My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Rich,

Suppose your Mt Rushmore image has a resolution of x. It would be possible to create a more or less identical image, but taken from a greater distance, so that the resolution of this second image had a resolution of 2*x.

It would also be possible to create a more or less identical image, but taken from a lesser distance, so that the resolution of this second image had a resolution of x/2.

It would also be possible to start with an image taken from the air, with a look down angle typical of the look down angel available to us from the MRO or other satellites in orbit of Mars.

It would also be possible for us to take images of natural things that appear (to most observers) to be artificial things. (Example: a rock formation that looks like a horse.) Add in the varying distances to simulate greater or lesser resolution.

***

Images like these could be considered a sort of 'gold standard'. Maybe not 24 kt, but close? They would enable us to get a feel for how known-real and known-pareidoliac (various) images we are talking about actually do vary with resolution.

Such knowledge ought to allow us to make more informed decisions about the nature of the images we have from Mars. I would be surprised if they would settle all issues amongst us, but they might settle a few.

A few of the images of specific scenes ON MARS that we are talking about have been photographed more than once. Different look-down angles, lighting angles, etc. These are the ones we need to focus on.

And if we can, find similar images on Earth to photograph from similar look-down angles, with similar lighting angles, etc.

***

We are supposed to be scientists. Not sooth-sayers. Until we can make such apples to apples comparisons (or put boots on the ground) it seems a bit premature to declare that an image (or lack of an image?) proves anything, one way or the other.

???
LB

And here is a list Neil came up with on Page 17 of "Faces":

Start Copy:
1) Numerous possible faces (or objects) well proportioned anatomically (or geometrically), correspondence to known units of the same genera.
2) Confirm previously discovered objects on Mars.
3) Predictions as to likely locations.
4) Other corroborating images of the same object.
5) Predictably repeated patterns or themes.
6) Frequent recurrence of mosaics.
7) Prediction of symmetry, detail, and proper orientation.
Realistic and recognized artistic techniques, frequent use of exaggerated features.
9) Further detail under higher magnification or better lighting.
10) North and south orientation relationships.
11) Most faces will be north oriented.
12) Recurring cultural or social themes.
13) Evidence of individual behavior and interests.
14) Evidence of a technically advanced civilization.
15) Requisite ability to make or construct large objects.
16) Animals.
17) Similarity to present day Earth humans.
18) Prediction of class and wealth implications, or government sponsored vs. private initiative implications.

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=872&whichpage=6

End copy.

The problem with all this stuff is that no two people are ever going to fully agree unless something is really very clear and obvious. It's mostly subjective.

While reading through the Faces Topic, I'm amazed at how long we argued about this question.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Rich,

Suppose your Mt Rushmore image has a resolution of x.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You reminded me of something. We can reduce resolution anytime we want by applying a sub-sampling filter in PaintShopPro.

So, say we start off with the best resolution we can achieve, all you have to do to reduce resolution is eliminate pixels with one of these filters.

Drop every other pixel and you reduce resolution by 50% in each axis. Drop one in four would be 25%. And so on.

These are all good ideas you're suggesting, but after re-reading the long drawn out debate that was going on way before I even started the pareidolia thread, I'm inclined to agree with Greg Orme. The only way to accomplish anything would be to take a known candidate for artificiality and disprove natural origins.

But who is going to do that? It behooves the proponents of AOH to do that instead of just saying "hey, look at this one."

The only people I know who were attempting that sort of thing were JP Levasseur, Horace Crater and Greg Orme.

rd

<b>[rderosa] "Larry, there is a very interesting discussion of this subject ..."</b>

There is really only one post in the referenced five posts that contains pertinent images. That would be the first post.

In that post the left image contains nothing that I recognize as artificial. The inset image (demarked with an inset rectangle) has some features that can be visualized as a face-like image facing to the left. My built-in pattern recognizers spotted it immediately.

Yawn.

I'm not claiming it can't be artificial, or that it isn't. But I KFDI. My BS detector went ape sh*t.

***

The image on the right seems (to me) OBVIOUSLY artificial. I'm not saying I'd bet my life on it (natural processes that could make lines like that are NOT impossible), but I would be excited as h*ll if an image like this were to be returned by any of the Mars orbiters.

We would be having a very different conversation right now.

<b>[rderosa[ "We can reduce resolution anytime we want by applying a sub-sampling filter in PaintShopPro."</b>

Prove it.

***

It sounds reasonable.

But I suspect it is not true.

Just my intuition. (I have this "girl" inside me. Boys have no intuition, so it has to be a girl, doesn't it? She is not pushy, and she has NOT always been right either. But over the decades she, my intuition, has been very helpful.)

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
There is really only one post in the referenced five posts that contains pertinent images. That would be the first post.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You lost me Larry. I wasn't taking about any images. I was talking about the discussion that starts right under those Oldawan artifacts that Neil posted.

Starting with this one:


Posted - 11 May 2008 : 18:22:07
metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=872&whichpage=19

And continuing reading the discussion between, myself, Marsrocks, gorme, jrich, and Neil.

I wasn't referring you to look at any images, although I did copy one of gorme's posts here where he gave an example to illustrate the point he wanted to make.

Bottom line?

No amount of detail is sufficient to make the claim of artificiality. But <b>proving </b>a feature <b>couldn't be from natural origins</b> might be.

rd