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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />Of course we accept your apology. Since you did not know you should not feel bad. It really is OK.

But also since you did not know, this does reveal that you have done very little research on what has *gone before* at this website.

And that explains parts of your attitude and your responses to our less than back-slapping response to your discoveries. No one has ridiculed you, but you claim we do it frequently.

***

It takes more than a few images and an opinion to catch the attention of people who have seen hundreds of images and heard dozens of opinions over the years.

We really are open to the AOH here.

But you need to realize that a hypothesis is not much more than a guess. And, do you know the difference between a hypothesis (a guess) and a scientific hypothesis (a scientific guess)?

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

Larry, It does seem to me, I am constantly being put on the defensive. I am unsure why that is after all, this forum is Artificial Structures On Mars - not "possible" Artificial Structures on Mars, so you see, I am just providing my input of over two years of MY personal research into this subject which I would like to continue to share. With respect to the use of the word ridicule, possibly my error as I am only referring to my research which is responded to with an aroma of ridicule many times when I post. You are correct though, no one has personally ridiculed me "directly" although you have come close on a few occasions.

Question, and here is a good example, please advise...where have I asked here to be forgiven? I have not presented an "apology" to be accepted at all as you indicate above. I have nothing to be apologetic about. True, I did not know of Neil's passing and although I can tell this was a deep tragedy for Rich, his family and many others, I just did not know. Should I have been expected to know? Should I have been expected to deliver an apology?

Do you catch my drift here guy?

Moving on. I have spent quite some time reviewing the past communications in this forum, for me, there is a wealth of great minds here for sure. But please, it may very well be, that I may have uncovered one or more new discoveries which may or may not need a whole new fresh approach with key word "fresh". Let me give you an example of what I'm referring to. You say here (and you remind me frequently) "it's nothing we haven't all seen before" well ok...prove it, show me or give me a link to a post that shows an "equal" to an image of say the "girl with the boots" I posted last week. Or, an equivalent of the image of the 41 ft high apparent "alien in the cliff side" I posted earlier on in the year? It's not that I haven't tried, I just can't find an "equivalent" anywhere which you keep on saying "is so common". I see images of areas of rocks that have a vague resemblance to a bird or a queen and yes, they ARE interesting but "just the same?".

Look, I need to say this, I have spent over two years examining at really close magnification, acres and acres of the Martian landscape almost until I became "blue in the face" (figure of speech) In that time, I have found examples of "very apparent artificial forms". The "girl in the boots" is just one of many really compelling finds and there are more. So, in my humble opinion, these are NOT the result of Pareidolia (any). However, I have posted some in this thread and perhaps I should not of done so, I just needed to make and punctuate a point.

My goal is to show to science, image analysis that there IS great doubt about this this preconception. You and Rich may disagree with this conclusion so I will state it once more for the record; IT AIN'T PAREIDOLIA in any of its contrivances! And in this, I can only hope to stand close to Neil's adamant contention and will continue to do so.

For some further information on Pareidolia "Debunked"

Further information regarding the Cognitive Dissonance "The Lies We Tell Ourselves" which may be of interest. psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/1...s-we-tell-ourselves/




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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />Of course we accept your apology. Since you did not know you should not feel bad. It really is OK.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I absolutely agree. There's nothing to be sorry for.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But also since you did not know, this does reveal that you have done very little research on what has *gone before* at this website.

And that explains parts of your attitude and your responses to our less than back-slapping response to your discoveries. No one has ridiculed you, but you claim we do it frequently.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> This is actually the first thing that jumped into my mind the first time he asked about Neil.


<i>Hey, wait a minute! I thought you read this whole thing??</i>

So it begs the question: Did he really read all that much of what came before him, let alone this whole thread. Some of the other threads that I laid out in a message a week or so ago, was really where the "arguing" took place. If he actually read all that stuff, he'd see that we were far from singling him out.

Not to mention the "Superstitious 'S'" Study. To my thinking that's mind-blowing. But one has to read it carefully and make sure the methodology is clearly understood.

<i>Method:

In Experiment 1, we instructed 3 paid naive observers (R.C., N.L., and M.J.; ages 21 to 24) to detect in white noise the presence of a target black letter S on a white background filling the image. The observers were told that the letter S (for "superstitious") was present on 50% of the 20,000 trials, which were equally divided into 40 blocks and completed over a fortnight. No more detail was given regarding the shape of the letter. The image presented on each trial consisted of static bit noise spanning 50 _ 50 pixels (2° _ 2° of visual angle), with a black pixel density of 50%. <b>No signal was ever presented.</b> The experiment ran on a G4 Macintosh computer using a program written with the Psychophysics Toolbox for Matlab (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997).
</i>

I won't go over the whole thing again, but the bottom line is this that even though there was zero signal in the samples, because the participants were told that 50% of them had a hidden "S", when all their cards were separated into "yes" and "no" piles for the presence of an "S", <b> and then the "yeses" were summed and all of the "nos" were subtracted from the "yes" data, the result was clearly an "S" and each of the participants "S" was a different font!!!</b>

If you let this sink it, it's staggering. They found data that produced "S"s totally out of white noise. How is that possible, other than:

<b><i>You see what you know</i></b>

Fig 1 (Gosselin, Schyns, Sep 2003)



rd

Malcolm, you have an uncanny tendency to miss the point.

In spite of what you think of your images, they are no more convincing than anything that came before you. I mean really, that shouldn't be that hard to understand.

As far as "elaborate pareidolia" is concerned, yours isn't really even all that elaborate. There's been a hundred times more detail than "boots" present in the past.

That's what we're trying to tell you. You think you have something really exciting and new. We think: Yawwwwnnnn

<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 /> IT AIN'T PAREIDOLIA in any of its contrivances! Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Talk is cheap.

If I had to bet money on it. I'd place my money on the fact that you have not shown us one thing that's "artificial".

Until you can prove it, it's just so much talk.

rd

Malcolm, you asked for a link, here's one. And no, this is not a joke. Start at the second message and <b>carefully read the details Horace Crater and JP Levasseur thought they were seeing. It's known as Skullface.</b>

I could repost the whole message but it would be easier if you just read the darn thing:

Read the second message carefully from beginning to end, or I may never talk to you again. (lol)

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?...C_ID=873&whichpage=1

Message: Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 23:30:21

Then further down on Page 1, read the message where the two Doctors analyzed the image.

Message: Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 13:01:13

rd

As far as "elaborate pareidolia" is concerned, yours isn't really even all that elaborate. There's been a hundred times more detail than "boots" present in the past.

That's what we're trying to tell you. You think you have something really exciting and new. We think: Yawwwwnnnn
[/quote]

Bring it on...prove it, show me just one image which is "more elaborate, more exciting" than either of the two image I have posted of the "girl in boots" or the 41ft alien in the cliffs". (let me know if you need a refreash on the images)

Now Rich, you say talk is cheap so I don't expect a description or a chat...just your example images ....pleeeease!

I really hope you do...I just can't wait to bring the big guns out!

Malcolm Scott