Keys

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And allow me to assume that this vast network of pareidolia pseudo science that has arisen in recent years has the sole unwritten purpose of proving Cydonia, and many of the objects discovered subsequently on Mars, to be pareidolia. Neil DeRosa
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Wow, now that's an interesting conspiracy theory. I'd rate it to be somewhere on this list of "The 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories": www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx

That would mean that Dr. Schyns and his team at Glaskow, Doris Tsao, a neuroscientist at the University of Bremen in Germany, and Pawan Sinha, a cognitive scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology {not to mention all the myriad others mentioned to date} would all have to be in on this dark conspiracy to discredit Cydonia.

Hmmmm. I'll let the readers decide.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Neil, De-Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Fred, THIS JUST IN: YOUR SHADOW FACES ARE MAN/MARTIAN MADE REAL ARTWORKS. [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

(Sorry I took so long to answer this. I’ve been busy.)

1- "Denial" is a (Freudian) psychological neurosis. Accusing someone of a mental disorder is ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks are forbidden on this website. 2- Pretending a news flash when addressing a position I have stated repeatedly and consistently is ridicule. Ridicule is ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks are forbidden on this website. The logical falacy of <i>equivocation</i> is thrown in as a bonus, since no one ever suggested that Fred's art was "Martian Made."

I’m sure Tom is not missing these many ad hominem attacks, (since he is a genius). That can only mean you are being given a handicap—you know, like in golf. But that’s alright.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wow, now that's an interesting conspiracy theory. I'd rate it to be somewhere on this list of "The 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories": www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Cydonia Face is the most visible, well documented, and researched example of a possible artificial structure on another planet. In order to falsify it, it would be necessary to construct a new science of the study of pareidolia. And that is what I think has happened. Obviously there is legitimate research being done in the field of psychology on the subject of how and why we see faces in clouds and vague faces in the landscape.

My main point has always been not to deny the phenomena of pareidolia, (or the legitimate research), but to make the logical case that the more closely any verified test object resembles the real represented object type (usually a face in our discussions), the more likely it is that we are looking at an object of art. That was where I came up with the idea of “elaborate pareidolia.”

The two immediate problems I saw are; how we draw the line between the real representation, (an actual or artistic representation), and an imaginary one (pareidolia). Obviously there must be a line or we would not be able to distinguish a real face from an imaginary one. The other problem I saw, and have stated frequently, was that examples of test objects used to demonstrate that elaborate pareidolia exists, must be substantiated, (verified as not ”doctored”). This has not been the case in my experience, and that is why I have characterized that aspect of the research as a pseudo science.

But one should not equate the legitimate research with the pseudo science. To do so would be an equivocation.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /> but to make the logical case that the more closely any verified test object resembles the real represented object type (usually a face in our discussions), the more likely it is that we are looking at an object of art. That was where I came up with the idea of “elaborate pareidolia.”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The flaw in your argument is the fact that you have posted a huge number of images that are far "less elaborate" than any routine piece of paredolia such as Fred's art or even the examples of mine that I posted, or even any of the most rudimentary types of pareidolia that can be found in a rock wall. You seem to think they (your posts) are faces, but nobody else does. So, basically your whole argument fails the "proof is in the pudding" test.

But everytime I remind you of this you ignore this fact, and resort back to the line about how the paredolia might be faked (even mine I guess). When I ask you to consider the fact that they aren't faked (what that would do to your theory, that is), you ignore that point, re-word a few sentences and continue on with the posting of things you think is real Martian art.

We've been going in circles for months and I don't see much chance of that changing anytime soon.

Like Fred has said many times: "If Neil just looked up in the trees himself (or did an equivalent Earthly search), he would see the faces, know they must be pareidolic, and realize that his faces might also be." In other words, you could prove it for yourself.

But I don't expect you will do that anytime soon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The other problem I saw, and have stated frequently, was that examples of test objects used to demonstrate that elaborate pareidolia exists, must be substantiated, (verified as not ”doctored”). This has not been the case in my experience, and that is why I have characterized that aspect of the research as a pseudo science. Neil DeRosa<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is what I would call a "convienent" argument, in light of Fred's collection.

rd

Richie,

We will just have agree to disagree on this and leave it there. At least I will try to do so. This is a great forum for making my case for artificiality on Mars. I have a lot to say on the subject, and as long as it's available I'll probably make use of it from time to time. But I'd like to end this debate if you don't mind.

From my point of view, even if I'm partially right , this will be a great record of our research. If I'm wrong, anything I say on the subject, or TVF or Levasseur says for that matter, will be forgotten. Still it's been fun.

Re: your post in the other thread, you can have the last word.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />But I'd like to end this debate if you don't mind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not exactly sure which debate you're talking about. I post my thoughts on a case by case basis. I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to stop doing that, anymore than I would expect you to stop posting your thoughts.

rd