My pareidolia knows no bounds.

If pareidolia (any) is an error- then it is more likely that there are martian artifacts ? i thought that the most simple answer is most likely unless there is something that overrides it. What is there to override the concept that all seen on mars is pareidolic imagery?

<b>[pareidoliac] "What is there to override the concept that all seen on mars is pareidolic imagery?"</b>

Evidence to the contrary.

And if enough evidence can be piled up, it might constitute proof. Images by themselves do count as evidence, but it is fairly weak evidence because it can have several origins. Evidence that allowed us to eliminate one or more of those possible origins would be stronger.

BTW, it would more accurate to say "What is there to override the concept that all seen on Mars *SO FAR SEEMS TO BE* pareidolic imagery?" Tomorrow may very well be a different story. But of course we will have to wait.

<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>[pareidoliac] "What is there to override the concept that all seen on mars is pareidolic imagery?"</b>

Evidence to the contrary.

And if enough evidence can be piled up, it might constitute proof. Images by themselves do count as evidence...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Here's something else to consider. How many people are working on the entire Mars project, between NASA, JPL & The University of Arizona? Hundreds? A thousand? More?

Try to imagine what would happen if one piece of bonified photographic evidence among the thousands of images being studied surfaced. And I'm not talking about the kind of stuff we see here where we all have to guess what it is we're looking at. I mean obvious proof of artificiality.

Do you think they would go into top secret lockdown mode before it spread through the rank and file like wildfire?

The enormity of the conspiracy needed to suppress that would be staggering. How could it be possible that we're not hearing one peep about anything remotely artificial?

There is only one possible explanation. It's non-existent in anyone but the minds of the Anomaly Hunters.


rd

<b>[rderosa] "... obvious proof of artificiality ... spread through the rank and file like wildfire?"</b>

Proof would be better of course, but I suspect that serious evidence of artificiality would be enough to start the fires.

There have been a few episodes in the past where we came close to "serious evidence" (e.g. the Face) and there was a bit of a scramble on both sides for a while. At present the preponderance of evidence seems to say "No".

But wait! Tomorrow is a new day.

<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 /> but I suspect that serious evidence of artificiality would be enough to start the fires.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Exactly! The water cooler conversation would be on fire. It would be impossible to contain their astonishment and glee.

Their silence speaks volumes.

rd

<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 call this a PRE. But some of you seem to reject this conclusion. (I hope we don't have to start parenthetically referencing definitions of the word error.)
Comments?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would grant you that at one point in our lives, for one millisecond, our brain did a "double-take"...<i>what's that a face?...</i>and then another part of the brain took over and said...<i>oh wow, that just <b>looks like </b></i> a face.

So, in that instant, in that brief fraction of a second, there was an error.

But for the rest of our life, no error is involved because we can do it at will. You even talk about how easy it is to do. Also, not only can we do it at will, but we get better with practice. To me that doesn't fit the bill for <b>error. </b>

---

<b>error</b>
er-r

<b>noun</b>

a mistake.
"spelling errors"
synonyms: mistake, inaccuracy, miscalculation, blunder, oversight; More

<b>the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment. ***</b>

"the money had been paid in error"
synonyms: wrongly, by mistake, mistakenly, incorrectly; accidentally, by accident, inadvertently, unintentionally, by chance

---

Note that for one millisecond we are in <b>the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment. ***</b>, but that's it. Never again.

Now as far as the AOH people go, well, they're verging on worse than "error". They're downright stuck on...

rd