My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<b>[Marsevidence01] "Oh Larry, you look so attractive when you get testy....!</b>

[I primp, and stick my chest out.]

Thanks. Now, can I go finish my drink?

(I wonder which if us is the strange one?)

I like it. The "p" word so powerful we debate if it should be mentioned- banned eliminated from certain discussions- or altogether changed. Elimination of the word pareidolia is tyranny. Pareidolia (Ressler) is "pattern recognition" made into one word. Lighten up anti-pareidoliaists. It was not widely called pareidolia till 1996. The same time i started taking shadow photographs. i didn't hear the term till years after i started. People used to ask me what i called it this week at the farmers market- i was always changing the name. Eidetic image- Simulacra- etc. i feel as if a wave came here around Dec. 1995 Existentialists believe things are merely what they are. i believe there is something more to things than how they simply appear. PAREIDOLIA.

<b>[rderosa] "However, on this Topic, any and all images posted are fair game and the word "pareidolia" flows freely and unimpeded.

How's that sound?</b>

Reasonable. Comments?

Oh yeah, my drink ...

<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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />Now I'm going to the bar ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, I have what might be a good compromise:

We all agree <b>NOT to reference "pareidolia" on any new Topic started in the Artificial Structures Forum by Malcolm or anyone else while they are presenting what they believe to be their "proof" of life on Mars. </b>

However, on this Topic, any and all images posted are fair game and the word "pareidolia" flows freely and unimpeded.

How's that sound?

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am agreeable to this however, with one exception. The word proof should be so defined as:

1. "not conclusive" but as defined by LAW as:(in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

or.

2.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.


We are at a crossroads here. Proof of extra terrestrial life is a big matter for; it is or it is not, in other words, "she can't be a little bit pregnant" however....

If we all agree that "in an image" we see evidence which supports "probative weight" then we have taken a step over that threshold. But only to a certain degree. This will be dependent then on the personal view and indeed the belief of the individual. For example, a person that subscribes to a faith in a religion, may say that the surface features are indeed artificial only because God made "it" that way so as to give a record of his infinite power.

A "hunter" (as you put it) may infer that the surface anomalies have been created by Aliens located there for whatever reason yet to be known.

Personally, I do not have a conclusion to either nor do I represent that I have "proof" of these two examples. What I do say is that I am confident that many the anomalies are of "intelligent design" which have been "created" vis-a-vis natural.

As to who or by what, I do not know. For me personally, my quest is to try to ascertain IF these anomalies were created in the Martian past, or if they are a result of an ongoing process. This is the real challenge.

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 /> The word proof should be so defined as:

1. "not conclusive" but as defined by LAW as:(in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

or.

2.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Proof" is a good word to look at in depth. So, I agree with premise.

Merriam-Webster defines it as [I've only included the relevant ones - and made them bold]:

Full Definition of PROOF

1
<b>a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact</b>
<b>b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning</b> [note: this is the mathematical "proof", but has meaning here also.]

3
<b>: something that induces certainty or establishes validity </b>

5
<b>: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal</b> [note: this is the Jury's truth, and our experience in how Jurors have responded in many recent high profile case is instructive, in that you never really know what they will conclude. Although at times I have been right in assessing what a jury will conclude, I have also been wrong.]

I just want to add one comment. In all the above derivations, only 1b, the mathematical proof is subject to precise rules. All the rest reside in the judgement of the reviewer (Jurors, peer-reviewers, etc.) So, to put it bluntly, one man's proof is not necessarily proof to another, and this is where intelligent, objective argument [I'm using "argument" as a Lawyer would] comes into play.

Just because one person thinks they are presenting proof, unless it can be mathematically (or some other scientific discipline) proven, it's subject to the opinion of the reviewer.

rd

<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 />
Orion. Man in the Moon. Horse head nebula. NOT PAREIDOLIA
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Since this is incorrect, I have to correct it.

Orion = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (stars, sky, gaseous clouds, dust, etc.)

Man in the Moon = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (surface of the moon)

Horse head nebula =<b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (sky, stars, gaseous clouds, etc.)<b></b>

Pareidolia = <b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b>

Therefore: <b> Orion, the Man in the Moon and the Horse head Nebula</b> all equal <b>pareidolia (ressler/new) </b>

rd