Faces from the Chasmas

I notice that George Haas (zip monster) has a discussion going on another website in which he asserts that all of the faces discovered by me in this thread (and presumably elsewhere) are “pareidolia.” But apparently land-forms in the Martian terrain that vaguely resemble “Mesoamerican mirrored art” are artificial without any doubt, notwithstanding good evidence that a meteor caused at least one of them. (I’m referring to the east half of the Cydonia Face.)

This is apparently one more ally that has gone by the wayside. But no matter, all that has to be done to confirm the artificiality hypothesis, is to find unambiguous evidence for just one artifact. It matters not at all if it is not one of mine. I would be just as happy. And if that never happens, <i>all</i> proposed structures will be falsified, not just mine. This is why I have taken care to include and incorporate my best discoveries with the best of those discovered by others; (see my incomplete “Clean Copies” thread).

Neil

Sorry, Neil but you have misquoted me. You said that I remarked that ALL of the faces discovered by you in this thread (and presumably elsewhere) are “pareidolia.”

I never posted that statement anywhere.

Here is what I said:

“Sharon if your looking for more examples of “Pareidolia” on Mars, here is a crop from M1301494. This profiled face (along with about 100 others) was found by Neil Derosa - over on the Meta Research discussion board. The thread is titled: Faces from the Chasmas.”

Here is a Link to the Anomaly Hunters thread:
anomalyhunters.com/cgi-bin/marsbbs/webbb.../noframes/read/18649

BTW, if you’re going to lurk around other Mars Discussion Boards - why not participate in the discussion - if you have something to offer to the debate?

Zip Monster

Hi ZM,

I apologize for misquoting you. I guess I took the negative slant on your statement, which could be interpreted that way by a defensive person like me.

You also said (paraphrasing) that I found a face in every strip, which is a bit of a stretch. In some strips I found a few "faces" it's true, but in the vast majority of MGS MOC strips, especially outside the Chasmas, I found nothing.

You used the ”Lovers” profile as an example. I would be willing to admit that it is possible pareidolia, if and when it is re-imaged in the Martian AM and no new information comes to light (the present image was imaged around 3 PM Mars time). If we see the “Dude” as Emanuel called him, in bright sunlight and the ”Buxom Girl” in the dark shade upon such re-imaging, and if he has some detailed secondary features such as an eye, nostrils, etc., then that would be a pretty good piece of evidence favoring artificiality. Here’s the lovers profile again.



BTW, I wasn’t lurking. I googled that message by accident. I tried to join that website once and was unsuccessful. There was something wrong with my cookies or something. If you don’t mind, please email me (through MR) and give me some instructions and links

I find it humorous that Zip finds Neil's pareidolia humorous (lol) and Trinket's upset because Neil can't even see his pareidolia. And Neil thinks Zip's pareidolia doesn't pass muster.

So wags the world of the pareidolic image from the last men standing.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I find it humorous that Zip finds Neil's pareidolia humorous <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree. I find the situation interesting too. I gave a slide show of faces and other artifacts at a seminar recently. Some very smart people found the evidence compelling but were of course skeptical. Others thought it was all pareidolia (after I introduced them to the word and the concept) and quickly picked up on the standard anti-artificiality arguments often heard on this website.

That's why I agree with those who say this won't be settled anytime soon. This is all too strange for most people to take in. Some of us on our side believe we have very compelling evidence and very logical arguments, especially for the best of the artifacts. I think we are right but I won't be the one to prove it; mainly because I'm not actively involved in research anymore.

My prediction: look for some compelling and surprising new evidence to come out in the near future—meaning the next few years.

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 />This is all too strange for most people to take in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think it's strange at all. I'm totally (100%) convinced that if the MRO orbited Earth from the same distance it orbited Mars, and took the same number of image swaths of the same size and resolution, that we could find the same number of faces that are supposedly either Martian-made or Pareidolia.

I know Tom doesn't want to entertain that argument anymore, but that's what I believe.

There is face soup everywhere. Basically I tend to agree with those who think it's all pareidolia.

I predict many will join the pareidolia bandwagon after a while. For those paying attention, though, people like Fred and me will prove to be pioneers in the field.

rd