My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Rich,

Maybe this will clean things up on the Cognitive Dissonance issue and hopefully lighten our discussion a little.

Best regards,

[/URL]

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 />Again, Pareidolia IS AN EARTH BASED HUMAN CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THE TARGET DATA TO BE KNOWN. Until we go to Mars and confirm the reality of the surface anomalies, they will remain MARTIAN SURFACE ANOMALIES and have no place for the phenomenon Pareidolia.

I want to make sure that new researchers do not get intimidated in reviewing the surface features and being inappropriately mislead in even thinking of the possibility of Pareidolia. Until such time as the condition can be confirmed.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> There are five official definitions of <b>pareidolia </b> on this website (recently copied for your perusal). None of them mention "Earth Based". None of them mention "Until we go to Mars". "Pareidolia" is simply the phenomena of seeing faces (and bodies and the like) in natural terrain, where no man made those faces. It makes no difference if we're talking about Mars or Minnesota. To say that it can't be pareidolia is no different than if we say it can't be something else. We're not saying that. We're saying:

<b> IT'S PROBABLY PAREIDOLIA.</b>

Please tell us what definition lead you to make the above quoted comment.

rd

<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 />Maybe this will clean things up
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Let's get back go the definitions of "pareidolia."

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 /><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 />Maybe this will clean things up
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Let's get back go the definitions of "pareidolia."

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would be very happy to discuss the definition of pareidolia in any and all its interpretations - no problem.

However, not in the context or pertinence to the anomalies seen and observed on Mars. So let us look at each of the interpretations in summary analysis conducive to my contention if you will be so kind as to allow me the platform.


<b>Original:</b> Manifestation of mental disorder, causing partial hallucinations.

Viewer A - perceives a target data point while an Observer B (possibly a Doctor) to Viewer A concludes that Viewer A is experiencing an hallucination due to his description of the target data being different to the known reality of the target data point. Probable evaluation by the Observer (Doctor) is that Viewer A has a mental disorder.

Conclusion - the reality of the target Data Point MUST BE KNOWN in order for the Doctor to diagnose the condition of Viewer A


<b>Modern:</b> Psychological phenomenon involving random stimuli in normal people being perceived as significant, a form of apopenia.

The definition is self explanatory as the key words here are "being perceived" or... a normal person experiences random stimuli. If the normal person is "being perceived" by a another party who is aware of the actual reality of the stimuli AS KNOWN, then the condition of apopenia cannot be diagnosed. Conclusion - The true reality of the perceived stimuli MUST be known.


<b>Ressler:</b> Phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns occurring naturally [without man's intervention] all around us.

In order to conclude if this pareidolic phenomenon is occurring, the reality of the patterns occurring naturally MUST BE KNOWN either by an observer or even the viewer themselves. Conclusion - conversely, if the viewer is seeing an "unknown" pattern either naturally or not, then the pattern may be precisely true as seen by the normal person - thus no pareidolic event is occurring.


<b>New:</b> A simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition.

The simple pattern without the error must be known in order to discern if an error exists. Conclusion - no previous pattern without an error, there will be NO ERROR.


<b>Derosa:</b> The manifestation of a personal human trait causing temporary confusion between man-made and naturally occurring faces, forms, features, sounds, etc.

The reality of any perceived target data point of either man-made or naturally occurring faces, forms, features, or sounds MUST BE KNOWN IN ORDER TO CAUSE CONFUSION. Conclusion - if the reality of the perceived data point is NOT KNOWN, then NO confusion can occur either temporary or not.

-

<font size="4">AND ONCE AGAIN FOR THE FINALITY OF THIS DISCUSSION PERTINENT TO THE ANOMALIES SEEN ON MARS. WITHOUT THE KNOWN REALITY OF THE TARGET DATA POINT ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE - NO PAREIDOLIA IN ANY OF ITS FORMS DESCRIBED ABOVE CAN BE APPLIED OR OTHERWISE INSINUATED TO AND OF THE OBSERVER</font id="size4">

If this can be acceptable between us as true and correct, I would like to propose that any further mention or insinuation pertinent to the findings on the Martian surface be free of comment referencing the involvement of a situation of a pareidolic episode in ANY of its current forms until such time as the target data points and their realities are known and can be confirmed.

