- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
- Marsevidence01
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
10 years 8 months ago #22568
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
The "T or E" Topic stemmed from a report I worked on with Neil back before I had hardened my "It's all Pareidolia (modern)" view. It was published in an early version of the Bulletin. Anyone reading this topic can see that in the beginning I was very much open to the fact that we were dealing with artifacts on Mars:
For those who might be interested:
www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=859&whichpage=1
This was the original MOC Narrow-Angle Image:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/SP243004.html
This was the original MOC Wide-Angle Context:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/s05_s10/images/S06/S0602204.html
The "T or E" topic was interesting in that in my view it represented the point in time when Neil went off the reservation and changed the scope of these activities from examining highly promising artifacts to <b>finding faces galore, anywhere and everywhere on the Martian landscape</b>. And I said as much at the time. Here is a quote from JP Levasseur on why he didn't address the minor faces around and near The Profile Girl (Nefertiti) Image. I asked him about it in an email:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Numerous additional faces and patterns have indeed been noted in that image, but in my opinion none compare with the primary profile and all its detail and proportion. It seems to me that if the strongest of the faces, the primary profile, is not considered strong enough evidence for artificiality, then the rest, which in my opinion are weaker, only serve to weaken the overall case for artificiality, something that can be construed as support for the claim of overactive imaginations. I'm not saying those additional formations are not artificial, only that claiming too many can be counterproductive. But the day a single shred of solid proof of an artifact emerges from the Martian sands, the rest will automatically have integrity. Until then, even though they certainly add to the science, I think they dilute the overall case for Martian artifacts." <b>{From correspondence with JP Levasseur}<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></b>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Because the whole overall area of the Profile Image seemed to be "composed" of those four images, all in the same style, all lending weight to the other, I tended to disagree with respect to the Profile Girl and Family. On the other hand, I immediately started to see his point, as Emanuel started to post more and more obscure images of faces (no offense intended).
In this post, I think you have combined good images with obvious pareidolia images, thereby weakening your case somewhat. It's still an interesting exercise, but I'd say the likelihood of "Philosopher" being Martian Art, is about as strong as the images on the Yosemite Walls being Martian Art. <b>rderosa to nderosa</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As you can see from these quotes, while I was very much open to the idea of <b>something </b> being Martian Art or Artifacts (like the "T"), I was starting to get a little nervous about the whole thing. It was slipping away into the realm Professor Levasseur warned us about. The cartoon characters at the end of this ("T or E") topic in my estimation were clouding the issue. Approximately 2 months later, I started this "My Pareidolia Knows No Bounds" Topic, because by then, I was pretty sure what we were dealing with.
I won't go back and find HiRise images to debunk every single thing ever posted, but I think it's somewhat newsworthy to do the major ones of the time. In that light, here is the "T or E" as seen by HiRise. I'll let the viewer decide if this is an old abandoned mining operation or not.
This structure is so huge that it fills the image strip at 5%. I proceed to zoom in on the upper inside of the "T"
From: www.uahirise.org/ESP_012587_1965
5%
10%
25%
50%
100%
Again, I ask the viewer to consider the fact that if we were hovering above this area of Mars in a low flying vehicle with binoculars (maybe even with the naked eye), this is pretty much exactly what we're going to see.
rd
For those who might be interested:
www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=859&whichpage=1
This was the original MOC Narrow-Angle Image:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/SP243004.html
This was the original MOC Wide-Angle Context:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/s05_s10/images/S06/S0602204.html
The "T or E" topic was interesting in that in my view it represented the point in time when Neil went off the reservation and changed the scope of these activities from examining highly promising artifacts to <b>finding faces galore, anywhere and everywhere on the Martian landscape</b>. And I said as much at the time. Here is a quote from JP Levasseur on why he didn't address the minor faces around and near The Profile Girl (Nefertiti) Image. I asked him about it in an email:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Numerous additional faces and patterns have indeed been noted in that image, but in my opinion none compare with the primary profile and all its detail and proportion. It seems to me that if the strongest of the faces, the primary profile, is not considered strong enough evidence for artificiality, then the rest, which in my opinion are weaker, only serve to weaken the overall case for artificiality, something that can be construed as support for the claim of overactive imaginations. I'm not saying those additional formations are not artificial, only that claiming too many can be counterproductive. But the day a single shred of solid proof of an artifact emerges from the Martian sands, the rest will automatically have integrity. Until then, even though they certainly add to the science, I think they dilute the overall case for Martian artifacts." <b>{From correspondence with JP Levasseur}<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></b>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Because the whole overall area of the Profile Image seemed to be "composed" of those four images, all in the same style, all lending weight to the other, I tended to disagree with respect to the Profile Girl and Family. On the other hand, I immediately started to see his point, as Emanuel started to post more and more obscure images of faces (no offense intended).
In this post, I think you have combined good images with obvious pareidolia images, thereby weakening your case somewhat. It's still an interesting exercise, but I'd say the likelihood of "Philosopher" being Martian Art, is about as strong as the images on the Yosemite Walls being Martian Art. <b>rderosa to nderosa</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As you can see from these quotes, while I was very much open to the idea of <b>something </b> being Martian Art or Artifacts (like the "T"), I was starting to get a little nervous about the whole thing. It was slipping away into the realm Professor Levasseur warned us about. The cartoon characters at the end of this ("T or E") topic in my estimation were clouding the issue. Approximately 2 months later, I started this "My Pareidolia Knows No Bounds" Topic, because by then, I was pretty sure what we were dealing with.
I won't go back and find HiRise images to debunk every single thing ever posted, but I think it's somewhat newsworthy to do the major ones of the time. In that light, here is the "T or E" as seen by HiRise. I'll let the viewer decide if this is an old abandoned mining operation or not.
This structure is so huge that it fills the image strip at 5%. I proceed to zoom in on the upper inside of the "T"
From: www.uahirise.org/ESP_012587_1965
5%
10%
25%
50%
100%
Again, I ask the viewer to consider the fact that if we were hovering above this area of Mars in a low flying vehicle with binoculars (maybe even with the naked eye), this is pretty much exactly what we're going to see.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.362 seconds