My pareidolia knows no bounds.

This topic was born out of a debate that had been raging for months, if not years, over the question of whether or not the faces, forms and features people were finding in the MRO Mars data were artificial or not.

My first idea was that if I presented enough evidence of known cases Earthly pareidolia (modern), and an example of a famous non-confirmation at higher resolution (The Skullface episode), people would start to see that it was highly possible that we were mostly, if not entirely, engaging in the pareidolic (modern) experience.

I also presented the results of a study (The Superstitious S) which demonstrated the uncanny ability people had in finding patterns in random data if the believed they were there.

I thought this would be enough, and for a few it was, but mostly no minds of hardened AOH advocates were changed: "But look at this!" they exclaimed.

Along the way Tom tried to steer us in a different direction where we addressed the question: How can we determine which it is, art or pareidolia (modern)? We never completely succeeded, but the closest we came to it is by understanding the relative resolution of comparitive images.

At some point, common sense must come in to play. "The proverbial watch" example still holds true. If any one of us was walking through an unknown forest, and we found a watch, we would know beyond all doubt that an intelligent entity had been there, and we would be reasonable in expecting to find more such proof.

But suppose instead we stood atop a hill in the forest, and off in the distance, some thousands of yards away, we saw some little squiggly thing that <b>looked like it might be something like maybe a watch,</b> what then? How would we proceed?

Common sense dictates that we treat this no differerntly. Show us the unequivocal proverbial watch.

rd

Forget the silly watch story - here is an actual group of faces carved in the forest landscape of Amazonia, Peru.




See: Mystery Geoglyphs of Madre De Dios

Link: newsarcade.org/?p=103

Zip Monster.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />here is an actual group of faces carved in the forest landscape of Amazonia, Peru.
Zip Monster.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK.

And what do you conclude from that?

rd

Zip Monster,

On what basis do you claim that this is a picture of ACTUAL face carvings (artificial) rather than, for example, patterns of shade/shadow (natural)?

Rich,

Have you ever been asked a similar question about your Mt Rushmore picture? How did you reply?

If not, would you?

LB

4. I have no problem with looking at the evidence, but as I've often stated pareidolia (ressler) can be quite elaborate.

rd
[/quote]

Rich, I'm glad you took the time to explain this, I think I understand you a little better now. I have also reviewed most all of the image postings in this thread as well as the images in the post <i>images from the Chasma</i> which goes back quite some time. Unfortunately, in all these images I have not seen one really compelling photograph that I can say is a representative of the <i>signature</i> which I have uncovered. So, if these are a representativesof the type of imagery which is guiding your opinion, in the coming days and months, I will try to introduce to you a more <u>redefined profile</u> of life on Mars which is not shown at all in the images I indicate above.

Just so we can move forward here, I would like your opinion on the image of this specimen seen here in ESP_011359_1695 and ask you how the effect(s) of pareidolia (various) comes into play here just so we can apply these principles in real time so to speak.

In order to get a really good picture of this specimen in ratio to its surroundings, I have produced a video of the area with an intensive zoom in. This produces some sense of scale and although not precisely accurate, if you download the JPEG2000 you will see scale of image and if you have the time and inclination, perhaps you could ascertain the height of the specimen as I am having difficulty with this calculation.

Btw, I always include music to all videos which I produce so if this bothers you, kindly hit the mute button.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B--tam0uh-oiS1R...NVk/edit?usp=sharing

[/URL]

Here is a link to the index for the RAW data files (for freference) on this image which, also does show the specimen as defined in the Grayscale JPEG2000

pdsimage.wr.usgs.gov/cdroms/Mars_Reconna...399/ESP_011359_1695/
Malcolm Scott