My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by neilderosa

Using the original Cydonia Face as evidence of pareidolia is a classic example of assuming to be true that which is under contention--that which you are attempting to prove. It can only still be considered pareidolia if you falsify all of the evidence and proof that has been brought forth subsequently.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are two very big problems with this statement:

First, the artificiality of Cydonia has not been proved in any meaningful way. There is imagery which, if it is interpreted in certain ways, tends to strongly support artificiality, but that is the most that may be reasonably claimed at this time.

Second the burden of proof is not on those who advocate pareidolia. Since evidence of artificiality is not yet conclusive pareidolia must be assumed to be the correct explanation. It does not require proof, but may only be disproved. [JR]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I grant that there is some semantical misunderstanding here. I used the word "proof" in a different sense than you mean it here. One can use "proofs" in a debate or logical argument without necessarily "proving" ones case definitively. Perhaps I should have used the terms "compelling arguments," or "convincing evidence" instead of "proof." I have said before many times that definitive proof of artificiality will not be achieved, IMO, until we have much better evidence in the way of better imaging, and perhaps other types of remote analyses, and on-site verification.

However I see no reason why the burden of proof rests on any one side more than the other. Despite the elaborate photographs and links to elaborate photographs given as evidence of the commonness of pareidolia, we have no trustworthy scientific evidence that it (pareidolia) is really any more elaborate or common than the types of known instances of the phenomenon cited in JP Levasseur's paper on the Profile Image in the MRB.

On the other hand, the kinds of evidence being aired in this forum (mainly by me at present), could be considered as preliminary evidence based on a trustworthy source, (the NASA/JPL/MSSS images). Some of it will prompt further study and investigation, which will ultimately vindicate our hypothesis and our preliminary efforts--hopefully.

Neil

<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 />The disclaimer in your first sentence seems a bit gratuitous. It was represented to us that all the images were white noise. The whole point of the paper was that you can get random dots to look like an S by summing images that have something (anything) in common with an S and subtracting images that do not. So you do not need any image to look like an S for the conclusions drawn by these authors to follow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Let me backtrack a little. I agree with what you just said. I may not see squatola. But it's possible that "knowing it's possible" may help you to zero in on some of the plates that had the highest correlation to an S. That's all I'm saying. I don't mean to imply I'm going to pull a good S out of any one of them.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
On Mars, we are dealing with some images that already look like something non-random and do not come from noisy or random backgrounds. The S study has no relevance to that type of image.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm not so sure I agree with that. I'm seeing mostly noisy images, though admittedly not all.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It does not run counter to the way I normally think about such things. As I explained, the way I would have acted if I were a subject would have resulted in no S pattern in the end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Like I said, I don't think that changes anything. Just because I can't read Agatha Christie anymore, doesn't make her mysteries any less good.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
But if I followed the misleading instructions given to subjects, I would have gradually learned to go by even the mildest hint of an S shape, which would have divided all the white noise images into those that had something S-like about them and those that had nothing S-like about them. The former would have summed to the overall impression of an S as it existed in my mind (which would have looked like a "W" if that's what I thought the letter S looked like).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How does that differ from what Dr. Schyns and his colleagues are saying? That's what is supposed to happen. That's the whole point.

To be continued.......

rd

<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 />It depends on how random the white noise was. It used to be that TV stations signed off the air at some late-night hour, and their test pattern would be replaced by visual "static", continually changing rapidly. If is quite unimaginable that a detailed pattern would suddenly emerge from that noise on the screen. Of course, vague impressions of something might emerge as often as one's imagination permits that to happen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, that's a good example of the kind of noise I would expect was used. I agree with both your conclusions. But remember, when summed and subtracted their imagination was real.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another of the eight tests was using military software designed to detect artificial structures (such as tanks or buildings) hidden in natural terrain. The Cydonia Face registered as 80% probability of being artificial. And there is no human interpretation involved in that result, so it would be difficult to attribute it to pareidolia.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This came up once before. What year was that, again? Have they ever repeated those results recently?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The operative word here is "believe". But science doesn't give any weight to opinion polls. Only observation, experiment, reasoning, or citation are recognized as a valid basis for a scientific conclusion. Hunches or preferences don't count.-Tom<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Didn't jrich spend days debatiing this very subject with you?-rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, he tried to argue that the four secondary facial features did not exist in objective reality, but were themselves pareidolic and "power of suggestion" (not his choice of words). I challenged him to view the Face animation on our web site, and to view the 1998 MGS image on a better monitor, then report back whether he still thought these features were just imagination (he called them "subjective").-Tom <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do see the merits of the argument that we really don't have good enough images yet.-rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then I issue you the same challenge. I've heard that people can make themselves blind if they really don't want to see something, but I am convinced there are limits to this programmed blindness. Tell me if you don't see that the four secondary facial features exist with the right size, shape, location, and orientation in the animation and the 1998 image,-Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not only have I viewed the animation many times, and looked for the four secondary features (eyebrow, pupil, nostrils, and lips.) in that and the 1998 image, but I have spent countless hours staring at the more recent images, of which some of them are considerably higher in resolution, and for the life of me, I'm still not convinced that any of those things are really there. They might be, but then again they might not. That is the essence of the whole argument. It's not based on what anybody else did, it's based on what I did.

