My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Just a cell phone 3g. Have little motivation right now. Looked at as a nut case/ pose as nut case/ charlatan/ huckster/ - all the things i see in everyone else with few exceptions (James Corbett- the latest). i know there is something other than what obviously appears to appear. "If you stare into an abyss long enough the abyss stares back into you." (Nietzsche). You look for pareidolia it forms for you. One is shown what one is looking for. We are in Hess' magic theater.

We've been talking about faces within, on and around faces for years. It's all part of the whole experience. Neil used to call the little faces "Jinns"

Quote: rd

Rich, I just caught this comment you made about Neil where he mentioned "Jinns"...interesting. Sometime earlier last year, I did a side step study on this phenomenon. There's more to this I think than meets the eye. Could you direct me to any of his work/research on this topic?

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 rderosa</i>
<br />Malcolm, have you ever tried showing some of your stuff to people who know nothing about this issue, and explained to them why you think what you're seeing represents the workings of an intelligent alien life form?

What kind of reaction did you get?

Have you ever tried writing a paper on the subject? Something that could be submitted for peer review? That's pretty much what it would take for you to find out what the consensus is.

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

Rich, yes I have on various occasions and the process has been pretty typical as were the results.

The initial challenge was the education process and btw, I have many images and videos which, as yet, I have not posted anywhere including MR. So the choice and level of excellence in the imagery is a lot higher to chose from. Also, I have a high quality 52" 4K monitor which makes a big difference.

In several instances, the viewer jumped right in and "got it" right away, others took more time but eventually arrive. All are perplexed, all are quite shocked. Almost all recognize artificiality. All tell me just how darn weird it is and that they would never have expected to see what they see. If I had not shown them the "tell-tale" points, they would probably not have seen it by themselves, they tell me.

In conclusion, for sure, this subject has incredible taboo built in, more so than I ever expected. Interestingly, the emotion which I detect the most, is a sort of raw fear, an "undefined fear" whether or not the person is a layperson or from academia with a high IQ. Perhaps this is the result of a sense of vulnerability. I think we as a human race have been successfully preconditioned over the past 50 years that "off world life" does exist but as yet, as a specie, we have not been given the facts. This process alone creates a form of social cognitive dissonance albeit on a subliminal level of group conciseness. So, depending who I expose the evidence to and the fear factor level thus measured, will be dependent on the viewers pre-conditioning to the question of the reality of extra terrestrial life. If that makes any sense?

As for writing a science paper, this would be a challenge as the evidence IS cumulative, where individual validations on their own, I feel would be rejected.
For the simple reason, if just one piece of evidence could be acknowledged as a valid case for artificiality, the controversy would be so great I feel quite convinced would be rejected out of sheer prejudice for this one reason alone. Case in point is when I posted an image of the 41ft tall alien statue here on MR and even though the image was confirmed in the raw data files and was clear for all to see, the image was assertively and aggressively "covered up" LITERATELY!

So in answer to your question, a paper on any one valid piece of evidence directed at the science community I feel quite confident in saying would not be successful. Now a book with an well edited compilation of images, descriptions and definitions may work. But science would of course reject that as it has for many similar publications.

Still. I look to my own conscience and personal experience and feel comfortable in the knowledge that I see very clearly the nature of the life which resides on Mars, so does my good wife and some very close friends. We are all somewhat quietly traumatized yet relieved and honored in knowing that in our lifetime, unlike the many billions of human lives who have lived before us (and who have begged the question), we have come to know the reality that we are not the only ones in this universe.....and never were!

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 />Rich, yes I have on various occasions and the process has been pretty typical as were the results.

The initial challenge was the education process and btw, I have many images and videos which, as yet, I have not posted anywhere including MR. So the choice and level of excellence in the imagery is a lot higher to chose from. Also, I have a high quality 52" 4K monitor which makes a big difference.

In several instances, the viewer jumped right in and "got it" right away, others took more time but eventually arrive. All are perplexed, all are quite shocked. Almost all recognize the fact of artificiality. All tell me just how darn weird it is and that they would never have expected to see what they see. If I had not shown them the "tell-tale" points, they would probably not have seen it by themselves, they tell me. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> How many of these people read this entire topic on Pareidolia from beginning to end <b>before </b> you introduced them to your images? My guess is that these people you showed know little if anything about pareidolia also.

What you are describing here (word for word) fits pareidolia to a tee. A true test would be to introduce them to both at the same time, thusly:

