T or E

<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 jrich</i>
<br />I have to say that I find it astounding that you are seeing "flat art" that strongly resemble familiar figures from history enough to actually name them after such figures, yet at the same time seem convinced that this is more than just pareidolia.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
jrich, before I respond to this, can you tell me if you see the image of Grant that is presented in the key? That's an important question. Can you draw us a little sketch of what you think the image is?

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see what you see. But just because more than one person sees it doesn't convey any additional credence to the artificiality argument. My argument all along is that all of this is indistinguishable from pareidolia. I haven't seen any images of creatures with 6 tenticles and eye stalks, but I'd be willing to bet that an image that would satisfy that description could be found among the rubble fields and craters if someone were looking for it. We know pareidolia exists and we know that it might be expected to manifest itself just as we have witnessed in this forum. So finding additional examples of pareidolia will not add credence to your argument that these images are artificial, for that you will need to present evidence of artificial construction.

JR

Just to set the record straight, we definately think a good number of the faces posted in the last few days are artificial, but we define "artificiality" as either meaning, "made by someone on Mars sometime in the past," OR, "made by someone, right here on Earth, using a C++ program or DOS, or equivelent."

At this point we don't know which is true, but we mean to find out. Logically at this point I'm leaning toward the Earthly computer generated answer, because I don't believe in coincidences.

However, we do think the Cydonia Face actually exists on Mars, and I am virtually certain it is Artificial. As for all the rest of the Images, we can't say (conclude) any more than I have just now above---yet.

Neil

Why search for artificial causes (hoaxing, Martians) when a natural one (pareidolia) will suffice. The search for a non-natural explanation must stem from a belief that the natural explaination is insufficient. The only reason I can imagine why you might reject pareidolia is that you are uncomfortable with the idea that your subjective perception of reality could be at such a variance with your what your objective intelligence concludes it to be. In trying to reconcile the subjective mind with the objective one you are forced to assume that the subjective is correct and search for an explaination which will also satisfy your objective mind. The quest becomes then not for *The Truth*, but for *your truth*. However, your objective mind is not completely fooled and in order to convince it, *your truth* must become *The Truth* and this can only be achieved by convincing a sufficient number of others of the same.

JR

<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 /> The quest becomes then not for *The Truth*, but for *your truth*. However, your objective mind is not completely fooled and in order to convince it, *your truth* must become *The Truth* and this can only be achieved by convincing a sufficient number of others of the same.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is only one Truth.

This may be pareidolia. There are virtually no realistic features:



(Incidentally, I don't remember you complaining about this one, but if I'm wrong, please point me to the message where you did)

This is NOT pareidolia. Note the realistic human eyes, nose, mouth, neck, open collar, headress, hair on forhead, wrinkles on forehead, upturned head, lips, smile, earlobe sticking out from bottom of headress.



You see, you can use that word all you want, but that's not going to change anything. Where do you draw the line?

If we found a Wedding Scene, with singer, bride, groom, band, with drummer playing Pearl Drums, tables, prime rib dinner, champagne, kids wearing tuxedos, brides maids and grooms, etc. Would you still think it's pareidolia?

Describe to us what the dividing line is between "enough" detail and "not enough".

Tom, would you care to weigh in on the difference between these two images?

rd

<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 />I see what you see. But just because more than one person sees it doesn't convey any additional credence to the artificiality argument.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, all I want to say on this one is this. I can see if this looked like some vague notion of a man with a beard, how it <i><b>might be</b></i> (and I stress "might be") pareidolia.

But, that's not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with an image that looks almost exactly like President Lincoln. Coupled with all the other images in the area.

You seem to be arguing the old point that if you leave a room full of trained monkeys banging away on typewriters infinitely, that sooner or later they would type all the great masterpieces. It sounds good, but as everyone knows, that's shear nonsense. They would type an infinite amount of nonsense.

Same thing goes for this. The only way these images could have gotten there is by an intelligent hand, one way or the other, as Neil pointed out.

In my opinion the word "pareidolia" is grossly overused, by those who for some reason or another, either refuse to believe that these images are real, or don't want others to believe they are real. Although, I must admit, I don't know what they're so afraid of.

rd

I'd swear I've seen this image of "someone who looks like it could be a Saint, or Jesus, or John the Babtist" somewhere at some time in my life.

It could have been in a bible, or maybe on the wall of a church, or in an encyclopedia, or window.



rd