Faces from the Chasmas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Einstein" with at least 35 countable features is THE MOST elaborate pareidolia ever recorded, by far, not just the majority. It has at least twice as many countable features which makes it at least 1000 times as complex as anything i've seen so far. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fred, I stand corrected.

rd

Both extremes are wrong, but trying out them is the right thing to do to help us develop objective criteria. -|Tom|-

All Neil has to do is look up at any tree and see a pareidolic image. This would prove that non-artificial pareidolia exists. i can't believe that people can't see these images all over the place especially since Leonardo Da Vinci has said that they have been around at least since the beginning of art and were even the origin of art. Maybe Neil has to much on his mind and can't relax enough to see. [fred].

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</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 rderosa</i>
<br />As O'Reilly would say, "where am I going wrong?"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are "going wrong" by reverting once again into thinking that Neil is trying to prove his images are artificial. He is not. Some of them might very well be pareidolia, as Neil has already agreed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tom, you're doing the "dance" that O'Reilly uses to portray someone who is sidestepping the question (I forget the exact terminology, could have been the "mamba" or maybe "mombo", or the "lambatta").

I know Neil has conceded that some of it might be pareidolia, but he also flat out said there is no such thing as elaborate pareidolia. Come on [8D], he justed started a topic in celebration of it. (which is welcome of course, because it shines a light on the subject).

So, if he claims there is no such thing as elaborate pareidolia, he's (a) ignoring Fred's art and (b) implying that the mere posting of examples of it, doesn't prove they exist. Plus, by implication he's saying that they don't support my argument that these pareidolic images show how his stuff could be pareidolia.

By the way, I'm good at remember the "chain" back to the beginning of the argument. That's why I ended up in software. What I stink at is remember what I did 10 minutes ago.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Maybe Tom could calculate exactly how many times more complex 35 features would be when compared to 16.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Remember, "16" was not a feature count but the number of successful <i>a priori</i> predictions of secondary features in the 1998 image in addition to all those in the original 1976 images, despite odds of 1000 billion billion to one against success for all those predictions. This prediction count is zero for "Einstein" and all the other pareidolia in your catalogs.

The Cydonia Face had already passed eight tests of artificiality before the 1998 confirmation image came along: <ul><li> Face was found to be 3D, not just 2D and therefore not "a trick of light and shadow" as had been assumed </li><li> military software identified Face as artificial at 80% probability </li><li> distribution of nearby mounds is strongly non-random </li><li> neighboring objects are also anomalous </li><li> Face and its mesa have some bilateral symmetry (unseen in original images) </li><li> located right on old equator </li><li> oriented upright wrt old equator </li><li> apparent functionality if observed from parent planet or orbiting space station </li></ul> -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br /> All Neil has to do is look up at any tree and see a pareidolic image. This would prove that non-artificial pareidolia exists. i can't believe that people can't see these images all over the place especially since Leonardo Da Vinci has said that they have been around at least since the beginning of art and were even the origin of art.-fred<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fred, as a side issue, Neil is actually an excellent artist. We used to have a couple of his paintings on our walls when I lived on Long Island. Some of them were as good as anything I've ever seen in a Museum.

But, I agree with you about how he should try it for himself, with the trees and shadows. I think with his artistic eye, he would have enormous results.

But, in a way, that's what he's doing anyway, isn't it? Only difference is he's using the Martian terrain, instead of shadows.

In my opinion, of course.

rd

"Neil will just say he is talking about "really elaborate pareidolia"." [Tom]

No, That's not my style--never has been. I'll try to define what I mean but it will take time.

ND