My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Take a look at the synonyms for "error" again:

<b>synonyms: wrongly, by mistake, mistakenly, incorrectly; accidentally, by accident, inadvertently, unintentionally, by chance</b>

When I look for faces, none of these fit what I'm doing. But perhaps they all do in that first millisecond years ago, before the cognitive portion of the brain understood the phenomenon.

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 />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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I had to read this a bunch of times. I couldn't quite get your meaning. But then it occurred to me that you had two words backwards (I think), and it became brilliant:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If pareidolia (any) is an error- then <b>is it </b>more likely that there are martian artifacts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

OK, now that is brilliant, if you ask me. Of course. If pareidolia (any) is an error, or some kind of affliction, how all of a sudden do these "faces and features" become Martian Art?

Picture this in a small enclosed all white room with the patient sitting in the middle of the room on a single chair. No doors or windows, just white stucco walls. As he sits there, looking at the patterns in the wall, he sees armies, battles, faces, chariots, and all manner of things. Then a guard is teleported into the room with the patient. He asks the patient how he's doing, and the patient tells him about everything he's seeing in the patterns in the wall, to which the guard responds. "Oh no, that's Martian Art."

rd

<b>[rderosa] "Now as far as the AOH people go, well, they're verging on worse than "error". They're downright stuck on...</b>

yeah ... (chuckle)

The patterns we see in clouds, moon dust, stardust, mars dust and so on ...

... are compelling and intriguing and fascinating.


We must be <u>Born To Recognize</u> (apologies to Bruce Springsteen)

***

And yet we - or at least some of us - must keep looking at the things others recognize on the off-chance that they will have found a pattern that is actually significant.

I can happen (apologies to Cindy Lauper).

Pareidolia might be the only thing with no error in it. Material objects have error. They decay and die. Thoughts have error. They take time (an idea )- and are composed of words that may have nothing to do with reality (common/ Newtonian). Pareidolia is instantaneous and permanent. Pure elevating consciousness perception. Show my photos to people and hear what they have to say and then tell me if these photos aren't one of the best ways to tell about a person.

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

This <i>IS</i> a very good question and we are now starting (IMO) to ask the type of question that makes sense regarding the Martian Anomalies. Hopefully, I will try to enlarge on this soon in a new thread outside the parameter of the theme of this topic.

But just to summarize here:

1. There <i>are</i> images:

So it is not true that images and anomalies are not being discovered on the Martian surface - they are and they are being discussed world wide. As the potency of that which is in-bedded in the conclusion of those discoveries are so far reaching, there is great hesitancy in any making claim as to their authenticity. But this IS slowly changing as the persuasiveness of the cognitive dissonance begins to wain especially within the science community. Here is a clip from a discussion with Dr. John Brandenburg where he mentions a few examples.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B--tam0uh-oiS3B...YWM/view?usp=sharing

2. The "nature" of the images:

This is one of the main reasons why this phenomenon is <i>not</i> so evident (IMO) and is a difficult "reality" to digest and to make sense of. We as humans are the sum total of our own worldly view of the universe and have <i>only</i> ever experienced this human view. So, naturally, when we look for evidence of life outside of our human sphere, frankly, we have no real idea just "what" to look for. As a result, we scour the Martian surface and look for things or items which "fit" our preconceived world view of reality, such as anthropomorphic figures and especially rocks that hold dimension which can be interpreted as a shape or form that exhibits the familiar. While this has proven to be somewhat rewarding, (and more so in recent years) anything which may have a set of properties which researchers are NOT familiar with, will get easily overlooked. For example, would we recognize an artifact which exhibits properties of more than three dimensions? Or anomalies that seem to exhibit properties that are contrary to the forces and limitations of gravity i.e. "floating" etc. The human eye while busy looking at a 2D image would have great difficulty in capturing this. However, they are there and can be seen once the eye is trained or reprogrammed. But to accomplish this, one's frame of mind <u>must</u> be adjusted. This, in and of itself, is tantamount to perpetuating the Cognitive Dissonance discussed earlier, and is a viscous circle I'm afraid.

3. Accessing the data images:

This aspect of Mars research is a frustrating one and one which I hope can be changed in the near future.

We have spent countless millions on including great technology into our recognizance spacecraft, in fact the MRO stereo camera alone cost over 40 million dollars and due to the pressure being levied by means of the FOI act, we insisted that the images taken, be immediately received without too much time lapse for evaluation by the American public. The camera had one purpose (unlike infer-red or spectral analysis equipment) that is; to SEE the Martian surface with human eyes better that we have done so in the past. And was so-named "The Peoples Camera". So, how does the "layperson" go about doing that? Well first off, if the researcher wants to "look real close" he can forget about the available .jpg images...nice...but no cigar. Next, if at that point he is so inspired, he will need to download the 1 to 2 gig JP2 image files as they have the most clarity in the data. So depending on bandwidth, these images can take up to 30 minuets to d/l....a lengthy time for most "Joe public".

OK, success, so the D\L is now complete and"click" on his resident imaging software....nadda! OK, let's try some real "pro" software like PSP....nadda! OK, what's next....where's the program that's going to open this wonderful HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGE...Nadda! Let's try GIMP or Corel Paint, or....you get the picture. Most all generally available software will NOT open JP2 images! By this time, most "Joes" in the public, simply give up and settle on the ease of a highly compressed Jpeg. And he can spend all day with this and find absolutely NOTHING!

After a while, I found one program IRFANVIEW (out of numerous trail d\l's) that worked and <i>only</i> when a JP2 "plug-in" was installed. Oh great, let's open the file now. And Success! (and then after waiting almost 10 minuets for an image to appear). This is NO GOOD AT ALL if the researcher wants to close and reopen the file numerous times. Fortunately, in IRFANVIEW the JP2 can actually be saved in various formats like an uncompressed .tiff image and presto! we now can SEE the surface in excellent close up imagery.

Of course, HiRISE does provide the researcher with their so-called "HiView" program but let me say this; has anyone really tried to analyze, move around and zoom in WITH EASE using this software? It's a royal pain. And now try saving the JP2 to an uncompressed .tiff image in HiView and see what you get....crap!

So the point I am trying to make here, is that it's not too easy to really "inspect" the Martian surface as one might think...in fact for the layman out there, it's a pain in the ass!

We can look all day long at pretty .jpeg's but (IMO) is a waste of time.

There are other reasons but this is just a start, will address in upcoming posts.

Malcolm Scott

<b>[marsevidence01] "For example, would we recognize an artifact which exhibits properties of more than three dimensions?"</b>

Probably not. But to date there is NO evidence (no data point) that suggests that such an object does or even can exist.

We certainly have mathematical models that point to more-than-three dimensions. But math is not constrained by physics (or anything else, besides internal consistency, for that matter) whereas the physical world is.

***

This is a physics website.

Try to talk about physics.