My pareidolia knows no bounds.

So long as you follow our prime directive you can show us your stuff and talk about it all you want. Look at what we let Joe Keller post. (BTW, in terms of scientific credibility he runs circles around you).

Just realize that we are looking for a lot more than a personal opinion. Some supporting evidence would be useful, from your point of view.

<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 /> In fact, I do believe, if TVF looked into this condition more thoroughly, he would never have allowed it to be used here as it has.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You couldn't be more wrong. Tom knew exactly what he was doing when he approved this topic.

Tom was way too big a person to worry about one person's opinion. He encouraged all different viewpoints, just as long as it stayed civil and nobody was attacking the messenger.

Malcolm, did you know I was banned from this site once? Roughly 2 or 3 months prior to the start of this thread. Neil and I were really starting to disagree on everything, and it got pretty crazy at times. I never had a message censored or deleted by Tom, but Neil used to all the time, and that really got his goat. So, it got pretty bad, and at one time we were just flat-out arguing on one of these threads.

I suppose to a certain extent it made good theater, and they put up with it a little more than they might have, but sooner or later they shut it down, and I was banned.

I took a couple of months off to think about it, and then contacted Tom. I apologized and explained how it escalated and asked him if I could come back. He talked it over with his team and said yes. That's when I asked if I could start this thread, and he was very receptive to the idea. He thought it was exactly the right thing to do, at the right time.

This topic is not here to "refute" the AOH. But rather to act as a counterpoint to keep front and center the other side of the argument.

No one should take it personally. If you have something, don't let this bother you.

To put it bluntly:

This is my opinion, my hypothesis. There is no assumption on my part that I am right and everyone else is wrong, even if I personally think I am right and everyone else is wrong.

rd

<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 />So long as you follow our prime directive you can show us your stuff and talk about it all you want. Look at what we let Joe Keller post. (BTW, in terms of scientific credibility he runs circles around you).

Just realize that we are looking for a lot more than a personal opinion. Some supporting evidence would be useful, from your point of view.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I appreciate the prime directive and can live with this no problem but please understand my position (AND I DO BELIEVE I SPEAK FOR OTHERS) that this insipid use of pareidolia and its NEGATIVE connotations are flatly insulting when used to evaluate images of the Martian surface.

I am 100% against its use as it bares no accuracy whatsoever.

If we new the "reality" of the target data in any images "as a for sure thing", in this case, I grant you, an analysis of pareidolia may be acceptable. But we do not, and so if a researcher sees a pink elephant on the surface for example, THERE MAY VERY WELL BE A PINK ELEPHANT ON THE SURFACE!

You see the connotations of this condition in all their interpretations are enveloped under the "real or misinterpretation" that this condition is a mental disorder and contrary the real process of evaluation of the surface.

I'm sorry, but these are the facts that are "out there" and I do believe that this so-called condition is being mis-used to dis-credit researchers - period. Now you can chop This up and dissect it as much as you want but from my perspective, if this pareidolia crap is used here for any analysis on the Martian surface, I will not be interested in posting here and will move on.

Thank you

Malcolm Scott

<b>[Marsevidence01 ]"THERE MAY VERY WELL BE A PINK ELEPHANT ON THE SURFACE!"</b>

We agree. Always have.

Pareidolia (new) does not mention mental disorder, and in fact is applicable to mechanical and electrical recognizers.

It might help to keep the discussion straight if you added a parenthetical reference to which definition you are using when you use the word pareidolia.