My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I have no trouble finding 25 in 10 (dead center).

But I cannot find 50a or 50b in 25. At just double the resolution of 25 I would expect to still be able to see part of that large crater on the left edge of a and/or b. I'm assuming dead center in 25 (for the combination of a and b), no changes in compass directions.

***

Did you notice the Martian waving at us in b? Up from center about half way, then slightly left.

<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 />I have no trouble finding 25 in 10 (dead center).

But I cannot find 50a or 50b in 25. At just double the resolution of 25 I would expect to still be able to see part of that large crater on the left edge of a and/or b. I'm assuming dead center in 25 (for the combination of a and b), no changes in compass directions.

***

Did you notice the Martian waving at us in b? Up from center about half way, then slightly left.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, i fixed 50a such that now it's a zoom-in of 10 and 25. The other two are slightly different locations chosen to add more evidence. I added a note to the last two.

These images are so big that you have to use a tool like HiView to make crops, and when you get above 10% or so, you are moving a tiny box in a massive image strip, so it's easy to lose your way a little. Nice catch. I intended the first three to be zoom-ins.

No, I don't see the Martian.

rd

What is most interesting about the issue of apophenia is that there are no faces involved, but rather form and function is imagined where there is none.

rd
[/quote]

The process by which a determination is made that an instance of pareidolia (or its parent) is occurring, requires there to be an <i>agreed upon consensus </i>that the target object is NOT what the observer has concluded it to be.

And, as there is no way (until we set foot on the planet) to come to an agreed upon consensus that an object can be measured and verified (in situ), the principle(s) of pareidolia (all forms) thus, cannot be determined. Hence, with respect to images of Mars, pareidolia (all forms) does NOT and CANNOT occur until such time as the target object can be verified.

For all we know, there very well may be an intelligent life form on Mars which, for reasons unknown, has a propensity to create, produce or otherwise transfuse images of faces on the surface of the planet. We just don't know.

Therefore, all anomalies must and should be categorized as <i>potential possibilities</i> for either; a) Potential pareidolia, b) Potential examples of intelligent design or c) Potential examples of a natural occurrence.

Consequently, it would be irresponsible to insinuate that an observer of an anomaly on the Martian surface is, in fact, experiencing a pareidolic episode due to the dogma which surrounds the condition, i.e. delusional schizophrenia etc. the negative list goes on and on.

However, the question remains; is there adequate enough evidence visible in the images of Mars, thus far, to conclude that artificiality does exist? Of course, the answer is one of a deeply personal judgment based on the evidence and how the individual interprets it so. For myself, I have concluded yes, it does. Others may not be so sure or have concluded no.

What is important to note here, is that various people from all walks of life are now beginning to have personal and more informed questions where once there were none. And, the possibility exists that this ongoing process may very well be the deliberation of the intent. Obviously, the subject matter has garnered tremendous emotion from all sides and understandably so, it is a vivacious subject wrought with so much anticipation and anxiety.

So, as the idiom goes, "softly softly catchee monkey" - and how appropriate a saying it is too!

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 />Consequently, it would be irresponsible to insinuate that an observer of an anomaly on the Martian surface is, in fact, experiencing a pareidolic episode due to the dogma which surrounds the condition,
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
TUBES:


We can say with 100% certainty that the person (people) who thought these were tubes for transportation a few years ago was experiencing a full blown apophenia/pareidolic experience.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

That's the usual outcome, once we get a good enough look at something.


rd

I worry that there is no cure for faith.

We can say with 100% certainty that the person (people) who thought these were tubes for transportation a few years ago was experiencing a full blown apophenia/pareidolic experience.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

That's the usual outcome, once we get a good enough look at something.


rd
[/quote]

Rich, I'm going to take a little different approach with you with an understanding, we will probably not agree with one and other, but that is really OK. I will show you respect and I hope you will do the same.

We differ here with the example you have posted. This is my reason why.

Do you or does anyone <u>know for certain</u> what these "undulations" are. The answer is no, we do not. Some have suggested that they are "sand dunes" but this is subjective. In fact, I have several 3D images which show these <i>ridges</i> (for want of a better term) actually traversing vertically up the side of a steep mountainous wall. Quite inconsistent with a sand dune.

Are they "tubes"? Well they do not look like a tube as we define here on Earth but my point is, we just do not know what they are.

We can speculate but we cannot confirm.

So, under this scenario, this <u>cannot</u> be pareidolia in any form, why, because there must be an <i>agreeable consensus</i> stating that the observer is seeing something and is concluding that what it is, is contrary to its known reality by agreeable consensus or in affect, an illusion.

So it may have been irresponsible to state these are Tubes for Martians because it misleads the and confuses. Equally, it is also irresponsible to label it as pareidolia for the same reason.


Malcolm Scott