Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries

Frequent, Elaborate, Pareidolia Theory

Pareidolia theory as it applies to this issue, is quite simple. It states that a detailed, realistic symbolic rendition of an object (in this case faces) forming naturally (as opposed to “artificially,” as in a work of art, architecture, or engineering) must be extremely rare and in direct proportion to the statistical odds against such a particular combination of order and detail forming randomly by the forces of nature. The more detailed and ordered the object, the more rare. It’s as simple as that. The theory can be falsified and verified by the appropriate specialists conducting the proper tests under strict controls. Conversely if an object is found meeting the criteria sufficient to establish proof of artificiality, numeric rarity will no longer be an issue. At the one end of the spectrum, the odds against the faces at Mt. Rushmore forming naturally, although possible, are almost infinite, far larger at least than is possible to occur during the age of the planet on which it is found. At the other end of the spectrum, two blotches and a smudge appearing in a babbling brook or on a cliff wall that vaguely resembles a face, is quite common and frequently seen, because the odds against such combinations occurring naturally are very small.

Frequent, elaborate, pareidolia theory is a false hypothesis that implies the possibility of extremely statistically rare forms appearing as everyday occurrences. (to be continued)

<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 />Frequent, elaborate, pareidolia theory is a false hypothesis that implies the possibility of extremely statistically rare forms appearing as everyday occurrences. (to be continued)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think most readers who've been following this whole debate are going to take this very seriously until you come to grips with Fred's photos.

Although, I can't really blame you for trying, you have a lot at stake. For if elaborate pareidolia exists, which it does in Fred's photos, then that proves that all of your postings could in fact be pareidolia, and I understand how you might resist that notion.

This strikes me as an "end run", which as you know is a famous football play which is designed to avoid going at the other teams strengths (i.e., down the middle).

rd

The development of this idea will take awhile so please bear with me.

(continued from above)
Frequent, elaborate, pareidolia theory is a false hypothesis that implies the possibility of extremely statistically rare forms appearing as everyday occurrences. The objection to this hypothesis will be demonstrated in a preliminary manner by examining some of the evidence that has been posted in support of it. We will see if the evidence serves to confirm the hypothesis or fails to do so. The position of this theory is the latter is true. I hope to show the following:
1- Elaborate pareidolia, (which will be defined), will be shown to be very rare or non-existent.
2- Examples of pareidolia are never treated scientifically, as it was in its traditional form, (as in the Levasseur MRB paper cited several times), with which there is no objection.
3- Proposed cases of elaborate pareidolia are never substantiated, confirmed, analyzed, scrutinized or otherwise explained scientifically.
4- Examples are never seen from different vantage points, in raw data formats, under different lighting conditions in different seasons, under higher and/or lower resolution.
5- Proposed cases almost never pass the artificiality threshold.
6- The cases that do pass this threshold or come close, may not be pareidolia but artificial. No attempt is ever made to draw the distinction or to find out.
7- Borderline cases are either very rare or the result of unduely enhanced photographs.
8- The fallback argument when all else fails (as it always does), is the "50 million Frenchman can't be wrong" rule, or "that's what my freinds say," or "lets take a poll."
(to be continued)

Exhibit 1, The old Scotchman, if one can call a post card a scientific exhibit, but it had been posted previously as an example and presumably evidence of "pareidolia," so we’ll use it here. It's in the Garden of the Gods, a tourist attraction in Colorado Springs. I can't identify the trees and shrubbery nearby so it might be a few feet high or much larger. It might be natural or, well, a tourist attraction, hand crafted for the occasion, like a Ferris wheel or totem pole. I Googled the Garden of the Gods but couldn't find any reference to the Scotchman. We don't know if it's two or three dimensional, in terms of the face itself. In fact we don't know anything about it and can't seem to find out. In any event it is not elaborate or very detailed unless it is three dimensional. The detail it does have, chisled nose, lips, chin, hairline, might have been well, chisled. But it's on the internet...on a post card. I used to work in Colorado Springs; if I still did, I would take some pictures of it—for pareidolia research.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't think most readers who've been following this whole debate are going to take this very seriously until you come to grips with Fred's photos.[Richard]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Patience please.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Although, I can't really blame you for trying, you have a lot at stake. For if elaborate pareidolia exists, which it does in Fred's photos, then that proves that all of your postings could in fact be pareidolia, and I understand how you might resist that notion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Uh huh.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This strikes me as an "end run", which as you know is a famous football play which is designed to avoid going at the other teams strengths (i.e., down the middle).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I like the analogy.

<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 />Frequent, elaborate, pareidolia theory is a false hypothesis that implies the possibility of extremely statistically rare forms appearing as everyday occurrences.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> This is the famous strawman argument. Nobody ever said they were everyday occurances, although they could be, if someone with your talents was looking for them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1- Elaborate pareidolia, (which will be defined), will be shown to be very rare or non-existent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I know of at least 300 at one guy's house.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2- Examples of pareidolia are never treated scientifically, as it was in its traditional form,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's because they are pareidolia, and nobody thinks Martians made them (this is another strawman). Pareidolia is <b>supposed to disappear on close scrutiny.</b> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> (as in the Levasseur MRB paper cited several times), with which there is no objection.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">He was trying to show that something on Mars <b>wasn't</b> pareidolia, not something on Earth that is. Plus, he was making the same basic mistake that you're making. Namely, because he wanted to protect his find, he did not actively seek out Earthly pareidolia.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3- Proposed cases of elaborate pareidolia are never substantiated, confirmed, analyzed, scrutinized or otherwise explained scientifically. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You seem to have forgotten what pareidolia is (another strawman)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3- Examples are never seen from different vantage points, in raw data formats, under different lighting conditions in different seasons, under higher and/or lower resolution.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Repeat previous comment.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4- Proposed cases almost never pass the artificiality threshold.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is an oxymoron. They're pareidolia.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5- The cases that do pass this threshold or come close, may not be pareidolia but artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> None of them should have passed any tests. If they did, I screwed up. They were merely examples of known pareidolia, like I said since square 1. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6- Borderline cases are either very rare or the result of unduely enhanced photographs. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Or in other words, "FRAUD!", like the 10,000,000 people who saw Satan in the Smoke all imagined it and can't be trusted.

rd