I love to look at the faces in the mountains, but I also recognize that from only one angle, covered with vegetation, and in the flux of ever changing shadows and lighting, it is fantastically easy to experience pareidolia.
For this reason the research begs to be 'boots on the ground', combined with digging into anatomy books, and making predictions about what one would expect to find. The more specific things you find, and successful predictions you make, the less likely what you are looking at is a trick of the senses or pattern recognition that the eyes and mind work together to make. With Montgo, I have so far documented 56 anatomical and histological correlations. How many coincidences before 'random chance' becomes impossible? I have no idea how to calculated such a thing!
So many look at images from only one angle and come away 100% certain it is what they believe it to be. Wild speculation without any evidence makes the community looking into this look like crazy people.
For this reason the research begs to be 'boots on the ground', combined with digging into anatomy books, and making predictions about what one would expect to find. The more specific things you find, and successful predictions you make, the less likely what you are looking at is a trick of the senses or pattern recognition that the eyes and mind work together to make. With Montgo, I have so far documented 56 anatomical and histological correlations. How many coincidences before 'random chance' becomes impossible? I have no idea how to calculated such a thing!
So many look at images from only one angle and come away 100% certain it is what they believe it to be. Wild speculation without any evidence makes the community looking into this look like crazy people.