My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Oh, and it was Neil, not Fred (for the third time) who referred to "Jinns."

rd
[/quote]

I do apologize Fred. I meant Neil

Malcolm Scott

[/quote]Dr. Malcolm, I thought Hedda was hilarious, and just as real as the Statue. I merely "keyed" it for you. And I certainly didn't cover up the Pareidolic Statue. It's still there for all to see.


rd
[/quote]

No offence was taken Rich...none really thus far. I was just pointing out that this "funny" confirmed my suspicion re. as to your Cognitive Dissonance.

Btw, I'm not a Doctor.

I'm off now for a while...hang in there my friend and keep up the Pareidolia thing, (if you must) and just be aware that new people could be very mis-directed and this is an important precedence...know mean?

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />1. In any and all episodes of pareidolia, the person experiencing the image or target data point is viewing a KNOWN SOURCE WITH KNOWN DATA PROPERTIES.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely false. No wonder why you're confused about this whole thing. Please re-read the Five Definitions of Pareidolia.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. At this present time in our exploration of this planet WE DO NOT KNOW THE TARGET PROPERTIES OF THE ANOMALIES AND/OR ARTIFACTS and, as such, cannot be deemed a manifestation of the experiencer's imagination or point of view. While it is tempting to call this a pareidolic episode IT IS IN FACT ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE as the experiencer may very well be correct in their conclusive assumption. Thus, NOT A PAREIDOLIC EXPERIENCE....PERIOD. One can call it what one likes to but until the PROPERTIES of the target data point is KNOWN, it will remain just that - A SURFACE ANOMALY AWAITING FURTHER DATA FOR CONFIRMATION! <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I understand your need to believe this, because otherwise you would have to see the potential for it all to be pareidolia. That's why we wait for proof. Something that is convincingly <b>FIRST ARTIFICIALITY </b>. So far, none is forthcoming.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To exemplify, here are some fine examples of pareidolia:

Is this a mans face with a wide open mouth? NO...IT'S A STUMP OF WOOD - known target data = pareidolic image!

[/URL]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Very weak example of the kind Trinket used to post. Fred's shadow art is far more complex. For the most part, we've been ignoring this type of thing.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Here's a good one...again, is this a man's face? NO...IT'S A ROCK FORMATION THAT LOOKS THIS WAY - known target data = paredolic image

[/URL]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

May or may not be pareidolia. We'd have to go there and look at it, and find out the history. If it was made by man, it's not pareidolia. If it wasn't made by man, it is, but still rather weak.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And another...

Is this a real little pink man? NO OF COURSE NOT...IT'S A FLOWER! - known target data = pareidolic image

[/URL]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again, we've been totally ignoring this type of thing, (a) because it lacks complexity, and (b) we don't know if someone (i.e., man) made it. Would need further examination.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And just one more bring home the point;

Is this a strange looking man with long metal nose? Absolutely not...IT'S TAP! -known target data = pareidolic image.

[/URL]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Specifically <b> EXCLUDED </b> from the definition "pareidolia (derosa)".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And where the rubber meets the road...

Is this a human statue sitting on the plateau taken by the rover Spirit? Possibly - unknown target data = MARS SURFACE ANOMALY!

[/URL]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fuzzy image which leads the Mars Anomaly hunters to believe it's an artifact (or worse, real) and has resulted in the whole AOH debate. As of yet, we keep waiting for something that isn't fuzzy to prove one way or another who's right, but still nothing is forthcoming.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I will upload no further posts under your thread - "MY PAREIDOLIA KNOWS NO BOUNDS" and stand corrected for probably doing so in the first place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Shall I take that as a "no", none of your researchers has read this Topic from beginning to end, studying and understanding the "Superstitious 'S'" Study?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Moreover, IT IS INCORRECT TO CONFUSE THE RESEARCHER, ENQUIRER OR LAYPERSON THAT UNKNOWN IMAGES AND DATA POINTS ON THE SURFACE OF MARS ARE THE RESULT OF THE PHENOMENON KNOWN AS PAREIDOLIA - PERIOD. FURTHER, I FEEL IT IS SOMEWHAT UNSCIENTIFIC AND OTHERWISE IRRESPONSIBLE TO INFER TO ANYONE THAT THIS IS INDEED THE CASE FOR THE REASONS I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

