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 rderosa</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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br /><b>Original:</b> Manifestation of mental disorder, causing partial hallucinations.

Viewer A - perceives a target data point while an Observer B (possibly a Doctor) to Viewer A concludes that Viewer A is experiencing an hallucination due to his description of the target data being different to the known reality of the target data point. Probable evaluation by the Observer (Doctor) is that Viewer A has a mental disorder.

Conclusion - the reality of the target Data Point MUST BE KNOWN in order for the Doctor to diagnose the condition of Viewer A<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> So, what was the evidence for "Artificiality" again? Can you simplify this?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Modern:</b> Psychological phenomenon involving random stimuli in normal people being perceived as significant, a form of apopenia.

The definition is self explanatory as the key words here are "being perceived" or... a normal person experiences random stimuli. If the normal person is "being perceived" by a another party who is aware of the actual reality of the stimuli AS KNOWN, then the condition of apopenia cannot be diagnosed. Conclusion - The true reality of the perceived stimuli MUST be known. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That's possible. Now, please explain to us how this bolsters your argument for intelligent life on Mars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Ressler:</b> Phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns occurring naturally [without man's intervention] all around us.

In order to conclude if this pareidolic phenomenon is occurring, the reality of the patterns occurring naturally MUST BE KNOWN either by an observer or even the viewer themselves. Conclusion - conversely, if the viewer is seeing an "unknown" pattern either naturally or not, then the pattern may be precisely true as seen by the normal person - thus no pareidolic event is occurring. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you tie this in to your evidence for artificiality?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>New:</b> A simple pattern recognition error in any system/organism/process/organization/concept/etc. capable of performing the function of pattern recognition.

The simple pattern without the error must be known in order to discern if an error exists. Conclusion - no previous pattern without an error, there will be NO ERROR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Derosa:</b> The manifestation of a personal human trait causing temporary confusion between man-made and naturally occurring faces, forms, features, sounds, etc.

The reality of any perceived target data point of either man-made or naturally occurring faces, forms, features, or sounds MUST BE KNOWN IN ORDER TO CAUSE CONFUSION. Conclusion - if the reality of the perceived data point is NOT KNOWN, then NO confusion can occur either temporary or not. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not true. The confusion is not between the observer and some arbitrary standard, but rather between the observer and reality. If the observer thinks it's a man-made face and it's really not a man-made face, well, that's a pareidolic experience. In your particular case what that means is that when history finds that there are no artworks, or intelligent life artifacts left behind, that all of your speculations were really just pareidolic experiences, you will be proven wrong, regardless of your arguments today.
-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font size="1">AND ONCE AGAIN FOR THE FINALITY OF THIS DISCUSSION PERTINENT TO THE ANOMALIES SEEN ON MARS. WITHOUT THE KNOWN REALITY OF THE TARGET DATA POINT ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE - NO PAREIDOLIA IN ANY OF ITS FORMS DESCRIBED ABOVE CAN BE APPLIED OR OTHERWISE INSINUATED TO AND OF THE OBSERVER</font id="size1">

If this can be acceptable between us as true and correct, I would like to propose that any further mention or insinuation pertinent to the findings on the Martian surface be free of comment referencing the involvement of a situation of a pareidolic episode in ANY of its current forms until such time as the target data points and their realities are known and can be confirmed.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> No chance. Your reasoning is faulty. Pareidolia is very much "pertinent" to the discussion of any of the so-called "anomalies" found by the AOH "researchers".

---

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So, what was the evidence for "Artificiality" again? Can you simplify this?

I think you are missing the point here. This has nothing to do with my evidence of artificiality OR CLAIM OF IT, in fact, I'm not talking here about artificiality. To simplify - NO KNOWN MARTIAN DATA POINT REALITY....NO PAREIDOLIC EXPERIENCE, IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

rd
[/quote] That's possible. Now, please explain to us how this bolsters your argument for intelligent life on Mars.

No this is not my intent here. I am not trying to bolster my argument. Again and again you miss the point!!! WHEN THERE IS NO KNOWN DATA POINT AS TO THE REALITY OF ANY ANOMALY ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE, THERE CAN BE NO PAREIDOLIC EPISODE - NONE, NOT EVEN...IT'S A NONE STARTER, HELLO?