<ul><li><i>In one camp we have people who believe Mars is littered with artworks. </li><li>In the other camp we have people who believe all the so-called artworks are products of the mind's rare ability to find patterns in nature that match their perception of living art, and are momentarily confused by the two. </li><li> Your job is to say which is which, in your opinion. </i> </li></ul>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In conclusion, for sure, this subject has incredible taboo built in, more so than I ever expected. Interestingly, the emotion which I detect the most, is a sort of raw fear, an "undefined fear" whether or not the person is a layperson or from academia with a high IQ. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I've never seen any sign of "raw fear" when I was in the artificiality camp and I would show someone something. One time I showed my wife what was supposed to be a bull, and she said it was Matador.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps this is the result of a sense of vulnerability. I think we as a human race have been successfully preconditioned over the past 50 years that "off world life" does exist but as yet, as a specie, we have not been given the facts. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree on this point. Most people probably suspect by now that there might be alien life, but that for one reason or another, it's being kept secret. But I think most people also retain a healthy dose of skepticism since the people reporting are usually from Podunk Mississippi.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for writing a science paper, this would be a challenge as the evidence IS cumulative, where individual validations on their own, I feel would be rejected. For the simple reason, if just one piece of evidence could be acknowledged as a valid case for artificiality, the controversy would be so great I feel quite convinced would be rejected out of sheer prejudice for this one reason alone. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Sorry, but that's somewhat of a copout. Nobody said it would be easy. The goal of the discoverer, is to convince the scientific community of the veracity of their claims. Your viewpoint is a little too convenient and you are pretty much conceding that you don't have overwhelming evidence to support your claims.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Case in point is when I posted an image of the 41ft tall alien statue here on MR and even though the image was confirmed in the raw data files and was clear for all to see, the image was assertively and aggressively "covered up" LITERATELY! Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I was wholly unconvinced by your "statue" and I gave you my reasons at the time. What was "covered up" and how was it done? I don't understand what you mean by that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So in answer to your question, a paper on any one valid piece of evidence directed at the science community I feel quite confident in saying would not be successful. Malcolm Scott <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Copout.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now a book with an well edited compilation of images, descriptions and definitions may work. But science would of course reject that as it has for many similar publications.Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You do have a good point here in that entrenched science often dismisses (what Neil called) Apocryphal Science, and he even wrote a book on it: ( www.amazon.com/Apocryphal-Science-Creati...resies/dp/0761828990 ), but that's no excuse for not trying, and sticking to your guns. Only time will tell. Even TVF was an Apocryphal Scientist with regard to many of his theories.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Still. I look to my own conscience and personal experience and feel comfortable in the knowledge that I see very clearly the nature of the life which resides on Mars, so does my good wife and some very close friends. We are all somewhat quietly traumatized yet relieved and honored in knowing that in our lifetime, unlike the many billions of human lives who have lived before us (and who have begged the question), we have come to know the reality that we are not the only ones in this universe.....and never were! Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Pareidolia will do that to a person up to the point of their epiphany that it's all pareidolia, a natural, wholesome, characteristic of the human mind. DaVinci used to see Armies and such in the wall paper, and then proceed to paint them.

<ul><li>In daVinci's own words:

<i>"thou shouldst regard various walls which are covered with all manner of spots, or stone of different composition. If thou hast any capacity for discovery, thou mayest behold there things which resemble various landscapes decked with mountains, rivers, cliffs, trees, large plains, hills and valley of many sort. Thou canst also behold all manner of battles, life-like positions of strange, unfamiliar figures, expressions of face, costumes, and numberless things which thou mayest put into good and perfect form. The experience with regard to walls and stone of this sort is similar to that of the ringing of bells, in the strokes of which thou willst find anew every name and every word that thou mayest imagine to thyself. Do not despise this opinion of mine when I counsel thee sometimes not to let it appear burdensome to thee to pause and look at the spots on walls, or the ashes in the fire, or the clouds, or mud, or other such places; thou wilt make very wounderfull discoveries in them, if thou observest them rightly. For the mind of the painter is stimulated by them to many new discoveries, be it in the composition of battles, of animals and human beings, or in various compositions of landscapes, and of monstrous things, as devils and the like, which are calculated to bring thee honor. For through confused and undefined things the mind is awakened to new discoveries. But take heed, first, that thou understandest how to shape well all the members of the things that thou wishest to represent, for instance, the limbs of living beings, as also the parts of a landscape, namely the stones, trees, and the like." </i>

Leonardo da Vinci, Book on Painting

Translation of the sentences by me.

a.) If you accept the fact that you can find them, you will. You will make many wonderful discoveries.
b.) But, to paint them, you still have to know how to paint and "shape well" all the things you want to represent. If we're talking about photography, it would behoove you to know something about photography, to which I admit I'm somewhat of an amateur. </li></ul>

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 /> if just one piece of evidence could be acknowledged as a valid case for artificiality, the controversy would be so great I feel quite convinced would be rejected out of sheer prejudice for this one reason alone. Case in point is when I posted an image of the 41ft tall alien statue here on MR and even though the image was confirmed in the raw data files and was clear for all to see,
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the major points that Tom made over and over again is the difference between "first artificiality" and "all subsequent suspected artificiality." So it goes...

Before artificiality is proven for the first time, it's natural and correct to assume it's all pareidolia, especially for the fringe (less obviuos) stuff. But once there is undeniable proof of artificiality in <b>one case, THEN it is no longer valid to dismiss all the rest out of hand.</b>

Tom believed artificiality was proven by the Cydonia Face, with mathematical computations and all, so anything the rest of us were going back and forth on any one of the newer candidates, he would jump in and ask what we were doing. Why were we still arguing the "first artificiality case?"