Now, you can call that "belief", but I think of it more in terms of: my own inspection of <b>all</b> the relevant data is inconclusive. That's what tips me towards natural origins. Your proof is very convincing when viewing the animation with the prediction of the secondary features, but when coupled with my own observations of every single image of the face that's ever been taken, I walk away shaking my head thinking, "I don't think so."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is merely being claimed that, given proved artificiality elsewhere, we are free to argue that artificiality is more probable than pareidolia in any particular case because of the degree of detail.-Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And therein lies the rub. If a person's senses doubts the proof, we're back to the house of cards, again.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This could be the most important point yet: "and otherwise detailed faces missing one or more important parts are very easy to find."-rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Most of us began with that premise at the outset. Faces in clouds and landscapes are indeed very common. But they are limited in their degree of detail. ...... We have never seen the detail of a Cydonia Face, much less that of a Mt. Rushmore face, in clouds or landscapes. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If I'm right, we've seen hundreds of them[]

---

I have a brand new 19" Flat Panel. Here are the specs. I don't believe it's preventing me from seeing anything:
Model number 1905FP

---

Flat Panel
Screen type Active matrix - TFT LCD
Screen dimensions 19 inches (19-inch viewable image size)
Preset display area:
Horizontal
376 mm (14.8 inches)
Vertical
301 mm (11.8 inches)
Pixel pitch 0.294 mm
Viewing angle 170° (vertical) typ, 170° (horizontal) typ

Luminance output 250 CD/m ²(typ)

Contrast ratio 800 to 1 (typ)

Faceplate coating Antiglare with hard-coating 3H

Backlight CCFL (4) edgelight system
Response Time 20ms typical

---

Resolution
Horizontal scan range 30 kHz to 81 kHz (automatic)
Vertical scan range 56 Hz to 76 Hz (automatic)
Optimal preset resolution 1280 x 1024 at 60 Hz
Highest preset resolution 1280 x 1024 at 75 Hz


rd

[tvf] "It is merely being claimed that, given proved artificiality elsewhere, we are free to argue that artificiality is more probable than pareidolia in any particular case because of the degree of detail."

[rderosa] "And therein lies the rub. If a person's senses doubts the proof, we're back to the house of cards, again."

Yes, and no. Given a question with an answer that is not yet know, we can still do the "what if" thing.

This sounds like the situation with Special Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity. Under SR we begin with "Given that the speed of light is independent of both source and observer, then it follows that ... ". These are assumptions, not proven facts, but there are many experimental and observational results that can be <u>interpreted</u> as suporting them. At present we do not posses the technolgy to conclusively verify them.

Those leaning toward LR agree that the speed of light is independent of the source, but not independent of the observer. In order to talk to SR subscribers, however, LR subscribers must allow themselves to go where the assumptions lead. If the speed of light really is independent of the observer, then the questions we might ask about time are different than if it is not.

Similarly, if intellegent beings really did once live on Mars then the questions we might ask about alleged art on Mars will tend to shift away from "are these images artificial?" and shift toward "what were they trying to do or say with these images?"

LB

<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 />Despite the elaborate photographs and links to elaborate photographs given as evidence of the commonness of pareidolia, we have no trustworthy scientific evidence that it (pareidolia) is really any more elaborate or common than the types of known instances of the phenomenon cited in JP Levasseur's paper on the Profile Image in the MRB. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm reminded of a scene in the movie "A Few Good Men" staring Tom Cruise. There's a scene where Cruise (as Lt. Daniel Kaffee) and Kevin Pollack (as Lt. Sam Weinberg) are rehearsing for the trial. Weinberg is helping Kaffee prepare his cross-examination of the Doctor who made the determination of murder.

KAFFEE
Doctor, other than the rope marks, was
there any other sign of external damage?

SAM
No.

KAFFEE
No scrapes?

SAM
No.

KAFFEE
No cuts?


KAFFEE
Bruises? Broken bones?

SAM
No.

KAFFEE
Doctor, was there any sign of violence?

SAM
(beat)
You mean other than the dead body?

KAFFEE
Darn!! I walk into that every time!

SAM
Don't ask the last question.
========================================

Other than the, "elaborate photographs and links to elaborate photographs given as evidence of the commonness of pareidolia" we have no evidence of the elaborateness, and commonness of pareidolia.