RD
[/quote]And?

NO PAREIDOLIC EXPERIENCE...NONE...NADDA!


rd
[/quote]Not true. The confusion is not between the observer and some arbitrary standard, but rather between the observer and reality. If the observer thinks it's a man-made face and it's really not a man-made face, well, that's a pareidolic experience. In your particular case what that means is that when history finds that there are no artworks, or intelligent life artifacts left behind, that all of your speculations were really just pareidolic experiences, you will be proven wrong, regardless of your arguments today.

Guy...you are soooo off base with this response I just don't think you are reading my post. YES YOU ARE CORRECT - THE CONFUSION IS BETWEEN THE OBSERVER AND REALITY <font size="4">BUT WHEN THE REALITY OF THE TARGET DATA IS UNKNOWN....THERE CAN BE NO CONFUSION!!!</font id="size4"> Also, we are talking about Mars here Rich....there is NO MAN MADE STUFF ON MARS...ONLY POSSIBLE ALIEN MADE STUFF. And, in the future, if and when we get there and evaluate a proposed artifact and, at that time, (not now) it is deemed to be natural... then I will be wrong BUT ONLY WHEN THE REALITY OF THE ANOMALY BECOMES KNOWN. Until then, it remains a MARTIAN SURFACE ANOMALY AND NOT A PAREIDOLIC ENCOUNTER. Ok? So don't infer that it is pareidolic (any and all) when you don't know THE TRUTH! Capiche?

rd
[/quote] No chance. Your reasoning is faulty. Pareidolia is very much "pertinent" to the discussion of any of the so-called "anomalies" found by the AOH "researchers".

Wrong again, my reasoning is PURE LOGIC. Pareidolia (all forms) can ONLY be pertinent when the reality of the target data IS KNOWN...PERIOD.

I will presume that you do not accept my proposal, too bad, dream on buddy, you're operating in a vacuum.

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 Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>[LB]
Even when nothing has been implied, many of us still infer.

it's a design flaw.

[rderosa]
True, but I'm not sure what you're referencing.</b>

***

I'm referring to everything posted here by the believers.
** SO FAR **


pareidoliac said it pretty well (but I suspect not intentionally):<ul>
<li>I was selling in the farmers market and have heard a "Jesus freak" say "they all look like Jesus."</li>
<li>I heard a drunk say to me "i don't see a damn thing."</li>
</ul><ul>We see what we project ...</ul>

***
yawn
***

FYI -

I still expect the first *real* breakthrough in this area of research to happen on this site. It just has NOT happened yet.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What is needed is a scientific study to see if people seeking and finding and photographing their own pareidolia come up with MEANINGFUL (to them) photographs as far as their 1. Unconscious mind might be seen into by them or others. 2. Friends show up. 3. Relatives. 4. Nationalities. etc. etc. We need to determine if pareidolia is more than amusement and distraction. i believe if we understand pareidolia we will understand everything. (Preemptive Yawn) Form must follow function in the material world. Patterns like pareidolia do not have this restriction. Material is imprisoned. Pareidolia is free.

The way to verify a pareidolic experience is if another person sees it too. If we both see the face in "Einstein" photograph- better yet if many see it- can count the 36 features etc. We can then say it is pareidolia (Ressler).

Most of the time we see a pattern because the pattern is actually there. Lots of people can see it.<ul>
<li>The horse head in the horse head nebula</li>
<li>Malcolm's 40 meter martian</li>
<li>The naked girl in the tile in my den</li></ul>

Some patterns are only there when viewed from a particular place (horse head nebula).
Some patterns are viewable from all angles (girl in the tile).
The viewability of some patterns is not yet known (Malcolm's 40 meter martian).

I really don't care all that much if a specific image is or is not pareidolia - technically or otherwise.

The simple existence of one or more recognizable patterns in a place where no human being has ever been sheds very little light on the question of their origin.

Patterns on Mars might be art. Or they might be an SOS. Or they might be accidental and natural. Or they might be something else.

Nothing that has been posted here, with the exception of Tom's work on the Face, has even come close to suggesting which a particular pattern might be. Even Tom's stuff did not convince me (as in positive, sure, 100%), but it did make me want to go take a closer look.

If I were there looking at the Face I would also go look at some of the other patterns.