My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Despite your lengthy "argument from authority" (that's when one substitutes reasons for pronouncements of authorities, all the while ignoring the countless other authorities who disagree) all one has to do is look at the original Scullface to see there is no more detail (of artificial features) in it than in the (very partial) hi-res image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You seem to be arguing that your pareidolia is more fine tuned than Crater's, Levasseur's and the two Optometrist's. In other words, if you use your criteria for "enough detail" it's real, but other's "enough detail" might be pareidolia in your view.

That's my point exactly.

The two Yosemite pictures are simply reminders of what it looks like when we "really" can see the terrain we're photographing. No more, no less. No ambiguity there.

The kitty is an example of a face that looks real. Of course we don't know if it's random (i.e., real), or a hoax. But, we've used the same argument on some of these Martian images. One thing we do know, is that in all probability a Martian Civilization didn't once populate Kitty's Ear.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You seem to be arguing that your pareidolia is more fine tuned than Crater's, Levasseur's and the two Optometrist's. In other words, if you use your criteria for "enough detail" it's real, but other's "enough detail" might be pareidolia in your view. [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am arguing nothing of the kind. I'm simply saying look at the pictures and read the words, and make your (one's) best logical call. Later do scientific tests when that becomes possible.

Artificiality vs. random natural occurences is the issue at question, so how could anyone be "arguing that his or her pareidolia is more fine tuned than someone elses?" That sound sounds kind of nonsensical, doesn't it?

That's all. I'll leave it there.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Later do scientific tests when that becomes possible. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They did tons of "scientific tests" that convinced them it was real. High resolution tossed it all out the window.

In other words, if we rewind back to before the high resolution images was taken, many would have argued that it was scientifically proved that Skully was likely to be real. You may or may not have agreed at the time. I suspect you would have.

But now, with hingsight, and the aid of the high resolution image, it's a little easier to say, "there wasn't enough detail to begin with."

I think Skullface is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make.



rd

"I think Skullface is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make." [rd]

You are entitled to your opinion.

"They did tons of "scientific tests" that convinced them it was real. High resolution tossed it all out the window.

In other words, if we rewind back to before the high resolution images was taken, many would have argued that it was scientifically proved that Skully was likely to be real. You may or may not have agreed at the time. I suspect you would have.

But now, with hingsight, and the aid of the high resolution image, it's a little easier to say, "there wasn't enough detail to begin with."" [rd]

Also let's not forget the context (big picture) that this is a very radical fringe theory, that very, very few people agree with. Yet. But if we make good logical arguments and they are ultimately backed up by good evidence. We may suceed.

Neil

<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 />I attempted to give two such examples in the first post of this topic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, and I have a problem with that. Your analyses are interesting and are helping the efforts to better understand what is going on with Mars, and even helping us to develop better criteria for what is artificial and what is not.

However, as I keep stressing, your work makes sense <i><b>only</b></i> in the context of previously established artificiality. I'm prepared to grant that artificiality premise, but many reading this forum, perhaps even the majority, are not there yet. So you keep being tempted to argue for artificiality independent of other known artificiality, which I think is a mistake. No amount of regularity or pattern recognition not predicted in advance is sufficient to justify claiming that an a posteriori finding is artificial. It can only be used to formulate hypotheses for future testing.

OTOH, given artificiality elsewhere on Mars, you only need to show that artificiality of a feature under consideration is more likely than any other explanation. Pereidolia is no longer the most probable explanation for a detailed, non-random feature. Your burden of proof is much more modest because you are no longer trying to prove anything extraordinary, but just trying to better understand the extraordinary thing already proved.

There is much more that can be said about the context and relationships for the features you are discussing, and for other cases (such as skullface) for which the analysis has progressed far beyond what you have rediscovered so far. You will be amazed when you eventually see the larger picture.

But this thread is about pereidolia and keeps lapsing back to establishing absolute artificiality independent of anything else. Discussing advanced relationships and multiple interpretations of features in a context where artrificiality is not already a hard fact rightly brings one's credibility into question.

So I recommend that you subdivide your pereidolia discussion into two parts, one where you are trying to establish absolute artificiality (which most of this thread has been about), and the other about separating signals from noise in the context of already-definitely-established artificiality.

Then at some suitable point, you might start a new thread titled something like "Given artificiality as an established fact, what do the features we see tell us?" In that context, we just might be able to bring up some really interesting things without providing de facto grounds for the fellows in white coats to lock us up. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />But this thread is about pereidolia and keeps lapsing back to establishing absolute artificiality independent of anything else. Discussing advanced relationships and multiple interpretations of features in a context where artrificiality is not already a hard fact rightly brings one's credibility into question.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I understand that's what you think I'm doing, and you could be right, but I really don't think that's what I'm attempting to convey. My idea is really much simpler than that.

Even if I assume artificiality has already been proved, prior to the discussions in the topic, that doesn't really change my basic premise, which is that we can easily be being fooled by images at this resolution. The Yosemite images have a resolution on the order of millimeters/pixel (I would guess), more than three orders of magnitude better.

Regardless of whether or not artificiality of say the Cydonia Face has been proven, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mars has thousands of faces all over the place. What I'm attempting to show, is how we can be fooled by the type of images we currently have available to us, and I submit that there is a level of magnification (resolution) at which we no longer can be fooled.

I'm not exactly sure why I'm having such a hard time conveying that point. But I did want to get this on the record.

I'm not saying that artificiality can be "proved" independent of scientific tests, but I am saying that I believe that it's quite possible that higher resolution images clears up a lot of the ambiguity in whether or not a certain feature is likely to be an artwork.

In other words, at higher resolution, most people might not want to bother to consider investigating further.

Ooops, I forgot something else. My fundamental point is: pareidolia has no bounds. Particularly, when it comes to fuzzy images.

rd