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 Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>[marsevidence01] "Pareidolia is an Earth based human condition in various forms that occur when the target data IS KNOWN. NO DATA...NO PAREIDOLIA."</b>

This is not a recognized definition. But then you knew that because you did not parenthetically reference a definition-name when you used the word pareidolia.

Do you want to add it to our data base of definitions? If so it will need to be made a bit more explicit.

And you will have to give it a name.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I will Larry, working on this right now. Thanks.

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 /><b>Original:</b> Manifestation of mental disorder, causing partial hallucinations.

Viewer A - perceives a target data point while an Observer B (possibly a Doctor) to Viewer A concludes that Viewer A is experiencing an hallucination due to his description of the target data being different to the known reality of the target data point. Probable evaluation by the Observer (Doctor) is that Viewer A has a mental disorder.

Conclusion - the reality of the target Data Point MUST BE KNOWN in order for the Doctor to diagnose the condition of Viewer A<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> So, what was the evidence for "Artificiality" again? Can you simplify this?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Modern:</b> Psychological phenomenon involving random stimuli in normal people being perceived as significant, a form of apopenia.

The definition is self explanatory as the key words here are "being perceived" or... a normal person experiences random stimuli. If the normal person is "being perceived" by a another party who is aware of the actual reality of the stimuli AS KNOWN, then the condition of apopenia cannot be diagnosed. Conclusion - The true reality of the perceived stimuli MUST be known. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That's possible. Now, please explain to us how this bolsters your argument for intelligent life on Mars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Ressler:</b> Phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns occurring naturally [without man's intervention] all around us.

In order to conclude if this pareidolic phenomenon is occurring, the reality of the patterns occurring naturally MUST BE KNOWN either by an observer or even the viewer themselves. Conclusion - conversely, if the viewer is seeing an "unknown" pattern either naturally or not, then the pattern may be precisely true as seen by the normal person - thus no pareidolic event is occurring. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you tie this in to your evidence for artificiality?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>New:</b> A simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition.

The simple pattern without the error must be known in order to discern if an error exists. Conclusion - no previous pattern without an error, there will be NO ERROR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Derosa:</b> The manifestation of a personal human trait causing temporary confusion between man-made and naturally occurring faces, forms, features, sounds, etc.

The reality of any perceived target data point of either man-made or naturally occurring faces, forms, features, or sounds MUST BE KNOWN IN ORDER TO CAUSE CONFUSION. Conclusion - if the reality of the perceived data point is NOT KNOWN, then NO confusion can occur either temporary or not. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not true. The confusion is not between the observer and some arbitrary standard, but rather between the observer and reality. If the observer thinks it's a man-made face and it's really not a man-made face, well, that's a pareidolic experience. In your particular case what that means is that when history finds that there are no artworks, or intelligent life artifacts left behind, that all of your speculations were really just pareidolic experiences, you will be proven wrong, regardless of your arguments today.
-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font size="1">AND ONCE AGAIN FOR THE FINALITY OF THIS DISCUSSION PERTINENT TO THE ANOMALIES SEEN ON MARS. WITHOUT THE KNOWN REALITY OF THE TARGET DATA POINT ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE - NO PAREIDOLIA IN ANY OF ITS FORMS DESCRIBED ABOVE CAN BE APPLIED OR OTHERWISE INSINUATED TO AND OF THE OBSERVER</font id="size1">

If this can be acceptable between us as true and correct, I would like to propose that any further mention or insinuation pertinent to the findings on the Martian surface be free of comment referencing the involvement of a situation of a pareidolic episode in ANY of its current forms until such time as the target data points and their realities are known and can be confirmed.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> No chance. Your reasoning is faulty. Pareidolia is very much "pertinent" to the discussion of any of the so-called "anomalies" found by the AOH "researchers".

rd