My pareidolia knows no bounds.

The first subject I'd like to tackle is Skullface. Skullface is a feature in the West Candor Chasma that was found by Paul McLeod and has been investigated extensively by Horace Crater and JP Levasseur.

This is JP Levasseur's website:
marsartifacts.tripod.com/

If you scroll down the left scrollbar to "The Skullface Scarp", and click on that, you will get a detailed explanation of the features that Levasseur and Crater studied.

This is the original strip that their work was based on.

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/AB108403.html

This is the image published on JP Levasseur's site, with key (about halfway down in the article):

Note some of the details described in the article:


***Start excerpt***
"Eyes: The two eyes are especially compelling because they contain all the parts of a human eye in correct position and proportion. The right eye (your left) has a pointed oval lid aperture, an upper and lower lid, an iris, and pupil. There even appears to be tears flowing from the eye. There is also an upper tarsal section, the crease in the upper lid where the skin folds as the lid elevates. The left eye has nearly the same features and appears to work in tandem with the right, a matched pair of eyes fixed on a point in the distance or maybe staring off.

Nose: Just below and between the eyes, two large nostrils are visible in an upturned nose.

Mouth: Below the nose there is a mouth with two closed lips.

Cheekbone, Chin, & Neck: Turned about thirty degrees from full front, features such as the cheekbone provide the appropriate outline for a face.

Medallion Hand: There appears to be the back of a right hand in front of the face near the mouth. Apparently belonging to another figure left of picture, this hand has thumb and forefinger extended, the remaining fingers curled in. It appears this hand is in the process of putting a medal around the neck of the central Skullface figure. Can you see the medal? Click on the tracings and animations above for more clues.

Hand Atop Head: Dan Levasseur was the first to note what apparently is a right hand atop the head, the thumb resting between the eyes and casting a shadow across the right eye. This hand belongs to yet another figure to right of picture. A disc and other objects appear strapped to the back of this hand.

The "Official" is at left of picture and appears to be in the act of reaching around to clasp the chain and medallion around Skullface's neck. His right hand, in front of the Skullface right cheek, appears large in comparison to the Skullface. Tall, he seems to be wearing a mask.

Apparently a female figure with a Japanese-like hairstyle is leaning in close to Skullface from right of picture. The "Japanese Woman's" right hand rests atop Skullface's head. This hand appears to have a watch-like apparatus and other interesting features. She also appears to have several ornaments in her hair. The end of her sleeve can be seen near Skullface's left eye.

Skullface appears to be holding a fish in her right hand. The fish is on a hook/lure, the fish line extending to right of picture.

Apparently Skullface is holding a large fish in her left arm, its tail extending to bottom of picture."
**End excerpt**

Ok, now fast forward to a public request high resolution image of the same scene:

Here's the msss site:

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/r16_r21/images/R19/R1901775.html

Here is a paper written by Horace and Crater on the extensive testing that went into "proving" this was probably artificial. The paper was titled: "Face-Like Feature at West Candor Chasma Mars MGS Image AB108403". In it there is a detailed investigation of the eyes.

For the sake of space saving, I'll just include the link to the pdf, for anyone who is interested, who hasn't already read it.

www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articl...crater_levasseur.pdf

Ok, so what is my point, anyway? It certainly isn't to discredit Dr. Crater or Professor Levasseur. I found their work to be interesting, professional, and very thorough. My point is to ask the question: Can pareidolia be that elaborate? Or, maybe a better way of putting it would be to ask, can random chance really create such complicated images?

If you read everthing that Crater and Levasseur wrote about the original Skullface scene as depicted in AB108403, and you gaze at that image long enough, you will see the:

Official, Japanese Lady, medallion, arm of the official wrapping around Skully, official's hand, skully's perfect eyes (with upper lid, pointed oval lid aperture, pupil, iris, tarsal section, bottom lid crease, sclera), nose, and mouth, cheekbone, chin, and neck, Japanese Lady's hand atop Skully's head (as if in a ceremony).

Now look closely at the high resolution image again (above). Does anybody see any of that stuff? True it's shifted a little, so some important information is missing, but the higher resolution makes the mouth and nose, and almost the eyes, totally go away. Plus, if you look closely at what you used to think was the Japanese Ladys crown, it is now a totally different boulder in the wall.

It could still be all that stuff described in the article, or it could be a whole bunch of nothing.

I submit that the answer to which it is, is at the heart of the debate about pareidolia. In other words, can pareidolia be that elaborate or not?

I didn't think so at first, but now I'm not so sure.


rd

Excellent analysis rd. I appreciate the time and effort and that you put into it since, unfortunately, I have very little time to do any research myself. You and Neil must have government jobs []

I think one of the reasons why the images tend to disappear at higher resolution is that the picture elements (background, lines, shading, etc) that form the image are much more uniform in appearance at lower resolutions. For example, lines that are of uniform width at lower resolution are seen to show much more variation at higher resolutions. This is simply a result of the averaging of the visual signal that occurs at lower resolutions. Due to the uniformity at lower resolutions, there is less visual noise with which the pattern recognition portion of the human brain must contend with, making recognition more likely. In addition the lack of detail gives the images a flat appearance similar to cave paintings which everyones' brains are already familiar with. Greater detail allows our brain to recognize the 3-dimensional nature of the landscape and when the picture elements don't correspond to the physical relief the images are not recognized or are considerably less convincing (BTW, anyone found any <i>bas relief</i>?).

OTOH, I doubt that anyone who believes these are artificial will be convinced otherwise unless the images *completely* disappear. As long as they can make out something at higher resolution resembling the original image, they will rationalize it somehow.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I doubt that anyone who believes these are artificial will be convinced otherwise unless the images *completely* disappear. As long as they can make out something at higher resolution resembling the original image, they will rationalize it somehow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In all honesty jr, I have a theory that would still leave room for artificiality, even if the high resolution images appear to make things worse.

But maybe that's subject of a different topic. I'm not sure. It could be the same topic as this one. Thanks for reminding me.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Eyes: The two eyes are especially compelling because they contain all the parts of a human eye in correct position and proportion. The right eye (your left) has a pointed oval lid aperture, an upper and lower lid, an iris, and pupil. There even appears to be tears flowing from the eye. There is also an upper tarsal section, the crease in the upper lid where the skin folds as the lid elevates. The left eye has nearly the same features and appears to work in tandem with the right, a matched pair of eyes fixed on a point in the distance or maybe staring off. [RD quoting Levvaseur / Crater paper]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you look carefully at the lower resolution (original) image you will see that there is not all that much detail (though there is the suggestion of an elaborate mosaic or scene). For example there is really no right eye (our view) nor a mouth, but or only a sugesstion of these features, though the left eye does have a little more detail.

The later hi-res image is unfortunately way off center so that we can no longer evaluate the whole scene nor examine its symetry. We see the "Japanese Lady" is still there, just as before, along with all of its archological imperfections. Scully is only partailly visible. All the imperfections of the old rock are visible as expected, but the left eye is still there, as is the same head shape insofar as it is visible.

I agree with JP that it is still a possible artifact, though not conclusively so. It never was. Perhaps too much was claimed in the original "Key," which is one reason I try to use realistic keys. We will know more when we see a good centered image of the scene.

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 />If you look carefully at the lower resolution (original) image you will see that there is not all that much detail (though there is the suggestion of an elaborate mosaic or scene). For example there is really no right eye (our view) nor a mouth, but or only a sugesstion of these features, though the left eye does have a little more detail.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
When I sat and gazed at the original, with the details as layed out by Crater and Levasseur, I saw everything they depicted, including both eyes and mouth. I clearly saw the entire mosaic.

Not only did I, but so did two independent optometrists, who did measurements and an analysis of the eyes.

For those who don't have time to read the whole paper, here's an excerpt from "Face-like Feature from West Candor Chasma" (Crater/Levasseur):
=============================================================
2. Comparison of the Two Doctors’ Analyses
Two optometrists with no prior awareness of any theories of artificial objects on Mars independently validated the authors’ impressions of eye-like features on the head-like formation in the 8403 image. Surprisingly, the doctors required very little prompting, both immediately and independently reaching for their rulers to measure the dimensions of the features. Both also
independently noted numerous external parts of the eyes. The doctors were allowed to use whichever media they preferred. Although Dr. Savage’s computer displayed a better image, he was content with more approximate measurements. The printed image Dr. Small used was bigger and so may have prompted more meticulous measurements. Dr. Small made more of an effort to measure the eyes individually. Dr. Small made a measurement that Dr. Savage did not do, horizontal lid aperture. The doctors had slightly different numbers representing known dimensions of average human eyes but they still were compatible. Both doctors found the Skullface eyes proportional to human eyes. In summary (see Appendix):
1. Both doctors saw two Skullface eyes.
2. Both doctors independently identified the main external parts of each of the Skullface eyes.
3. Both doctors noted that the eyes are slightly different but yet both saw them as a matched pair.
4. Both doctors stated (although in different ways) that the two eyes seem to work together in tandem, fixing on a target, or staring off. One doctor used the term ‘‘binocularity’’.
5. Both doctors showed that the Skullface eyes and their spacing are numerically proportional to those of human eyes by making basic measurements of the external parts.
6. Both doctors expressed the opinion that the Skullface eyes are a very good graphical representation of real human eyes. Dr. Small also pointed out what he interpreted as the upper tarsal section of the right eyelid, the crease of the upper eyelid where the skin of the lid folds as it elevates. He also said that each of the eyes has two eyelids, a crease of skin under the lower one. He noted how the upper lids are bigger than the bottom ones and how at the nasal corner there is what could be interpreted as a two-part fleshy muscle called the plica/semilunaris. Both doctors noted the white part of the eyes, the sclera. Although neither doctor is prepared to say for sure that these features are artificial, they both concede the eye-like features have the proper proportions and specific detail of real human eyes. As a result, both doctors independently validated our above impressions, immediately identifying the external parts one would expect in a pair of human eyes. Their detailed measurements add significant credibility to our claim that these are realistic eye-like features.
================================================
**end of excerpt**

The amount of detail depicted here is mindbogglingly complex. And these are folks one wouldn't associate with flights of fancy. And the scary part is that I saw ALL that stuff, too.

