OddThinking

I think this discovery is the kind of thing needed to get Mary MacKillop over the line as a saint.

A noble illustration, Julian. However, scientists have used powerful phrenological matching computers to build this facial reconstruction of the man in the moon.

Thanks for the reference, Chris.

My experiments have confirmed their findings.

I am not sure if this star can be seen from the Northern Hemisphere, though.

It’s not just a face in the Northern Hemisphere view, it’s an entire man, with a very long upper body, hunched over as if carrying something heavy, dragging a large bulk behind him. The easiest part to identify, I suppose, would be the two legs, close to the moon’s pole.

Hence “Man In The Moon,” not “Moon Face.”

The man in the moon is often depicted as part of a crescent moon, with a pointy head and chin. Without actually caring enough to try it, I will suggest that you might find deleting a big chunk of the moon gives you a face of some kind.

I’ve never been able to see a really convincing face either way up.

SPACE.com writes about The Origins Of The Man In The Moon, in the course of which they give a presumably authoritative defintion of what shape “Man In The Moon” refers to in popular lore.

Hm.

PS.: can I rejoice once more at not having the Live Preview thing flicker and jump as I type? Hooray! So much nicer now.

Childhood is an important time of life and our experiences at this time have a habit of influencing our thoughts and behaviours for the rest of our lives. I suggest that the reason you cannot see the man in the northern hemisphere (or the rabbit) is that the man in the moon you saw as a child left such an impression on you that you are simply unwilling to see the other man. Don’t worry, though - monogamy is a good thing, whatever your preference.

Cassie,

You are suggesting that it is all subjective, based on childhood experiences.

I disagree. I have provided simple, objective, indisputable - and colourful - evidence that the man in the moon is only visible from the Southern Hemisphere.

The Northern Hemisphere lobby haven’t matched my preponderance of evidence. Aristotle who grew up in the Northern Hemisphere, has bravely attempted to explain the propaganda he was fed as a child, but I don’t see any so-called legs near the pole, and no-one has managed an illustrated picture as I have.

Therefore, I claim an objective victory here for the children of the Southern Hemisphere.

You have provided “evidence” of the man you see in the moon. I don’t believe you have provided evidence that this man is the only man to be seen in the moon.

Now you’re just being defensive. Is this because I made a gibe at your sexuality?

Don’t know if you have found out yet, but here is what the man in the moon is in the northern hemisphere.

Hope that helps you.

Notice also that in the link you posted, the man in the picture has the same face but with more realistic detail.

[Posted by Julian, on behalf of Tim, who emailed a picture.]

Look, the “man in the moon” thing is just plain creepy. WHen I look up at the moon sometimes, I do see a “man in the moon”..looks like a face that is smiling, and indeed, a bit creepy.

you’ve got to be kidding me!!!
you really believe that that is what it looks like!?
and you call yourself a genius… HA!

Hi - just started using Firefox & notice OddThinking - I can see what u see & love your colorful picture! Funny how we all have different perceptions though - because ever since a child I have seen 2 old men at a table - like they bent over a chess table! Can any one else see this? Just wondering!
Debbie

http://www.ellided/7894 is “Debbie”’s homepage? Hm.

[Well-spotted, Aristotle; I missed that.]

Thank you, Debbie, for your on-topic comment. Unfortunately, your business doesn’t meet my (rather loose, and ill-defined) acceptable standards for being plugged here, so I have removed the link to your home page. I hope that strikes all my readers as fair.

I hope that an acceptable WordPress plugin for ‘no follow’ is available one day!

[Well-spotted, Aristotle; I missed that.]

These days a lot of spam comments are on-topic (or not obviously off-topic) and have no links in the comment body. Often it still “smells” funny, but if you don’t pay sharp attention, it’s easy to miss the sneakery. I’ve made it a habit to check siganture links for this reason.

Leaving the comment around at all is probably more fair than necessary – I doubt that “Debbie” actually cares. Though this particular comment actually adds something to the discussion, unlike the majority of them.

Anyway, this is all waaaaay off-topic.

I know I’m joining this party late, but that didn’t seem to stop me before, and it’s not stopping me now: The image at the top of this post doesn’t closely reflect what the moon looks like to my naked eye. Well, not completely naked, as I’ve got artificial lenses that augment the ones I was born with. Tonight is nearly a full moon, so I was able to confirm just minutes ago that I see a face, with a large, irregular, and not especially round splotch for each eye and the mouth. The visible disc, as I see it, is clearly dominated by those three distinct, large, dark patches. The photo above has a lot of extraneous dark areas and intruding light areas that make it frankly unrecognizable.

Tim’s link gets the facial orientation about right, but obviously the drawn outlines are specifically geared to the picture provided by Julian. If I could draw it (that is, my naked-eye view of the moon), I would, but my skills are far short of the task. All I can say is that all three splotches are significantly larger than in Tim’s illustration, and the eyes are much closer together.

I just saw your rendition of the man in the moon and comments on whether or not it can be seen from the Northern Hemisphere. I’ve attached before and after pics for you depicting what I believe to be the real man in the moon.

~Misti

[Posted by Julian from an email from Misti, dated Dec 8.]

Also, notice the trackback where Adrian largely agrees with my assessment.

I lived most of my life in the USA, but now live in Australia.

I have always been able to see a person in the moon, wherever I am. In the USA I see a man beaming joyfully down at the earth. But I was astonished when I saw my first full Southern Hemisphere moon, because the face was so completly different. What the southern face looks like to me - and it’s the same face Julian outlined - is a little girl, with a blush across her cheeks and nose. Sweet and young.

Then one evening while looking at the little girl in the moon I saw that, sidewise, my beaming man was there, too! And then I turned my head upside down and saw that there was a THIRD face!!!

That moon is just full of faces.

I have never noticed a rabbit, however.

I came across this page while searching for a picture of the little girl in the moon to show a friend of mine back home. It’s been a disapointing search, because none of the pictures I’ve found show it the way it looks to the naked eye. Furthermore, even when I turn the picture on this page (by far the best pic) this way and that, I just don’t see my beaming man! But when I’m up north, he’s as blatantly obvious to me as the little cutie I see here in Melbourne.

It just occurred to me that the reason that some people can see only one face in the moon may have something to do with why some people have trouble seeing both heads in the classic double-faced image shown here:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/postcard_illusions/

Just a thought.

That moon is just full of faces.

At this point it would remiss not to mention pareidolia…