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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Rich, I suggest you D'L the video and open it up in Windows Media Player as there is a nifty little brightness and contrast control. Right click (not in full screen mode) and scroll down to in the "right click applet" to "Enhancements" then to "video settings" which will bring ups a small "contrast and brightness" interface.

You may need to drop the brightness down as I have set this quite high for older monitors. You want to get "as much grey scale as possible".

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

Will do.

rd

Malcolm,

I downloaded the vid, and watched it a couple of times, even stopping the tape at 7:25 and really "gazing" for awhile. Yes, I can definitely see that the terrace is undercut. It's quite a scene, like many of your postings. I just don't see what makes you think it looks artificial though. And I don't see that something is "floating". I can see pretty clearly that whatever that stuff is, it's connected to the wall (ceiling) in the undercut part of the mountain side.

It's intriguing for sure. But artificial? I'm not getting it. More "strange" and "mysterious" if you ask me.

rd

I downloaded the vid, and watched it a couple of times, even stopping the tape at 7:25 and really "gazing" for awhile. Yes, I can definitely see that the terrace is undercut. It's quite a scene, like many of your postings. I just don't see what makes you think it looks artificial though. And I don't see that something is "floating". I can see pretty clearly that whatever that stuff is, it's connected to the wall (ceiling) in the undercut part of the mountain side.

It's intriguing for sure. But artificial? I'm not getting it. More "strange" and "mysterious" if you ask me.

rd
[/quote]

Rich, you and I have been debating the question of artificiality for sometime now and both of us are pretty much set in our trenches. I feel quite confident in saying that I may have the easier task in our debate only because the onus is on me to try and prove the credibility of a discovered anomaly. Conversely, from your perspective, you do not need to prove an artifact is natural at all, as the general consensus remains; that everything <i>is</i> natural (thus far to date).

With this mind, what I feel is needed here, is to closely examine the imagery and try to establish if there exists "any condition" in which we both agree upon (and perhaps others) that confirms either; 1. that a pattern has obvious intelligent design, and 2. the pattern exhibits an apparent theoretical impossibility (relative to our current scientific understanding) and lastly - a possible combination of both 1. and 2. (being the most compelling).

Of course on the other hand, the argument could always be made that there is <u>nothing</u> that could be viewed in these images which can have an absolute confirmation due to the fact they are just that...images. This therefore is a circular argument and it gets us nowhere. I do not subscribe to this viewpoint myself however.

In so many ways, what we are striving for here, is not so much in the evidence itself but more in the way we draw our personal finite conclusion i.e. I have reviewed the images and have arrived at a conclusion that intelligent life has either existed on Mars or indeed still does and similarly with you, only arriving at the opposite conclusion.

Moreover, in this process of "image evaluation" there have been items found (or from your view, a lack of them) which have compelled us to form our respective conclusions. And, at some time back, we both found ourselves in a moment (or several moments) when this conclusion occurred. Some may call this an epiphany thus defined as "a moment in time when we spoke to our inner self and we replied either yea or nay"! And so from then on, we moved forward searching for additional validation(s) that would embolden this personal decision.

These are the basic principles in which the physiological mechanism of "cognitive dissonance" works. Please let me know if you disagree with this premise. Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread.

So now back to the images.

I'm happy to see that you can grasp the three dimensionality of the escarpment in the video. The area you point to where you refer to the "undercut in the mountainside" is a good example and a good start but I want you to try and see something now that is a little more difficult to see initially and is crucial in the evaluation.

In the two images below, the first has two arrows which point to the base of two buttresses. In order to see their destination points, you will need to close your left eye and view the arrow in "2D Cayan" as the 3D mode doubles up and will shoot you off course. One image has arrows and the other does not (just for clarity so the arrows do not impede your view).

Now, the terrace "vertical buttress" in both these areas, when examined at the junction of where the base of the buttress terminates at the terrain in front, you will start to see that the terrain there is actually inconsistent with the buttress (which at this point, inclines upwards and the "forecourt terrain" in fact, continues "underneath" the buttress). This occurs on the lower buttress almost from the left hand side of the image to right hand side. In effect, translating to a "floating appearance" of the buttress wall as well as the terrain directly on top of the buttress. At first sight, you may find yourself concluding...impossible and therefore MUST be an illusion.

This condition is consistent throughout almost all of these so-called "terraces" in the video and elsewhere.

What I see this translating to, is a magnificent vista which I feel confident in saying; the human eye has possibly never seen before and, as a result, you may find this difficult to digest. But I can assure you, they are indeed "floating"! (although I am a little uncomfortable in using this adjective as I believe this is an unknown phenomenon at play here....perhaps "holographical topography" may be a better description").

Certainly, I can imagine the sheer practicality of how this manipulation of the strata could be highly convenient to a possibly dwelling - multi dimensional living at its very best as it were!

I will post some more compelling evidence shortly in support of this contention.

[/URL]

[/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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Moreover, in this process of "image evaluation" there have been items found (or from your view, a lack of them) which have compelled us to form our respective conclusions. And, at some time back, we both found ourselves in a moment (or several moments) when this conclusion occurred. Some may call this an epiphany thus defined as "a moment in time when we spoke to our inner self and we replied either yea or nay"! And so from then on, we moved forward searching for additional validation(s) that would embolden this personal decision. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, sort of. In my case, as I mentioned before, I started out a skeptic, then got swept up in the excitement, only later to slowly but surely start to doubt the whole thing. It was little things at first, but later big things. It took a couple of years to go full circle and back to the point I'm at now.