But to some of us, the so-called proof of first artificiality on the Cydonia Face was lacking for the simple reason that the images weren't of high enough resolution to be used in the proofs.

Since then:

a.) I've seen no new proof done on HiRise images of Cydonia.
b.) I've seen no other proofs done.
c.) I've seen numerous cases of (which I posted) HiRise images that were non-confirmational of suspected artifacts.

Ergo, as far as I'm concerned we're still in the land of the quest for first artificiality.

Now, having said that, I do agree if you show us a shovel or some such thing that is undeniable to a normal rational human, with clarity of the images from DigitalGlobe that I posted here: www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2863 , you will have solved the problem of first artificiality and from then on it's Katie bar the door, all the rest of the stuff is now probably artificial.

So..., I hate to say this my friend, but the onus is still on you (tag, you're it!).

But alas, we still wait, as no proof has yet been forthcoming.

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 />Rich, I just caught this comment you made about Neil where he mentioned "Jinns"...interesting. Sometime earlier last year, I did a side step study on this phenomenon. There's more to this I think than meets the eye. Could you direct me to any of his work/research on this topic? Malcolm Scott <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy, but it explains why I frequently ask you how much of this stuff, and for how long, have you been reading the MR message boards. The story is spread over many topics and many years, authored by many members. In some cases, we're in one topic but due to arguments and tangents it veers off, and then the person starts another topic and it moves on from there. Just like you've witnessed yourself more recently. Or maybe the person just starts another topic.

In many ways, these Message Boards really are a "real time" phenomena.

But I will attempt to give you the Topics of most important to the discussion, not necessarily in the order they were started, with a note on each one. Since they are currently in the order of last posting, it would take me forever to figure out the order they were started.

(One word of warning, in a number of cases images or links lead nowhere. In some cases it's through no fault of any of us, the website is just not there anymore, but also in some cases, images got moved causing the link to be broken. But most of the time, you'll get the gist of it.)

In any event, these are probably the more definite in the debate:

<b> "KEYS" </b> 02 Dec 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=928

Note: Starts with a "Jinn". The interesting thing about this topic is that it clearly defines the point in time where Neil and I went our separate ways, and it's just a couple of months after I started the Pareidolia thread. If you have the time to read this, you will see what I mean when I say we already have been arguing these same points (you and I are currently) for quite some time.

<b> "T or E"</b> 01 May 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=859

Note: We wrote a paper on this one.

<b> "My Pareidolia Knows No Bounds" </b> 10 Jul 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=873

Note: I got permission from TVF to start this, knowing it was really somewhat off-topic for MB in general. Neil thought the title was a reflection on him, but it really wasn't, it was a reflection on reality. If you haven't read and studied the "Superstitious 'S'" Study (pg 5 or so), I strongly recommend it. It virtually proves "We see what we know."

<b> "Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries" </b> 03 Oct 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=904

Note: Designed to counter my thread on Pareidolia

<b> "Nefertiti's Family" </b> 13 Mar 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=834

Note: My first day here. Neil and I were working on a Paper for the Bulletin when I started this. Sorry about the missing images. Can't fix it for now.

<b>"Faces from the Chasmas" </b> 04 Jul 2006

www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=872

Note: Neil's definitive collection.


Some Interesting passages I came across while putting this together.

This one from Jrich, who I thought was quite brilliant.


<i>Why search for artificial causes (hoaxing, Martians) when a natural one (pareidolia) will suffice. The search for a non-natural explanation must stem from a belief that the natural explanation is insufficient. The only reason I can imagine why you might reject pareidolia is that you are uncomfortable with the idea that your subjective perception of reality could be at such a variance with your what your objective intelligence concludes it to be. In trying to reconcile the subjective mind with the objective one you are forced to assume that the subjective is correct and search for an explanation which will also satisfy your objective mind. The quest becomes then not for *The Truth*, but for *your truth*. However, your objective mind is not completely fooled and in order to convince it, *your truth* must become *The Truth* and this can only be achieved by convincing a sufficient number of others of the same. JR </i> [Author's note: Wow! That's a mouthful. Please read a few times.]

Regarding my reasons to change from the AOH camp to the Pareidolia camp:

<i>Some Spanish Proverbs:

www.cybernation.com/quotationcenter/quot...?type=author&id=7303

Changing one's mind is more often a sign of prudence than of ignorance.

A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will.

A person who talks a lot is bound to be right sometimes.

A man too busy to take care of his health is like a mechanic too busy to take care of his tools. (I like the high tech variant on this: I'm too busy chopping wood to sharpen my ax)

Dance to the tune that is played.

On Change:

That's the risk you take if you change: that people you've been involved with won't like the new you. But other people who do will come along. --Lisa Alther

The first step toward change is awareness. The second step is acceptance. --Nathaniel Branden

The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything or nothing. --Lady Nancy Astor

That things are changed, and that nothing really perishes, and that the sum of matter remains exactly the same, is sufficiently certain. --Francis Bacon

Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. --James Baldwin

When you're through changing, you're through. --Bruce Barton

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly --Henri L. Bergson

Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others. --Jacob M. Braude
</i>



rd