NASA, I'm ready for my close-up

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, here are two previous predictions that are on their way to being falsified. The first is the ”iris” predicted on the basis of lower resolution MOC MGS images. Neil<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">Your words don't seem to follow from your images. For example, you don't see a crater there? Have a look at both features in 3D and/or with lighting that increases the contrast. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



This epitomizes why the debate is hopeless and why alot of good posters like jrich (and me) don't post anymore. Sure there <b>could be </b>an iris in there. There could be a B-52 Bomber in there also. Just like there was an "S" in Dr. Schyn's study. There can be anything you want in there. If the other side of the mountain looked like Dodger Stadium, I'm sure we could "predict" a hot dog stand on this side, and then have someone come along and say: "See, I told you it was there."

I tried (convincingly, I thought) to demonstrate this fact with known pareidolic images, but the dogma on the artificiality side is so strong that people will jump through hoops to do anything but see these things for what they are.

rd

I want to stress one point because I think it's important.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you meant "east eye".[Tom]
<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">No, I mean the west eye. I recall that the original Viking face looked like a “face” but had very little detail. If we assume the face is north oriented (although actually it is oriented approximately 30 degrees NW) then the east half of the face was in shadow. We could see the west eye socket but not the eye itself. We could see the west part of the mouth and the general shape of a face.
So the great a priori prediction (which you and others made, if I recall) that I was referring to, was the west eye, not the east eye. The shadow of the west eye socket was visible but not the eye itself. We now know that there remains no east eye; it was presumably destroyed. But we can still reasonably argue that the east eye socket still exists although it has been distorted. But by far the best a priori prediction was of the detailed west eye.[ND]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now here are two minimally enhanced versions of the 1976 Viking Face.





I want to stress that this very most important prediction (whether it was made by anyone explicitly or not) was that there would be a detailed eye under the shadow of the west eye socket. Why you ask is that the most important? Because it is the one that turned out unequivocally to be true.

Sure, other predictions were made, and to varying degrees some came true, and in some cases it’s a stretch to say they were fulfilled. But since this most important one turned out to be true, that fact amounts to a “smoking gun” in terms of logic, at least to someone who understands the value of the a priori prediction.

In one of the best papers on the Cydonia Face, “Preliminary Analysis of 2001 April 8 Cydonia Face, (MRB V-10, N-2 06/15/01), TVF made several predictions based on the lower resolution 2001 image then available. Most of the predictions held up in general terms, but a few need to be modified in light of the better imaging that we now have. I’ll go into specifics at another time.

However the one that holds up the best IMO is the west eye. Here is a close up of the eye followed by a key. The key is necessary because we are looking at an ancient ruin with localized damage even here, and also because of the problem of background noise we’ve encountered many times before.





In case the reader is wondering what is the purpose of the "hi-lite" line in black I indicated, for an artificiality model. Take a look at the E2001532 Face in my "Clean Copies" post. It is apparent that this is an artist's technique to give the eye a "gleam" at certain times of day. Because of the slope of this constructed feature, (see #33 above) at certain times a day the slope (or part of it) will face directly toward the sun thus producing a glare, while the adjacent areas will be less bright. The artistic result is a "gleam."

[Correction; TVF didn't specifically make the prediction about secondary features in the west side of the face in the above mentioned 2001 paper, but he did do so in general terms; and he also related how earlier predictions based on the low resolution 1976 face were shown to be true when the 1998 face was published, showing more detail in secondary features.]

Here are the relevant quotes from “Preliminary Analysis of 2001 April 8 Cydonia Face,” (MRB V-10, N-2 06/15/01, emphasis added)

"<b>The artificial hypothesis </b>The Cydonia Face is not a product of nature, and its hominid face-like appearance resulted from construction by an intelligent species. In that case, reasonable inferences are that the hidden shadowed side would be mirror-symmetric, the regular enclosure wall would be complete, the east side would have another eye feature, and the mouth feature would continue through from the west to the east side by a comparable distance. <i><b>Moreover, if this was an attempt to portray a hominid face, as it appeared to be, then secondary facial features should be revealed at higher resolution; specifically, we would expect to see eyebrows over the eye sockets, irises in the eye sockets, nostrils at the end of the nose, and separate lips forming the mouth.</b></i> Without a noisy background to permit our minds to choose features that fit our preconceptions, the appearance of such features would be definitive indicators of artificial construction.

***
When the Cydonia Face was imaged at high resolution by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft on 1998 April 5, the viewing angle and lighting conditions permitted unobstructed views of only the west side of the Face mesa. <i><b>Nonetheless, to the amazement of the independent scientists who made the predictions, the image showed definitive evidence of an iris and eyebrow on the west side, nostrils at the end of a nose feature tapered toward the forehead, and parted lips for the mouth feature.</b></i> [2] Later, improved image processing techniques could compensate and correct for the poor viewing angle and lighting conditions, making these features more visually evident by restoring orthogonality."

As you can see, some of the the predictions have to be modified slightly in light of what we now know, but in general terms they hold up pretty well. And those that held up best are the key or the foundation on which the whole a priori argument rests.

Although The "Artificial Structures" category of this message board has been effectively drowned out by pareidolia and “UFOlogy,” and otherwise sidetracked since it's inception in around 2002. Still some very important facts have come to light from time to time supporting the artificiality hypothesis. Two of the best examples that have been posted recently were imaged by the HIRISE MRO camera. They are the high-res re imaging of the Cydonia face and of the Wil Faust mound. Both brought to our attention by Zip Monster. Both add extremely important information to the debate that may take time to be absorbed

I would also add the recent 3-D work on the Cydonia Face to the list of "most important recent contributions" to this category.

Speaking of the "most important recent contributions" to this category. Here is one submitted by a fellow colleague (Jeff) at the Mars Unearthed site.

For those that still have difficulty recognizing the feline features on the Cydonia Face, here is an animation that conflates the feline side with a lion.




It's quite unmistakable… isn't it?

Zip Monster