Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />In other words ESA, NASA, like some participants of this board, seek to discredit the artificiality hypothesis, and "spinning" the story is not beyond them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you have some evidence to back this claim up, put it forward. If not, kindly assume that everyone is sincere and simply arguing for a position they genuinely believe in. Otherwise, it would be you doing the "spinning". -|Tom|-

Detailed pareidolia by Alexander Boe:

www.home.no/stoneface/

Detailed pareidolia by Fred Ressler:

www.outsiderart.co.uk/ressler.htm

More detailed pareidolia by Fred Ressler (sorry, I don't mean to be doing any gratuitous advertising for Mr. Ressler, but I'm being forced to present this evidence again):

www.yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50

Click on any of the images on the right for a larger view. Then the interested party can go back to the Faces topic and "compare and contrast". I think you'll find that Fred's subjects are much more detailed, for the most part. Certainly enough to make my point.



rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you have some evidence to back this claim up, put it forward. [Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I intend to do so, but please be patient. I only do this part time believe it or not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Otherwise, it would be you doing the "spinning". -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It puzzles me to hear you say that (especially right out of the box even before the evidence is presented), since I agree with you on ninety percent of the issues; granted our styles are very different.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />It puzzles me to hear you say that (especially right out of the box even before the evidence is presented), since I agree with you on ninety percent of the issues; granted our styles are very different.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your message struck me as treading dangerously close to being ad hominem. Moreover, until shown otherwise, I consider ESA and NASA (not to mention other participants here) as innocents. Even this latest abuse of data, the composite Cydonia Face, had a credit line to MSSS/JPL.

If you insist on addressing motives instead of issues, you had better have harder evidence than inference, and should at least identify the proper culprits. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you insist on addressing motives instead of issues, you had better have harder evidence than inference, and should at least identify the proper culprits. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I have no intention of speaking of motives in this thread since that is a censored subject. What I want to address is method, procedure and scientific (and logical) accuracy and effectiveness. Ok? If that is not permitted either please let me know.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I consider ESA and NASA (not to mention other participants here) as innocents. Even this latest abuse of data, the composite Cydonia Face, had a credit line to MSSS/JPL.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I stand corrected on that detail. Since the private contractors are linked to and employed by the govt. agencies, I took the connection (and shared responsibility) as the given. Perhaps that was naive.

It is obvious to me that when a person or an organization is "for" one idea and "against" another, they will couch their argument in terms that will maximize benefit to themselves and minimize it to their opponent. If they do it in ways that are not "proper" or legitimate by the accepted rules of the discipline, it has been called by many, "spin." Again if you object to my stated purpose and method please say so and I will abort the subject. It's your game.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />It is obvious to me that when a person or an organization is "for" one idea and "against" another, they will couch their argument in terms that will maximize benefit to themselves and minimize it to their opponent. Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, that's true. But one man's "spin" is another man's "definition".

<b>Spin</b>: a distinctive interpretation (especially as used by politicians to sway public opinion); "the campaign put a favorable spin on the story"

While it's true that I have a "distinctive interpretation" of pareidolia, it has consistently been backed by examples (most of which have been ignored) of that interpretation. So, I wouldn't call that "spin" as much as I'd called it "disagreement".

Also, it's not at all clear to me at all who the public is, in the case of the debate going on here on this website, although I can see your point about MSSS/JPL. They could in fact be "spinning" the case against artificiality. As a matter of fact, if they fudged that recent Cydonia Face, and stuck a mound in the forehead, not only would that be evidence of "spinning", it would be downright criminal.

rd