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 Larry Burford</i>
<br />The pareidolia theory is <u>not</u> being banned.

I'm just *suggesting* that since we all now know what everyone thinks in that regard and since some of us seem overly sensitive to some of the connotations of the word, it might better serve the interests of debate if it is used less often.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
1. Good.

2. Larry, there's a faction reading this Topic that is determined to hold on the the 1800s definition of pareidolia, even though we've explained a hundred times that it's outdated, irrelevant, and distracting from the rich and wondrous thing that is pareidolia (modern/ressler/new/derosa). They are obviously frustrated out in the real world because people look at their "proof" and with a quizzical look say, "I don't see anything that looks artificial."

I say they need to grow a thicker skin and move on with whatever case they want to build. Their failure to convince anyone is not really our problem.

rd

I'm going to go over to the bar now and watch for a while as you guys go-at-it. I'm pretty sure this is not something that I should dictate.

Just don't forget the SMITE button on my keyboard. Message OK, messenger not.

***

Message = open season, no bag limit.

Messenger = protected species.

Now I'm going to the bar ...

<b>[Marsevidence01] "I am not suggesting here that the subject be banned only that it be moved to its rightful forum of Terrestrial Science."</b>

We have been seeing patterns in the sky for as long as we have been we.

***

Orion. Man in the Moon. Horse head nebula.

We also see patterns in clouds and on toast.

And we see patterns in the rocks on Mars.

***

You say pareidolia is the wrong word to use. OK, fine. Stop whining and fix it.

???

<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 />Now I'm going to the bar ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, I have what might be a good compromise:

We all agree <b>NOT to reference "pareidolia" on any new Topic started in the Artificial Structures Forum by Malcolm or anyone else while they are presenting what they believe to be their "proof" of life on Mars. </b>

However, on this Topic, any and all images posted are fair game and the word "pareidolia" flows freely and unimpeded.

How's that sound?

rd

<b>But not in the human kind. </b> As Fred said, yes if we actually think "Nefertiti (the Profile Girl)" is a real girl, then we're freaking nutso, but if we know it's a pattern that looks like a girl, that's pareidolia, whether it's here on Earth or in the Martian landscape.


rd
[/quote]

You nearly had it here but you veered off. Let me bring you back on course.

1. If the observer thinks the Neffertiti image "is a real girl" agreed, that person may not be wrapped too tight.

2. If the image looks like a girl and cannot be explained as a result of natural processes then it is, or has, a "Possible Artificial Design"

3. It is not Pareidolia because we cannot confirm the reality of the target data. Pareidolia must know the reality of the target data in order to show the observer is experiencing a pareidolic episode.


YOU CANNOT HAVE A "PAREIDOLIA ON MARS" PERIOD. IT WOULD BE LIKE SAYING..."LOOK, THERE'S SOME SADNESS ON MARS" OR LOOK, THERE'S "ANGER ON MARS"

Are we getting there?

Malcolm Scott