My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 />Malcome- Eliminate the word pareidolia (any)- but pareidolia (any) will always be there because it is primary. Consciousness and pareidolia (ressler) - what else is there- if anything- for sure. There is only our consciousness presented with patterns. What we call pareidolia (any) is patterns within the patterns. We create the patterns as they create us. There is no separation except to the warrior/neophyte/ and lesson learner. We came to this planet to end war- not join it. Lighten up and avoid antipareidoliaism- for pareidolia is all there is as is evident by it's lack of interest by art/science/university/ and all the unreal leaders who have given us this unequal mess when we should be working 6 hours a year with no war or prison.
"Stay clear of those who blame and punish" (Nietzsche) Only the outside art community has given any support to pareidolia. Real culture is outside the university system.

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

Just think of it as if you're presenting your case, and you don't really care all that much whether or not people agree with it, but you want to get it out there. Some people will be fascinated with it, and some won't.


rd
[/quote]

My only real concern with this artifact was if the creature/being/statue could be confirmed in the corresponding RAW data file. It was confirmed.

So, there is no personal attack here, you have my sincerest respect. We are analyzing a controversial image. However, by attempting to make the case that I or anyone else is NOT seeing a figure which, by all intents and purposes has the correct proportions and stature of a skinny hominid who, in addition has the correct covering in place that suggests clothing as nothing more than either a rock or, my eyes are NOT seeing what I am seeing due to a brain/eye disorder, is a last ditch attempt to try and make it something that it is not. To me, simply put, this is not a case of Pariedolia in any form but a case of pure denial.

If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

In conclusion, the reason for this is simple. To acknowledge this figure as absolute artificiality would be tantamount in stating unequivocally, that life other than that which is found here on earth, actually does exist. And that, at this time, would not do, would it?.

Malcolm Scott

<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 /><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 />Malcome- Eliminate the word pareidolia (any)- but pareidolia (any) will always be there because it is primary. Consciousness and pareidolia (ressler) - what else is there- if anything- for sure. There is only our consciousness presented with patterns. What we call pareidolia (any) is patterns within the patterns. We create the patterns as they create us. There is no separation except to the warrior/neophyte/ and lesson learner. We came to this planet to end war- not join it. Lighten up and avoid antipareidoliaism- for pareidolia is all there is as is evident by it's lack of interest by art/science/university/ and all the unreal leaders who have given us this unequal mess when we should be working 6 hours a year with no war or prison.
"Stay clear of those who blame and punish" (Nietzsche). Only the outside art community has given any support to pareidolia. Real culture is outside the university system.

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

Just to add a little further confirmation, here is a high magnification of the head of the artifact. As you can see quite clearly here, there is a pronounced "eye" in the correct location on the cranium.

[/URL]

Malcolm Scott

<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 />What we call pareidolia (any) is patterns within the patterns. We create the patterns as they create us. There is no separation except to the warrior/neophyte/ and lesson learner. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One gets the impression that those who favor the artificiality hypothesis of the land art do so in major part because they are unable to conceive of how their perceptions could be mistaken so often. <b>Jrich </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Me: There seems to be a divide in this subject delineated by those who find the idea of Mars littered with art vs. those who find reality littered with pareidolic images. Naturally each side's adherents find the other's side less likely (or harder to believe).

A logical question might be, which one <b>is</b> more likely?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Just to add a little further confirmation, here is a high magnification of the head of the artifact. As you can see quite clearly here, there is a pronounced "eye" in the correct location on the cranium.

[/URL]

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

This is one of Fred's photos of faces in the shadows of trees.


I see clearly:

1. Two Eyes
2. Two Eyebrows
3. Forehead
4. Hair on top and sides.
5. Nose
6. Mouth (pursed to slightly down turned)
7. Two irises.
8. Whites of both eyes.
9. Cheek bones.
10. Nose bridge.

rd