My pareidolia knows no bounds.

More
10 years 10 months ago #24350 by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />There is an astronomical difference between the greatest and second greatest players unlike chess. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I read numerous chess books over many years, so maybe I'm kidding myself thinking I'm just going to start playing Go without putting some serious time into it.

rd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21601 by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
- Just happened to read this.
"Man and Things- Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things." (Nietzsche). (please see (Newtonian) note below).
What i have been saying here all along. Remove the senses from the equation to perceive reality (Hindu/Perelman/Nietzsche/the enlightened).
Consciousness=Universe=Spirit. Embedded in each of us.(Newton).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21905 by Larry Burford
It might be helpful to say explicitly what you mean when you use the word 'see'. This word has two primary meanings (but can also sometimes be used in other slightly different ways). Depending on which meaning is in play the meaning of the quote changes in significant ways.

Since you are quoting someone else that used the word without saying which meaning they were using, I suppose you will just have to guess. (Unless the larger context of the quote provides that information.)

***

I'm also wondering about the word 'things' in that quote. But that distinction is going to be related to the meaning of 'see', so for now lets try to keep this 'word defining process' as small as we can.

(It does help. But it is not free.)

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21602 by Larry Burford
<b>[pareidoliac] "Remove the senses from the equation to perceive reality ..."</b>

After pondering this for a while, I have to admit I can make no sense of it.

***
disable your detectors, so you can detect
***

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21603 by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
Remove the concept of blue from the equation and perceive (on the mental plane without senses the real (Hindu/Perelman/ Bohm) electromagnetic spectrum segment wavelength 450495 nm frequency~670610 TH zas it exists (Hindu/ Perelman/ Bohm)in reality (Hindu/Perelman/Bohm).
There are other planes of existence- astral/ lucid dreaming/ visionary planes that plants bring people in contact with/ planes encountered thru fasting from speech and food. Physical activity or lack of it. We are not separate parts of a machine. Machines are man made to imitate nature- Our mechanical model of the universe does not match up to reality (Hindu). There is nothing mechanical(Newtonian mechanical) about any type of reality (all types). There are as many realities as there are what is called separate things or ideas.

We've come a long way since Newton and Einstein. "Science" is based on "faith" in the scientific method. For the past 500 years "Science" has become the new religion it supposedly replaced. 1500 years of one faith- 500 years faith on the flip side. To each his/her own view of reality- they all point to the reality (Hindu et. al.) that we live in a hologramatic universe embedded in each apparent thing (all) or idea all). This embedded universe is called "consciousness". Only a scientist on the order of David Bohm could perceive this.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 years 10 months ago #21604 by Marsevidence01
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Malcolm,

In my experience, what's obvious to one person is rarely obvious to another...unless it is:





No one could argue that these are artworks, created by an intelligent hand. Since we started this thread back in 2006, I have not seen one image from the Mars data that had this kind of impact on a person upon close inspection.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The image of Mount Rushmore is a good example of confirmation of a creation of intelligent life easily recognized because the viewer has more than just the visible attributes to rely on. We as Americans, recognize the designs because we know the story behind their formations. They depict our history and of course we know the profiles of the people involved. The same can not be said however if the image was shown to say, for example a tribesman deep in the Amazon jungle who perhaps has never seen a white man let alone huge rock formations quite rare in that part of the world. So the minds preconceived intelligence bares considerable weight on the process of recognition.

Therefore, in order to confirm the validity of what we see on Mars, we need to establish if there are any further attributes of the artifact that will lend credibility to a perceived observation. For example, if an artifact appears to have the shape of an anthropomorphic design, upon closer inspection one sees clothing, this will bolster credibility. Unfortunately, we see too many instances on Mars when artificiality is claimed where these additional attributes are not evident and as such, claims of Pareidolia (various) limit further investigation and have created much debate. As a result, most all investigations veer off into the arena of human cognitive limitations. Personally, I feel this is driven by the fear of ridicule from the purveyors in the skeptic community. But what is new here, as this approach to groundbreaking discoveries in quite the norm throughout time immemorial.

For further evaluation, more often of not, the high resolution images available seem to indicate many of the images have been reworked or modified before publication on the web. (And without going into the why's and wherefores of this best addressed under the heading of Big Science and Big Government)

Quite typical is the process of changing the image into the inverted negative and increasing the gamma curve. This process immediately confuses the eye into seeing a very different landscape. Fortunately, most imaging software can revert this process.

Case in point.

On July 9th 2007, the MRO acquired on of the most spectacular images to date. Taken from a range of 258.3km at a local Mars time of 2.25pm, the image has captured a surface that indicates an immense array of what I have come to conclude overwhelming examples of a life form which is sprawling the Martian surface! Now I am quite certain that the researcher will eventually arrive at a similar conclusion however, the magnitude of this will only come to be fully understood once time is spent at close up observation with high zoom. I will explain further on this at a later date as the implications are quite astounding.

Below is a close up of one sector of a southern region of Melas Chasma.





In the image above, we see a .tiff rendition of how
the image has been made available from the HiRISE site hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_013838_1695 in
its downloadable format (converted from a grayscale JPEG2000)

Again, the surface is seen where the image has been inverted to the negative and the gamma curve has been increased leading the observer to conclude that the surface is nothing more than a huge landscape of apparent Hydrated Silica. In fact, what is there, is something quite different.

In the lower image, we see the clip where the image has been reverted back to its corrected greyscale and the contrast and gamma curve adjusted.






Evidently sitting atop of a strange and mysterious life form is the apparent specimen of a humanoid figure. The specimen does appear to be clothed and upon close inspection, is wearing some form of footwear! This is quite astonishing and exemplifies life on the planet. What is truly astounding are the surrounding entities which the specimen appears to be sitting on. I will go into this in more depth later as the evidence as to the apparent probability of a yet unknown life form is groundbreaking.

So, seeing is believing and to this extent, to see and to believe is hereby defined for reference.

www.thefreedictionary.com/see

www.thefreedictionary.com/believe

Happy New Year all!

Malcolm Scott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.646 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum