My pareidolia knows no bounds.

That is your opinion.. And of course your entitled to it..

But you can only say that without really examining every mark I made on this Image with the original.. to determine whether I am highlighting lightened areas or creating things.... ( And you (in my opinion)..would be wrong..)



sometimes the proof is not in the finished product as much as the components..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />But you can only say that without really examining every mark I made on this Image with the original.. to determine whether I am highlighting lightened areas or creating things<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, if I do a side by side comparison of your drawn in faces with the original, I can see how you didn't create those impressions. They were really there on the original. But that doesn't matter. That's exactly what I've been saying for months. You believe there are faces everywhere you look, so you find them. Most of these are just a couple of indentations in roughly the right places, that can be filled in to make faces of all kinds of shape and size. Then you show it to someone else, and they see what you're pointing out, even though they would never have seen them in the first place. That's how pareidolia works. That certainly doesn't make them real man-made art. Most of these have two or three identifiable features at most. Fred posted an example (link to) of "known pareidolia" with 35 corresponding features. The difference in odds is astromonically higher against his showing up, and yet his is pareidolia by definition.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Where is the east side of the mouth that is depicted in the animation of the 1998 image? Where is the nose? Where is the east eye, and eyebrow? Also, where is the west side of the mouth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My time is short right now to create new image keys. But I have always considered that the Kelly image served as an excellent key because it had better lighting and shadows, and is of course just the 1998 MGS image for the west side with a bit of low-resolution Viking imagery added to fill in missing data on the east side.

My discussion surrounding this "Figure 3" at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/...Face/Preliminary.asp goes into depth about why several features show up better in one image than in the other. But I fail to comprehend how you can still be asking these "where is" questions after looking at the Kelly image as a side-by-side key to the 2001 MGS image. One image almost exactly overlays the other, so the "where is" must be obvious. The only real question is why the differences, and the text explains that lighting and viewing angle differences can apparently account for most of those.

So again, let's focus of one specific example where you are having a problem seeing something. Look for it in the left (Kelly) image, then look for the same shape at the same location (perhaps without shadows, or with different shadows, which should be ignored anyway) in the 2001 (right) image. Use a contrast stretch until you can see the actual feature. Remember, you are simply verifying that the feature exists, but not adding subjectivity at this stage about what it does or doesn't "look like". The most important element in any sound judgment about artificiality is to allow no subjective elements to kreep into the analysis. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />when we look at this image of E0300824 that I posted, which has a clear shot at the east side, we don't see anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If we stood in from of Mt. Rushmore at night, and illuminated one of the faces with a light source directly in front of the face so there would be no shadows, you would get about the same result and be unable to see the facial features. The human eye requires a minimum of contrast to be able to distinguish foreground from background and feature from feature. That is why we use different viewing and lighting angles to see the 3-D nature of the target. -|Tom|-

tvanflandern states "If we stood in from of Mt. Rushmore at night, and illuminated one of the faces with a light source directly in front of the face so there would be no shadows, you would get about the same result and be unable to see the facial features. The human eye requires a minimum of contrast to be able to distinguish foreground from background and feature from feature."

Pareidoliac states- This statement might be true only if greatly hyper-illuminated, and/or photographically over exposed. Under proper lighting conditions and proper photographic exposure the face would look, more or less as it does in the day. This would be relatively simple to verify. fred ressler O.D.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />So again, let's focus of one specific example where you are having a problem seeing something. Look for it in the left (Kelly) image, then look for the same shape at the same location-Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but here goes.

First, here's figure 4 (from your study, Preliminary analysis of 2001 April 8 Cydonia Face image), showing what you think is the east eye socket.

Next, here is that area, outlined in white on the 2001 image I posted. Before I did this, I made a transparent layer, and matched them up perfectly (although my white outline is anything but perfect).

And again, on the comparison image:

Notice how drastically different the line of the two eyes is. Also, note how in the Kelly image, a vertical line drawn from the outer edge of the east eye socket, goes directly to the outer edge of the supposed east mouth. It's pretty easy to see that there is no mouth out there in the 2001 image.

I have more, but I'll leave it at that for now. But one other thing I do want to say is that what I'm pointing out has nothing to do with shadows, or resolution. These are macro issues presented in the Kelly animation as if they're there. When I ask the question "where is it", I don't mean that as if to say it's faint, and I can't quite see it, I mean that in terms of "it ain't where it's supposed to be."

rd