- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- neilderosa
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
I had something like "show and tell" more in mind, but thanks.
Neil
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<br />mention where yours came from (image id)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">E0300824:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E03/E0300824.html
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<br />I had something like "show and tell" more in mind, but thanks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Remember, the burden of proof is on the "artificiality" side. You posted a ton of "stuff" on the Faces in the Chasmas topic. I think it would be stretch to say that you "prooved" any of it was artificial.
This topic is merely a diversion, a counterpoint if you will, to all the claims of artificiality that have been made over the years. Pareidolia is still the most likely explanation for all of it. It's just like in a court of law. The defendant doesn't have to prove he's innocent, the prosecution has to prove he's guilty.
For instance, can you prove this is Martian Art (Cavebear, copied from an earlier post by you):
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Thank you received: 0
<br />
<i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />E0300824:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the image you named before, and the one I analyzed in the link I provided.
We seem to be going in circles here. What are you looking for beyond what is already provided in my published analysis? The answers to most of your questions are provided by the side-by-side comparison of this image with the Kelly image from the animation. I saw no inconsistencies of relevance to your questions. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
<br />We seem to be going in circles here. What are you looking for beyond what is already provided in my published analysis? The answers to most of your questions are provided by the side-by-side comparison of this image with the Kelly image from the animation. I saw no inconsistencies of relevance to your questions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Claims were made that secondary features exist (in the animation). When you play the animation, you see all these secondary features. In this image, we're looking right down on the east side of the face in this (and other images, I have waiting in the wings). <b>I'm asking where they are.</b> Did Kelly, or anybody, ever draw them in on this image? If so, can you give me the link again? Maybe I did miss it. But I'm not just asking where the secondary features on the east side are. I'm also asking:
{Where is the east side of the mouth that is depicted in the animation of the 1998 image? Where is the nose? Where is the east eye, and eyebrow?} <b>Also, where is the west side of the mouth?</b>
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.