By the way, Fred Ressler is fairly famous at this point, and his work is catelogued with a number of reputable dealers, like Henry Boxer: beyondpareidolia.shutterfly.com/

I doubt very much if they are fraudulent in any way, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the gallery had someone inspect the original data to protect their reputations. These were taken with a regular camera, so there are negatives that serve as proof. It would be much harder to do something fraudulent with a negative, than with a digital image.


rd

<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 />What year was that, again? Have they ever repeated those results recently?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It was done in the 1980s and written up in Carlotto's book. The same military software would yield the same result today for the same Viking images. With any MGS image, the software might nudge closer to 100%. But that would be because the strip images containing the Face are so narrow that the Face mesa stands in stark contrast to everything else in them, and is highly non-fractal in appearance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">for the life of me, I'm still not convinced that any of those things are really there. They might be, but then again they might not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I suspect that, if we were standing shoulder-to-shoulder in front of the same monitor and could look this over together, we would quickly come to agreement on this matter.

A key starting position is to suppress all personal bias and expectations, because the human brain has an almost unlimited ability to see what we want to see and be blind to what we don't want to see. That is one reason why eye-witness accounts of a single event can vary so widely.

In this connection, I find it striking that experiments in physical psychology show plainly that the light coming in through our eyes is not always what our mind allows us to see! For example, if you wear inverting glasses that show the world upside-down, your brain will soon tire of this and start to show you the world right-side-up again, even though you are still wearing the inverting glasses. You will be unable to see the actual image passing through your pupils, which is still upside-down. Confirming this brain trickery, when you remove the glasses, the real world will look upside-down to you until the brain can reprogram the image processing it does to the light before it lets you see it. Correspondingly, the images you see and the reality you experience are delayed about 1/4 second behind actual reality to allow time for brain processing of inputs from all senses before the subconscious allows the conscious mind to experience the results of all the sensory inputs. This processing can and often does make alterations.

The point is that bias governs unless we take steps to prevent that.

By objective criteria (meaning things that everyone can see, given a good-enough monitor and an understanding of the viewing and lighting angles, which the animation is designed to teach), these unique features exist and are <i>plainly</i> seen in the 1998 image: eyebrow, iris, nostrils, and lips, each with the correct size, shape, location, and orientation; and no other qualifying features elsewhere on the mesa.

Some later MGS images show these also, and some do not, because of lighting and viewing angles or lack of contrast. For example, the nostrils cannot be seen in the overhead shots. But that is good news for the hypothesis, not bad, because it confirms they are vertical features at the end of the nose, not horizontal spots on a flat surface. And of course we should not be able to see vertical circles if we look at them from vertically above because they are then edge on to our line of sight. A similar understanding is available for the appearance or lack of appearance of the secondary facial features in each shot. These are not ad hoc rationales, but condition mandated by the lighting and viewing angles and selected contrast. Usually, a local contrast stretch will bring out seemingly invisible features even when there is no shadow to provide natural contrast.

Most interesting for me when examining later images was looking for what we could not see in the 1998 image, which was the east eye socket, eyebrow, and iris, which were mostly hidden behind the nose ridge because of the low viewing angle from the west. My analysis of the 2001 April 8 image shows that they too are present with almost perfect bilateral symmetry -- if anyone needed yet more confirmation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now, you can call that "belief", but I think of it more in terms of: my own inspection of <b>all</b> the relevant data is inconclusive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So let's work on that. What do you see or not see that raises most of your doubts? We can't stand shoulder-to-shoulder to view images, but we can approximate that by looking at renditions of various images until we agree what is or is not present in them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your proof is very convincing when viewing the animation with the prediction of the secondary features, but when coupled with my own observations of every single image of the face that's ever been taken, I walk away shaking my head thinking, "I don't think so."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The animation is a guide to understanding the original viewing and lighting angles and low contrast, which were not obvious, especially to the uninitiated. When considering these angles and contrast for any of the later images, I found no contradictions and no differences of importance. In fact, the only significant difference I saw was in the area just east of the nose ridge, hidden from view in the 1998 image and filled in using low-resolution Viking imagery in the animation. But those differences do not affect any of the artificiality tests. They merely tend to confirm the “impact melt” hypothesis, which itself speaks to artificiality because natural craters do not have melt flows emanating from them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: We have never seen the detail of a Cydonia Face, much less that of a Mt. Rushmore face, in clouds or landscapes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If I'm right, we've seen hundreds of them[]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To avoid circularity in this argument as applied to Mars, you need to find an image on Earth that is as detailed as Cydonia or Mt. Rushmore, but has a natural origin.

Notice how difficult it would be to get anyone to believe that Mt. Rushmore or the Egyptian Sphinx are natural features. The detail is so great that the mind rebels at calling these natural.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have a brand new 19" Flat Panel. Here are the specs. I don't believe it's preventing me from seeing anything:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It’s a bit weak on dot pitch, but should be adequate. But if you find yourself unable to see what others see even after a key is supplied, you should try another high-quality monitor to see the differences. -|Tom|-

[For follow-ups, note that I'm on travel again until Sept. 11, and usually need a few more days to catch up after I get back.]