Nefertiti's Family

Emanuel,

Good questions. If we continue to see faces at any orientation, I would say the natural origin hypothesis is strenghtened somewhat. Which brings up the question "are the current images oriented in some significant way?", like the large Face is oriented to the original Martian poles and equator.

LB

BTW, Tom mentioned something that I had not thought of previously. No face images have been reported in the pictures being sent back from any other planet, moon, asteroid or comet. Does anyone on this board know of an exception to this observation? That would seem to weaken the natural orgin hypothesis.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">BTW, Tom mentioned something that I had not thought of previously. No face images have been reported in the pictures being sent back from any other planet, moon, asteroid or comet. Does anyone on this board know of an exception to this observation? That would seem to weaken the natural orgin hypothesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was actually thinking about this issue too, but isn't Mars unique in that it is a rocky (meaning non-gaseous) body with an atmosphere? Atmospheric winds will tend to shape terrain in ways that would never happen on an asteroid or even the moon, where there is no appreciable wind.

And Mars also was bombarded with a huge amount of water from its exploded parent body, which would also have an effect of eroding (and thus patterning in unique ways) the surface.

It could be, in other words, that Mars is unique in having a naturally scultped surface.

Emanuel

PS - In a few days I'll do the experiement and report back.

Some new additional information on the Profile Image has recently been brought to our attention by JP Levasseur. He told us that there had been two other Public Request images: R0701791 and R1201454.

At first I was unable to find the feature of the girl (let alone the scene in general) since the contrast was totally and mystefyingly different, but JP was kind enough to send me an "alignment grid".
{Image deleted temporarily} Allign.jpg

In the R12 image it is very difficult to resolve the girl, but in the R07 strip, the girl can clearly be seen in the outline of the bright "shiny mounds".

{Image deleted temporarily} R0701791c2.gif

The three of us are mystefied, though, about the differences in contrast between these new images from JP, and the original M0305549 and E0501429 images. We see no obvious reason why this should be so. Here's a montage of all the pertinent images (excluding the "family" for the time being) with a list of acquisition data following it. Note, in the lower right hand corner is a "dot study" key created by JP Levasseur off the original M03 PI image. In the upper right are two variations of contrast and brightness on this new R07 image, and in the upper left is our smoothed M03 PI image and Neils Key for M03.

If you compare all of the new images with the M03 image, the first thing you see is that there appear to be way more bright shiny spots, and that you can't see any of the other surface features that we see in the M03 strip.

{Image deleted temporarily} Dot%20study.jpg

Here are the acquisition parameters, with comments from Neil following them:

M0305549:
Solar longitude: 178:15 (just before southern spring)
Scaled Pixel Width: 5.65
Time: 14.72 (around 2:45 PM)
Sun azimuth: 19.81
Gain mode: AA: (hexadecimal)
Profile visible, area lighted

E051429:
SL: 178.96
SPW: 2.92 (best resolution)
Time: 14.73
SA: 19.26
GM: 8A (hexadecimal)
Profile and family visible, area lighted


R0701791:
SL: 228.34 (southern spring)
SPW: 11.91 (lowest resolution)
Time: 14.70
SA: 352.11
GM: EA (hexadecimal)
Profile not visible without enhancement, and only vaguely with enhancement,
area darkened except for bright spots

R1201454
SL: 315.33
SPW: 5.97
Time: 13.51
SA: 351.88 (southern summer)
GM: AA (hexadecimal)
Profile not visible and offset to left, area darkened except for bright
spots

Considerations:

1- resolution doesn't seem to be a factor since R12 has relatively good resolution and can't be seen.
2- all four images were taken in the early afternoon, so time of day does not seem to be a factor.
3- the season does not seem to be a factor, but possibly may be since the two visible images were taken just before southern spring, and the two non-visible images were taken in late southern spring and southern summer.
4- the two visible images were taken during same season and Sun azimuth,so this may be a key factor. 5- the two non-visible images were taken in or near summer and at same sun azimuth, (though I do not understand the relationship here, and any information would be appreciated). In MSSS website "Explanation of Data" section, "Sun Azimuth" is given as the definitive way of telling which way the Sun is coming from. So logically it should reflect season and time of day, but doesn't seem to. In any event, the angle of the Sun seems to be the key factor in explaining why two images reveal the Profile Image in some detail, and two do not.

Of course we have not considered anything like film or photography
irregularities, camera snafus, or image tampering.

Additional comment: At JP Levasseur's suggestion I have added Gain mode, as this can effect brightness of the image. But again there is no obvious correlation; both M03 (lighted) and R12 (non-lighted) used "AA (hexadecimal)." The other poorly lighted image R07, used "EA," and E05 (lighted) used "8A." Any input in this area would be helpful. All of this of course assumes accurate data entry and proper labeling of the images. Since the "R" images are Public Request images, all bets are off.

**end of comments**

I don't believe this difference can be explained entirely by the difference in gain since:

AA = 170
8A = 138
EA = 234
AA = 170

As you can see M03 and R12 are the same, and the images are as different as night and day.





rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />I was actually thinking about this issue too, but isn't Mars unique in that it is a rocky (meaning non-gaseous) body with an atmosphere? Atmospheric winds will tend to shape terrain in ways that would never happen on an asteroid or even the moon, where there is no appreciable wind.

And Mars also was bombarded with a huge amount of water from its exploded parent body, which would also have an effect of eroding (and thus patterning in unique ways) the surface.

It could be, in other words, that Mars is unique in having a naturally scultped surface.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">emanuel,

I too was thinking along these lines when Tom first brought that up in response to one of my posts in the other topc, but I just didn't have the time to issue a counterpoint. Glad someone else was thinking the same thing.

JR

Those of you who can not see (or are very skeptical of) artificiality in the original and computer enhanced images we have been reviewing in this post, are certainly not going to see them in a screen full of bright dots. But we have to report what we see and why we think we see it, that way it will be "on the record."

First: the "dot key" made by JP supports a theory we were both considering independently, (he more skepticaly than I) that there may be a relationship between the Profile Image and the mysterious "bright spots," (which are possibly reflective strewn boulders). As you may or may not be able to see, the face section (chin, nose, forehead) of the Profile can be vaguly traced with same the kind of accuracy that a Zodiac constellation resembels it's namesake. Not accurate or scientific but suggestively, and it could tell us something about the people who created it.

Next: the two enhancements of R0701791 made by Rich take us as at least as far as the "dot key" described above does, but they also say something more. Most significant to me is that they confirm the existence of the M03 image, (the Profile), and E05, (the Profile with Family), not its <i>artificiality</i> but its <i>existence</i>. They do so because even though the feature is darkened for whatever reason, it is not completely obscured, and in addition to some subtle shading, we can see in the bright spots a silhouette of the Profile Image, and part of the head piece.

I would not bet the farm on this, neither would I give 100 to 1 odds that I am right, but it seems to be true. Time will tell.

Neil

<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 />Most significant to me is that they confirm the existence of the M03 image, (the Profile), and E05, (the Profile with Family), not its <i>artificiality</i> but its <i>existence</i>. They do so because even though the feature is darkened for whatever reason, it is not completely obscured, and in addition to some subtle shading, we can see in the bright spots a silhouette of the Profile Image, and part of the head piece.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good point. We tend to forget that part, but that's really the first question, isn't it.

On the subject of why these images are so different, I think we really need to understand <i>why</i> they are so different. Maybe Tom has some knowledge of these strips.

rd