Keys

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />I would agree if this were not a null set. Did I miss something? I hope you are not simply meaning biological faces that are not man/Martian made, but are nonetheless real, DNA-produced faces and not pareidolia (face illusions). -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I'm talking about holes and lines in the rocks that look like a face but are not man/Martian made. You could walk right up to it, touch it, whatever, and it still looks like a face. Why would you think this is a null set? I posted a whole rock pile of them from a picture I took at Mt. Ranier once. They're all over the walls of Yosemite, and I would imagine Mars.

rd

(Just repairing 43,44, and 45 (please see page 1 of this topic). Corrected spelling, and I find white background works better than black.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">According to Z. Sitchin in the Lost Book of Enki, 600 Igigi people sorjourned on Mars for several millenia with nothing much to do except tranship gold. He says they carved a face near the tomb of the first explorer. He claims that his conjecture is based partly on ancient cuniform tablets. [shando]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Interesting. I found Sitchin usually documents his finds; I'll have to look at that.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Originally posted by neilderosa

the works have been gummed-up by specious arguments about “pareidolia” and “anthropomorphism”, it has proven difficult, sometimes in the extreme, to make the common sense arguments.

---

The common sense argument is that it's all pareidolia. That's the default of the entire world on first hearing of possible artifacts in imagery of Mars.[Tom]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

True, that's probably the contemporary definition of "common sense," meaning "what most people think" before they stop, look, and listen. I use the term the way Thomas Reid, and Adam Ferguson used it in the 18th century, Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense, meaning (roughly) "a straight forward, objective, interpretation of the senses untainted by bias or (philosophical) Idealism.” But I agree there is a fine line here. [For anyone interested, the contemprary philosopher/economist, Thomas Sowell, uses the term, "common sense," the way I do, and so by the way did old Tom Paine.]

My "common sense" is that if we actually look at them, (and once we understand how and why the photographic images can't be fakes, and once we dispatch the specious, "elaborate pareidolia" argument), these faces really do look like faces, and therefore probably are, once we are able to put bias aside, especially the notion that "they just can't be up there on Mars. They just can't be."

If we look at the best of the best again, and if we understand the above provisos, it's common sense that these are what they apaear to be.







Neil

Tom, we seem to be going in circles.

Neil, De-Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Fred, THIS JUST IN: YOUR SHADOW FACES ARE MAN/MARTIAN MADE REAL ARTWORKS.

I'll say it one more time for the record. Fred's art is either a bonified example of the elaborate pareidolia that Neil claims doesn't exist (actually my sample was too), or it is fraudulent. There are no other choices. Now, that is what I would call a <b>true</b> statement, regardless of who thinks what about it, or what scientific studies who thinks who should do to prove that.

I suspect one of his photos will eventually make it in to the dictionary under the term: <b>elaborate pareidolia</b>

As for these last 5 images posted here, I would say that's the sad part about this whole debate. These may well be Martian Art (might not, also), and like JP Levasseur noted at the very outset, when I asked him if he had ever seen the "Family" in the area of the PI:

(Paraphrasing) "While we did see some secondary images, we felt it was better for the AOH to stick to the main Profile Image. It's a slippery slope once you start posting secondary and tertiery images."

By posting all this other stuff, of which probably the vast majority is pareidolia, all it accomplished was exactly what JP was afraid of. It gives those who say the PI is pareidolia tons of ammo to work with. The good ones got lost in the shuffle. If they thought we were nuts before, they've got to be sure of it by now. At least if it was <b>good</b> pareidolia, we could sell it on those grounds.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'll say it one more time for the record. Fred's art is either a bona fide example of the elaborate pareidolia that Neil claims doesn't exist (actually my sample was too), or it is fraudulent.[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'll hold you to that "one more time" promise. Me, I don't mind repeating myself, It's often necessary when teaching new things.[]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe "fraud," is a legal term, and usually denotes a crime. I also believe that it is legally permitted to post pretty much anything on the Internet under the aegis of "freedom of speech." There are no requirements to prove your statements/images; so the word "fraud" doesn't fit. If I had to pick just one word to replace it with, I'd use "unsubstantiated." In any event, it's always better to put things more precisely. I stand by every word I have said till <i>proven</i> wrong.[]

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 />I'm not a lawyer, but I believe "fraud," is a legal term, and usually denotes a crime.......... If I had to pick just one word to replace it with, I'd use "unsubstantiated." In any event, it's always better to put things more precisely. I stand by every word I have said till <i>proven</i> wrong.[]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, here are some words from the Thesaurus:

<b>Related Words </b> deceptive, misleading, specious

Which is precisely what you're saying. Also, I might remind you, like jrich said awhile ago (seems like forever), "the burden of proof is on the advocates of artificiality." Maybe you might want to try a little statistical analysis of your own. That might be interesting.

It's too easy to say "prove me wrong" when all one has to do is say "not good enough". What would constitute proof to you that the attached photo is exactly what it's purported to be?

Let me pose a logical question. Assume for the sake of argument (logical argument, that is) that all of Fred's photos are what we say they are. Then what? That would mean that your major contention that elaborate pareidolia doesn't exist is wrong, correct?

Look at the beard (5 o'clock shadow), nostril, eyes, lips with shading, etc. Assume for the sake of argument that this is what it is, a photo of shadows from a tree. Imagine an 8x11 glossy first print from the original negative.

"No Exit" by Fred Ressler



rd