History will tell. In my humble opinion, I am offering the reader a choice. Some people refuse to see the logic in my arguments (and Fred's art), whereas others see it. I have kept "science" on my side as much as possible during these long years doing this.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Rich, if you would like to discuss with me the phenomenon of pareidolia, I would be glad to but it will need to be discussed in the realm of Earth based known data points only. I could suggest this be done outside the WEBSITE of Martian Anomalies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Thank you for the offer, but I have to refuse. When TVF granted permission for this Topic, he knew and understood the reason why it should be here. It makes sense that it's here, because there is so much material for the Pareidolia Hunter to find in the Mar Images.

One other important point. Those of us on this side of the argument are saying:

<b>In all probability, in our opinion, all of these so-called Mars Anomalies are pareidolia. We're not sure. We can't be sure until we either go there, or are shown some incontrovertible proof. Note we're not saying they ARE all pareidolia, we're saying they PROBABLY ARE ALL pareidolia. </b>

Contrast that with the AOH Hunters who are saying <b>It's all art, or Martian intelligence that created it.</b>

As you can see, our side is the one using the tenets of science and logic. We don't know, so we leave ourselves open to be proven wrong. You seem to be saying there's no way you can be wrong. I don't think that's on very firm ground as far as scientific theories go. What would convince you that you were wrong?

The bottom line? You don't <b>KNOW </b> it's art, anymore than I <b>KNOW </b> it's pareidolia.

You think you're right, though, just like I think I'm right. And remember, if I'm right, what you're looking at on Mars is a whole lot of nothing. Patterns.



rd

A face seen in a dream is not pareidolia.(Ressler). Seeing a pattern that looks like a face while dreaming would be dream pareidolia but i imagine it would take a lot to do that because the brain doesn't seem (today) to be hard wired to do that. i have never seen pareidolia in a dream and have overloaded my brain with pareidolia at times. i often dream of meaningful daytime experience (when i dream) but not pareidolia. Interesting- worthy of research.

Rich, again you either miss my point OR you get it and choose to re-direct it.

Again - THERE ARE NO PAREIDOLIA IMAGES ON MARS - NONE. Please try not to confuse the VERY REAL PHENOMENON of Pareidolia in all it's forms with the evaluation of unknown data anomalies on Mars and please do not try to put words into my mouth thank you.

When I return from a short break, I plan on posting a new thread where I'd like to address the psychological condition of Cognitive Dissonance. If I am right here, this condition is something you might want (need) to address. I will also bring in some personal expert consultantion on the subject as I for one, feel quite convinced that this condition hit's more in the field of planetary scientists than we may be aware of and as a result, inhibits great minds of further knowledge.



Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />When I return from a short break, I plan on posting a new thread where I'd like to address the psychological condition of Cognitive Dissonance. If I am right here, this condition is something you might want (need) to address. I will also bring in some personal expert consultantion on the subject as I for one, feel quite convinced that this condition hit's more in the field of planetary scientists than we may be aware of and as a result, inhibits great minds of further knowledge.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, you're getting dangerously close to resorting to ad-hominem attacks (actually, you already crossed the threshold). Please keep your messages to me direct responses the the points I make in my responses to you.

Commenting about my mental state, or my "needs" is totally off-base, and I'm kind of surprised Larry hasn't jettisoned some of it already.

There's no need to bring in a "specialist" on some known or unknown mental disorder, while discussing the issue of whether or not what you're seeing on Mars is really art, or just patterns in the terrain.

As I said in my last message, you believe one thing is likely, and I believe the exact opposite is likely. No need for personal attacks.

rd