|
9.- UPDATE FOR 18-june-2001. Critique of Dr. Tom Van Flandern's assessment. With a view to above picture: it describes, in final and definitive summary, what the Fine-Art in FoM is all about, according to Prof. Lahoz and UNIAM.
Tom Van Flandern has already presented a 'preliminary' analysis of FoM at noon. Although he defends artificiality as always, a heavy error in judgement of the involved Fine-Art is made: he accepts (finally) the obvious assymmetry but contends against Lahoz, Hoagland, Kynthia and others that such assymmetry has been caused by meteoritic impact in eastern half-side of FoM. That is outrageously false: the Art in the FoM looks now as pristine and unpoluted as if constructed yesterday; sure one may argue that tiny erosion has done its job, but certainly not to the extent of damaging the 'looks' of the grand Fine-Art as intended. What Van Flandern considers 'cracks' are just the very conscientious and intentional carvings and 'constructions' which martian Artists and work-men did (using, of course, artificial materials like cement or equivalent). The 'stairs' and 'avenues' in that eastern half-face are merely the designed sophistication to depict an overall human-face as above shown in 'Anger'='Furia'. Abstract Fine-Art of the 'supreme' class: don't you see the magnificency of neat and pointed ears and mouth which distinguish it from any animal or 'lion' portrait?. Certainly it looks furious and ferocious like a 'lion', but watch it!: even the mephistophelean moustache which Dr. Lahoz has detected and conspicuously depicted above is in exact shape as a real Mephistopheles would show. And what about the hat and coat? It is a real gem of Art by all standards (terrestrial and extraterrestrial). 
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
10.- UPDATE for 20-june-2001. Preliminary 'critique' of Dr.
M.J. Carlotto's analysis. Carlotto and DiPietro have not yet given their views about FoM at noon (to our knowledge).
However, since clearly the MOST complete 'human character' in FoM is the "Sacred", we present here a 'quotation' (without interference with copyright) of probably the best image-analysis which is available (and 'insuperable', Lahoz says) about "Sacred". Paper published in 1998 with very detailed and absolutely correct comparison of positives of
"Brave" and "Sacred". Carlotto understands in there that the horrendous black mouth of the positive at sunrise is exactly the mandibular bone in "Brave" at sunset. Such mandible which shines at sunset becomes totally black in the positive at sunrise (of course), but in our translation to the 'negative' in here it becomes white and shiny again, making the correspondence between "Brave" and "Sacred" an excellent match of two, rather shorty, faces. As opposed to a pair of rather elongated faces ("Kiss" & "Anger") at noon. Why Carlotto never has passed to the "negative" in sunrise image is a mystery to us; because Graffeo and Lahoz have already shown ad nauseam that such 'negative' is the ONLY thing which makes 'artistic sense' and OBVIOUSLY the intended image by the martian Artist. So here we make justice to the great and extremely competent work of Carlotto by 'translating' his published positives to the 'intended' negatives. And, voila, one immediately sees that such "Sacred" (in both enhancements) are insuperable work of martian Artistry. Both closed eyes, nostrils, semi-profile mouth showing some teeth, etc., describe magnificently a 'resting' old person with head tilted towards right (East) and well wrapped in blanket or shroud. The correspondence with "Kiss" & "Anger" at noon is pretty obvious as already described in our analysis of FoM at noon (previous pages). 
Let us close this page with a composition to show how the disection of the split-face has exactly to be made. To avoid the confusion which the impromptu of Hoagland with his lion- portrait has generated. Hoagland has certainly created a set of powerful, sharply correct and even well done sarcasm against those silly comments of NASA-geologists. A must to be read. He has also defended the view of no-deterioration to FoM with an elegant: "Cydonia declared nuclear-free zone" in support of Kynthia's article about the same. Of course NASA has not bombed Cydonia: FoM is pristine as a Virgin.
However here we show that Hoagland has been slugish in the use of 'negative' (per Graffeo-Lahoz idea) and now, as consequence he tries to see a 'lion-character' using the split-face in positive. That is incorrect!: not a lion but
a Mephistopheles IN THE NEGATIVE!. That will, hopefully, close the argument in pro- or against lion-portarit.
Lions don't have moustache; their ears are above and not below eye-level as our Mephistopheles neatly shows. Such 'ears', so neatly seen in photo heading present page, are sharp and 'pointed' (as per 'Spok' character in 'enterprise' movie): their shape and position are excellently interpreted in Lahoz's drawing and totally rule out any 'lion' portrait.
It seems useless to look for more Fine-Art in FoM beyond the FOUR characters above indicated: any future image will show only some of the four. No room for more!: and that is final and definitive. |
