My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Sorry about that pareidoliac, besides "faces" –

you also said "we are almost as hardwired to see plants, chairs, animals etc. as faces."

You also asserted that this whole pareidolia phenomenon is “the center where the physical and spiritual world meet and communicate, sending messages from the highest spirit in its infinite hidden subtlety.”

WOW a Doctor of Optometry and licensed in two states... do your clients know you see plants, chairs, animals and scary faces in trees - that are trying to "communicate" ?



Zip Monster

Zip Monster. You've got me confused with someone else again. "Scary" is not one of my words. i know that all words with negative conotations have nothing to do with "reality." P.S. Everyone i know, knows all about me. :---) Take a few thousand shadow shots and tell me they don't look like your friends, relatives, favorite artist's work, what's in your unconscious. First hand experience, and the subtraction of first hand experience is all that really means anything. Matter/Energy/String theory/M-theory/Time/Space/Gravity are all extremist fundamentalist views. "Truth is illegal." (Nietzsche). All words are useful only as hints and tell more about the speaker than of what they speak. Including these.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />Overall these types of images are considered “projections”and cannot form a complete proportional face or create a full-bodied representation of a face or animal. No matter how you look at them or enhance them, these formations are just abstractions and will never conform to the right shape, size, and orientation of a real figurative work of art.........
In order for our eye to be able to recognize an object we have to understand the process of “image formation.” We perceive images as a whole instead of as isolated elements because of the principles of depth perception and the limits of image fusion......

Like “hidden” zebras within a thicket of reeds, there are sometimes ambiguous elements that can be concealed within an unfamiliar image that appear to be hidden from the “casual onlooker.”


If this composite lion was found on Mars - would it just be considered another example of pareidolia?

Now, with regard to our capacity to identify blobs and dabs on a piece of paper as shapes of faces and animals we realize that the eye also has the tendency to find faces in clouds and piles of laundry. We also have the propensity to see profiles of old men on mountain boulders and deformed potato chips. However, these types of projections are only seen in contoured representations of grotesque profiles and have no real substance. These naturally formed images have no detail and are generally seen from only a “single vantage point” and will disappear as the viewer physically moves around it....

The problem is - your attempting to use the existence of simulacrum (or pareidolia) in nature to disprove the existence of artificial formations on Mars. In following you line of thinking – an alien race viewing Mount Rushmore from space would conclude that it was just an illusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Zip, you're using the simple definition of pareidolia to argue your point. But, like I've been saying for months, all pareidolia really means is that it wasn't intentionally made by man to be a face (or whatever the object under consideration is). So, the simple fact of the matter is they are not "all blobs that disappear on close inspection."

Regarding your statement about Mt. Rushmore and the Martians, all I will say is: it all depends on how good a look they get at it.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It was only later that I started to come to the realization that it's all pareidolia.--rd<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Unusual. Most of us start from that POV, and some of us find reasons to conclude otherwise. What argument or evidence do you see to justify a conclusion that it’s all pareidolia? My recollection is that you found so much that met your previous artificiality criteria that your mind rebelled at the implications, leading you to throw it all out. But in what way is that opposite extreme any more logical?--tvf<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's a long story, involving many disparate pieces. It was subtle at first, like the part about two people arguing about what it is. Part of it has to do with the way my wife views all of this stuff. And I'm talking about AFTER she looks at it, not before. Part of it comes from my study of pareidolia itself. Part of it comes from the fact that anytime we see a better image, it looks worse, not better, and one has to scramble to keep the AOH alive.

If I could lay it all out in argument form, I would, but I really can't. But, the speculator in me has no doubt that if I had to put money on it, I would take the side of "there ain't no artificiality on Mars. Period." Would that make me right? Heck no, not necessarily. But that's why Humphrey Neill named his famous book, "The Art of Contrary Thinking." One has to "ruminate" on when to go contrary. The obvious line of thinking here on the site is that "going contrary" means going contrary to mainstream science and rigid thinking, like Neil is always talking about, but I think this is a time we're I would go contrary to this site, rather than mainstream science, if I had to put money on it. If I was to "speculate" on the answer, rather than prove it.

rd

Since no can agree on the most simple things, like is light or an "electron," a particle or a wave or a string or a combination, or dependent on how it's looked at. How do you all think you can definitively state Cydonia face is made by "Martians?" or pareidolia. Isn't science about accepting the least complicated view unless there is a reason to do otherwise? Isn't pareidolia that view, with respect to the Cydonian face. This all reminds me of a great chess player Aron Nimzovitch who won despite his wacky ideas of chess. He loved to work his way out of apparently untennable positions.

<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 />Isn't science about accepting the least complicated view unless there is a reason to do otherwise? Isn't pareidolia that view, with respect to the Cydonian face. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, Occam's Razor. And I agree that pareidolia is still the least complicated view. However, it all goes back to that first proof of artificiality done on the Cydonia Face (see: www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydo...roof_files/proof.asp )

Some of us have argued that the images used to do the proof are suspect, and cannot conclusively prove anything, but so far no one has claimed that you can win the argument by any means other than to take on the proof itself.

rd