Listen to this quote:

"4. Both doctors stated (although in different ways) that the two eyes seem to work together in tandem, fixing on a target, or staring off. One doctor used the term‘‘binocularity’’" {Crater/Levasseur}

True, the fact that the image is shifted to our right leaves us wanting to see more to the left, but we're faced with the fact that some very clear detail is now gone. In my mind there are only two possible explanations for that.

One is the "brush stroke effect". In another post, I used the analogy of viewing the Mona Lisa under a microscope, or from so close, that all you see are brush stokes. It's possible that by seeing this scene with high resolution, we are seeing pock marks from hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years. Or perhaps, the way the art was rendered in the first place, did not even address this kind of detail. In other words, the art was never intended to be seen this close.

In my opinion, that's a stretch though. The simpler explanation is that pareidolia knows no bounds, and that once we got a better look, we realize that's not what it was afterall.

rd

I think this might be a good time to review what we know about pareidolia. The word is supposed to have been first used by in 1994 by Steven Goldstein. This is the first citation that is credited to him:

=========================================================
Like astrology, graphology seems to rest on the notion of "pareidolia": the human infusion of patterns or meaning on random audio or visual events. In the case of handwriting analysis, this might be the idea that writers of large capital I's are egotistical, or those having varying slants are unpredictable.
—Steven Goldstein, "Watch what you're thinking!," Skeptical Inquirer, June 22, 1994
==========================================================


I don't know if that means he coined the word. But, most of what I've been able to find on the internet tells me that the common belief is that pareidolia is a:


"psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, seeing the man in the moon, and hearing messages on records played in reverse. The word from Greek para- amiss, faulty, wrong + eidolon, diminutive of eidos appearance, form.
Human beings are apparently "hard-wired" to identify the human face. One possible explanation for this is that unresponsive infants tended to be ignored or abandoned, as Carl Sagan speculated in The Demon-Haunted World.{copied from Wilkepedia}"

Also from Wilkepedia:

"Skeptics assert that sightings of religious or iconic figures in everyday objects, such as Marian apparitions, are examples of pareidolia, as are electronic voice phenomena. The Face on Mars is a phenomenon that succeeded the Martian canals, both eventually attributed to pareidolia, when the "seen" images disappeared in better and more numerous images. Many Canadians thought they saw the face of the Devil in the Queen's hair on a dollar bill in the 1954 series, adapted from a photograph (illustration, right). The bills were not withdrawn from circulation, but the image was altered in its next printing."

===============================================================

An important point: It's not my intention to debate whether or not the Cydonia Face has been "proven" to be artificial or not. I'm using the 1976 image in this argument, merely to point out that it represents one type of image that is attributed to pareidolia. But it's not the only kind of image.

1976 Viking Image of Cydonia Face

In most references to pareidolia that I've been able to find, the image is usually "vague" rather than "random". For instance, a typical image might be:
The Old Man in the Mountain:

Or maybe something even more vague, like the types of images you see here:

www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pareidolia/

When this type of image is used to define pareidolia, the intent usually seems to be to imply that it's a psychological phenomenon involving a vague stimulus. (i.e., we see images of faces so our mothers will know we're here)

But, I'm more interested in the "random" part of the definition. In other words, what if it's a "good" image, but not necessarily "vague", and we have no real "psychological' reason to see it, we just see it. How do we handle that?

For instance "Rasputin Kitty Ear":

If I understand what Tom has said on the subject, no matter how good the image appears to be (eyes, nose, mouth, pair of gloves in the glove compartment, Chevy Impala insignia, etc.) it could still be random. So, unless some a priori test has been set up, there is no threshold of complexity that guarantees, or even gives you a reasonable expectation of artificiality, unless there already exists some reason to expect artificiality (I know that's a mouthful, and I think I have that right). Ok, I can accept that. But what about images we find, where there has been no test, no a priori predictions in advance?

Does that mean that nothing is real, unless we predict it? Or does it mean that "we need more data"?

I think the Skullface example potentially shows that we can fooled, even by a great deal of detail, (which tends to prove Tom's point), but I still think that higher resolution should answer all questions. Eventually we should get to pictures, not unlike the ones I started this topic with, that will show beyond a shadow of a doubt, what we're looking at.

Meanwhile, I would take all low resolution images with a strong dose of suspicion, or a grain of salt.





rd