Faces from the Chasmas

rd says about Neil :"But, in a way, that's what he's doing anyway, isn't it? Only difference is he's using the Martian terrain, instead of shadows."
Yes, but if Neil did this on Earth he would know that it isn't artificial and is pareidolic.

<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 />Tom, you're doing the "dance" that O'Reilly uses to portray someone who is sidestepping the question<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Actually, the image that came to my mind was of Dr. Seuss's "north-going zax and south-going zax". Neither of you will give an inch about the meaning of "elaborate", which seems so quantitatively ambiguous to me that the argument will surely never end. -|Tom|-

"However, when I presented Fred's work, he never came back and said, well yes they're pareidolia, and they are more elaborate than alot of my images, he just ignored the subject."
[Rich]

He didn't "just ignore the subject." Please go back and check again.

ND

Gentlemen:

Besides this being exhausting, it is also filling people's in-boxes with endless message notifications. Having so many of them will have the effect of forcing people to unsubscribe from these interesting topics. I don't think it is anyone's wish to drive away the audience. So I suggest we ramp back to a lot fewer messages per day, ideally with more well-thought-out ideas per message. Anyway, I'll do my part. -|Tom|-

"Do you see the dillema? I think Neil has to come to grips with the fact that pareidolia exists, and that there are many examples of pareidolia more elaborate than what he is claiming as having sufficient elaborateness to qualify them as Martian Artworks." [Rich]

Neil has said many times that pareidolia exists. As for how elaborate it can be, or how frequent, I'll let you know as my new project unfolds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As far as I can remember, all Neil ever said about Fred and Alexander's works is that we have no proof of authenticity. In other words, he cried "fraud."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again, not what I said or did. Please go back and check.

[Tom, after your suggestion about frequent posts I read the rest of this last section of the thread. I'll post my last reply here and then I'll stop awhile.]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So I don't see where the elaborateness issue has any meaning for Neil because he already agrees (I think) that any particular image could be paradolic. Just as you were trying out the hypothesis that "it's all pareidolia", Neil is trying out the hypothesis "it's all artificial" to see where that takes him. Both extremes are wrong, but trying out them is the right thing to do to help us develop objective criteria. -|Tom|-

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

I am not trying out the hypothesis that “it’s all artificial.” What I am doing is trying to develop a set of objective (qualitative) criteria as a way to make a reasonable determination in favor of possible artificiality for each individual feature I select. Because this is preliminary research, much better empirical evidence is required in order to increase our confidence in artificiality.

Another point of disagreement is that although I think the Cydonia Face is artificial, and that you and others did an excellent job of testing the hypothesis, I do not see the Cydonia face as some sort of gateway, (except for historical reasons), that permits us to consider other artifacts. My research indicates that there are at least 5-10 other known artifacts that will be far more convincing then the Cydonia face (mainly due to the damage to its east side), once better imaging comes in and qualified scientists like you do the quantitative studies.


ND

<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 /> Yes, but if Neil did this on Earth he would know that it isn't artificial and is pareidolic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, very good point. I think he would be good at it.

To close for the night (in support of Tom's desire to cool off the flying electrons), I'll leave with this closing thought.

I find it interesting, humorous, and quite enlightening, that no one, aside from Fred and I, has yet to concede that Fred's Photos are examples of elaborate, detailed, pareidolia, which would thusly and permanently put to rest the notion that there should be a debate on the Elaborate Pareidolia Hypothesis.

Most entertaining.

rd