytime soon, but ultimately they will have to, or some other independent agency will do it (e.g., the Russians, Chinese, or Japanese, 5-10-20 years from now?). In the meantime, this last topic will serve as a repository for the clearest and most up-to-date view and representation of this model available. Hence eventually I will complete it with image location, approximate size, plus any other factual data I have, for perhaps 50 of the best objects we have in this class. The hope is to have them published in a more formal way, but these things always take time. In the meantime this message board will have to serve and I thank the proprietors and moderators for allowing this plan to go foreward. If I miss any viable examples unknown to me from other sources, I trust someone will make me aware of them.

Neil DeRosa

(Data added to face images 1-12, ND)