<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />3. Don't forget to accumulate information against your own theory. George Haas is becoming very good at fair scientific analysis of formations, particularly Parrotopia. Ultimately there is not much to be gained by asserting something is artificial when it is not. You get lampooned by the skeptics/cynics which makes it harder to admit you were wrong later. Better to take some shots at your own work and take the wind out of their sails,..................................... other studies by myself and Horace Crater show some angles between mounds near candidate artifacts are more common than others and have some mathematical significance.................. Don't be afraid of criticism and don't be afraid to criticise. Most artists have difficulty in assessing their own work without a muse or unbiased audience. <b>If you think you see a pattern which is hard to assess scientifically, ask other people and pay attention if they think it is not as good as you think.</b> On the other hand look for evidence that is less a matter of opinion and more scientifically justifiable. gorme<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Greg, these are all very good points. But, I think you'll find that since the early work of TVF and Levasseur and Horace Crater and yourself, there's been very little if anything in the way of a scientific study to support artificiality here. Most of the stuff you see posted on these boards is posted on the theory that: <b>I see it, therefore it is (artificial)</b>. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if you could entice anyone to do actual science and/or measurements, no matter what kind of argument you made supportiing the need for it.
That's why I started this thread on Pareidolia, to show that there are images of a known pareidolic nature that are comparable to the so-called Martian Artificial ones. I don't claim to have proven anything either, but rather to demonstrate that such images <b>could in fact be pareidolia. </b>
We (the Pareidolists) have maintained from the beginning that the onus of proof is on the AOH proponents. They can't just post images that they say "pass muster" (whatever that means) and expect to be taken seriously. Although, as I have said all along, their collection of images are artistic, and do make a valuable collection, if not the one they are intending.
rd
