For whatever it's worth, software algorithms are what I've been doing for a living since about 1972, including graphics applications and steganalysis which involves jpeg code. It is my professional opinion that no software application could produce an image like this one:Shrike wrote: That's the correct term 'produce' it is not in the actual image it is produced by software algorithms.
unless it was specifically programmed to do so. It is inconceivable to me that any application or algorithm could produce that image as an artifact of doing something else unrelated.
The same thing is true of any number of images which have been coming back from Mars since 1998, and many of those are available in hires tif images, the lower right corner of NASA PIA-04995 for instance:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/pia04995
The images at Cydonia have even been subjected to fractal analysis tests which show them to be unmistakably artificial and still the denial goes on Tom Van Flandern (former director of Naval Observatory) noted:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20sys ... /proof.asp
For example, the artificiality hypothesis predicts that an image intended to portray a humanoid face should have more than the primary facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) seen in the Viking images. At higher resolution, we ought to see secondary facial features such as eyebrows, pupils, nostrils, and lips, for which the resolution of the original Viking images was insufficient. The presence of such features in the MGS images would be significant new indicators of artificiality. Their existence by chance is highly improbable. And the prediction of their existence by the artificiality hypothesis is completely a priori.
By contrast, the natural-origin hypothesis predicts that the “Face” will look more fractal (e.g., more natural) at higher resolution. Any feature that resembled secondary facial features could do so only by chance, and would be expected to have poor correspondence with the expected size, shape, location, and orientation of real secondary facial features. Any such chance feature might also be expected to be part of a background containing many similar chance features.
In Figure 2, it is possible to see details in the image (once the right correspondence to the Viking image is recognized) that might have been intended to portray each secondary facial feature – eyebrow, pupil, nostrils, and lips. These are more plainly visible in higher-magnification views with brightness and contrast adjusted for each area because of the limited contrast in the image. Such views may be inspected at <http://metaresearch.org> in the Cydonia section. Detailed study with image processing software shows that these secondary facial features exist where expected by the artificiality hypothesis, but nowhere else on the mesa. This rules out a background of many similar features from which we might pick out just ones that fulfill our expectations. Moreover, each feature is present at the expected location, having the expected size, shape, and orientation. The odds are against any of these features arising by chance, and against each feature having any of the four listed characteristics. Each of these probabilities has been carefully and conservatively estimated in a fuller treatment of this topic. [1] The combined odds against all of these features being present and having all expected characteristics to the degree actually present, when taken together with the absence of similar features in the background, exceed a thousand billion billion to one (1021 to 1).
Strictly speaking, science does not prove physical hypotheses; it disproves them. In that sense, all we have done, technically, is rule out the natural origin hypothesis at the cited odds. However, unless we can formulate some other hypothesis competing with artificiality that makes similar a priori predictions, we are compelled to accept artificiality as the most reasonable explanation consistent with the a priori principle of scientific method.