So, while I agree with your overall premise, I think it's important that you appreciate that this was no snap judgement on my part. There was an epiphany, however. It was that they're all pareidolia.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In the two images below, the first has two arrows which point to the base of two buttresses. In order to see their destination points, you will need to close your left eye and view the arrow in "2D Cayan" as the 3D mode doubles up and will shoot you off course. One image has arrows and the other does not (just for clarity so the arrows do not impede your view).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">When you're brain fuses the two images into one, it also separates the arrows into two sets of arrows, cyan and red. I found I could just ignore the red one and see the points you wanted me to see.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now, the terrace "vertical buttress" in both these areas, when examined at the junction of where the base of the buttress terminates at the terrain in front, you will start to see that the terrain there is actually inconsistent with the buttress (which at this point, inclines upwards and the "forecourt terrain" in fact, continues "underneath" the buttress). This occurs on the lower buttress almost from the left hand side of the image to right hand side. In effect, translating to a "floating appearance" of the buttress wall as well as the terrain directly on top of the buttress. At first sight, you may find yourself concluding...impossible and therefore MUST be an illusion.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
See this is where you lose me. I don't see "vertical buttresses" at all. Nor do I see "terrain that is inconsistent with the buttress" that I don't see.

I just see terrain. Odd terrain from another planet.

rd

Well, sort of. In my case, as I mentioned before, I started out a skeptic, then got swept up in the excitement, only later to slowly but surely start to doubt the whole thing. It was little things at first, but later big things. It took a couple of years to go full circle and back to the point I'm at now.

So, while I agree with your overall premise, I think it's important that you appreciate that this was no snap judgement on my part. There was an epiphany, however. It was that they're all pareidolia.

rd
[/quote]


Rich, your reply has given me a far better understanding into our exchanges we have had over the past year. I want to say that your comments here make great sense to me and believe this seems to have been quite a raucous period in your life. I experienced a similar consciousness explosion but to a mirror outcome. For me, I did not commence as a skeptic, as this approach, I thought, would tarnish any cognitive reasoning. Neither did I proceed with any preconceived notions of life. I set out with just one M.O. that was to look for any signs or patterns in the images which would show a continuity of possible design, knowing full well that if life did exist or does exist, in all likelihood I would not recognize any one example of confirmation. From observation made of other researchers looking for "the familiar" I saw this as completely unproductive.

After not too long, I began to see patterns of design that were both consistent in the data and more importantly, consistent in a signature. This signature began to represent design. After a repetitive confirmation was being found which had the same integrated design, the evidence became unequivocal. Interestingly, the epiphany which I concluded was the opposite to yours. Reviewing the continuance of the evidence, confirmed to me that I was not experiencing any personal illusion or pareidolia and that the designs were numerous, intentional, multidimensional, quite bizarre but in so many ways after some deep analysis, somehow quite predictable. Nonetheless, a shocking experience.

You say here that you "were swept up in the excitement". If I may make so bold here, this is where I sense any misdirection may have occurred. It would make sense to me that after the sweeping had died down, if indeed you were the sweeper, your scientific cognitive skills took over and set you straight. You needed a familiar definition for the images and Pareidolia slotted right into place...no more dissonance, the answer had been found! Now you could move on and have a perfectly reasonable explanation for any and all peculiarities which you may have seen and now you were armed with a solution for any new experiences for future confrontations. Now you could declare with absolute confidence "MY PAREIDOLIA KNOWS NO BOUNDS"!

This is how the power of Cognitive Dissonance works and it has a veracious appetite. None more so than the arena of; "do I believe in God or does alien life exist" as the connotations are simply prophetic.

As a side note, the people in power that operate behind closed doors, know the secret of Cognitive Dissonance. They use it to their own means by manipulating society from the ground up every single day. Doubt ushers in control and we are experiencing this condition on unprecedented levels from ISIS to Ebola to economic recession!

The counter measure is to understand how this syndrome works and see how it is being implemented.

changingminds.org/explanations/theories/...itive_dissonance.htm

At this point, I would like to move this "Terraces research" to a new thread and hope to discuss further with you the evidence.

With regards,

Malcolm Scott

Malcolm, I think we're starting to understand each other better, and you're <i>almost </i> there in getting the path I took to this point, but there's one thing I'm not quite sure you grasp yet.

Namely? It was "cognitive dissonance" <b>which led me to my epiphany that it was all pareidolia.</b> The only cognitive dissonance I have on this issue now, is when I attempt to find something that someone else thinks is there, but where I plainly see it's just more of the same old same old.

The way my epiphany happened was slow and subtle. Little things, like two people always seeing something slightly different , even though you were presumably in agreement about life on Mars. As these things built up, I steadily defined the characteristics of pareidolia (modern/derosa) and laid them out in this Topic. There was no shortage of material in the Mars data, but I really refined it once I stumbled across Fred's work (which I reproduced for myself) and the "Superstitious 'S'" Study (P. Schyns, et al).

In recent years, I occasionally look at new stuff (like yours) just to see if someone new has come up with anything really compelling, but it never seems to happen. I just see the classic manifestations of the pareidolic process, over and over again.

I don't mean to discourage you, and in all honesty, I don't think you will be discouraged by anything I have to say, so I may as well tell you the truth.

rd