Keys

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know whoever used the word “anthropomorphism” (can you cite one?) [rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Add to this sorry situation the fact that human interpretation of images - especially
when featuring anthropomorphic representation - is a minefield of ambiguities (pareidolia),
and decades will elapse before the public and the ‘scientists’ take the issue seriously.
[Ephemeral, 12/30/06]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Neil

My intent here is to make these “user-friendly” renditions of the faces and artifacts I’ve found among the NASA images of Mars (and 2 or 3 from the ESA), plus those found by others, available to interested researchers. They may not always agree with what they see but they now should be able to see them. I am not inclined to debate the issue much, as that has already been done. But I’ll be glad to answer any questions of course. Those faces or artifacts discovered by others will be so credited; I take full responsibility for the rest. [Neil DeRosa]
1-

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

9-

10-

Hello:


As I have been quoted, I wish to clarify a point or two.

In the topic 'How to Mainstream the Artificiality Question', I tried to put myself in the shoes of someone strongly doubting the possibility of Martian artifacts.

How could the average person - neither the hostile skeptic nor the Cydonia enthusiast - be encouraged to drop the ridicule and prejudice often attached by society to things extraterrestrial and take a positive look at the issue?

Initially, would not that person more readily accept - wrongly perhaps - observations more distanced from her/his psyche, belonging to her/his cliches of what a scientific researcher does?

I am sticking my neck out - and possibly revealing my own prejudices - but, in my view, if radar or spectrographic data existed in favor of artificiality, that could be a more convincing first exposure than image observation for quite a few people.

Remember, the goal is to bring as many individuals as possible, prejudices and all, to take a second look at what - unfortunately - many consider stand-up comedian fare: if some have hang-ups about images, why not use other arguments if and when those become available?

By no means did I imply that image research is useless or inferior; I have great respect and admiration for it.
Was not everyone introduced to Martian artifacts through Viking's images?
Is it not the only evidence we have?
Is it not what triggered the artificiality question in the first place?

My remarks should not be interpreted as any derogatory judgment on the patient, dedicated, and precious efforts to spot, describe, and analyse images from Mars.

Rather, musing on an overall strategy aiming at increasing our number and our clout, I was 'selling the bear skin before killing it' by including future hoped-for favorable radar and spectrometric observations.

Best wishes to all,


Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.

<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 /><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 />The words “anthropomorphism” ........ have often been used in connection with the faces found so far on Mars. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know whoever used the word “anthropomorphism” (can you cite one?) in connection with the Mars pareidolia, but I certainly know it wasn't me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It was me. Here's my post from 26 Mar 2006:
<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 /><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 />BTW, if artificial, the most likely viewing distance for surface art would be that of an orbiting space station. The MGS and MRO cameras are at a good approximation of that distance. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, at the risk of lowering this discussion to an even greater level of absurdity by ignoring the glaring anthromorphisms at the heart of this debate and exploring only anthropomorphic assumptions in your reasoning above, aren't you assuming that whatever beings created the artifacts had similar visual acuity to modern humans?

JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As for Neil's "keys", I don't find them very useful.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Rather, musing on an overall strategy aiming at increasing our number and our clout, I was 'selling the bear skin before killing it' by including future hoped-for favorable radar and spectrometric observations. [Ephemeral]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Agreed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom, at the risk of lowering this discussion to an even greater level of absurdity by ignoring the glaring anthromorphisms at the heart of this debate and exploring only anthropomorphic assumptions in your reasoning above, aren't you assuming that whatever beings created the artifacts had similar visual acuity to modern humans? [JR]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I had heard the argument many times. That's why I used it.

Neil

On the premise that this is art (or intelligent design), the first step is to see it. Since many have difficulty, maybe this "key bank" will help. (Note: some of the small faces have been enlarged to the limit of pixelation; others have more information [in the original]).

Neil

11-

12-

13-

14-

15-

16-

17-

18-

19-

20-

21-

22-

23-

24-