- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
- Marsevidence01
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
10 years 9 months ago #21917
by Marsevidence01
Replied by Marsevidence01 on topic Reply from Malcolm Scott
I see faces the exact same way I see faces in the trees and shadows. So, if I see a face, my first inclination is always going to be: pareidolia.
rd
[/quote]
Rich, it does appear that you have had quite some experience with this issue of seeing faces and I can understand why you would place them into the field of pareidolia (in any form). However, reading your quote above concerns me where you state "my first inclination is always going to be".
I have a suggestion here for you and is meant with all respect. Try placing this preconception on the back burner for a while as we evaluate the evidence. As you can always recall this position at a later date, I feel this my serve you better as we proceed.
Have you ever wondered why so many people are seeing so many "faces" when researching Mars imagery?
I can tell you from my own experience that the reason is very simple in as much as it is complicated. The fact is, these faces are indeed littering the Martian landscape. After two solid years of extreme close up work on both hi resolution and medium resolution (HiRISE/ESA Mars Express) not only are these faces and figurines a real phenomenon but more importently, <u>the facial designs have a very specific signature</u>. This is what I refer to as their "style". And in cases where Pareidolia (Modern) is present i.e. seeing images of tea Kettles in tree bark, the difference is profoundly clear and should not confused with one and other.
So, why faces? Well every living creature (even on Mars and beyond) has a face. My belief is, is that the alien uses these faces ubiquitously as in the pattern of a face we see one consistent common denominator - intelligent life! Whether a bird or a human or a reptile....life is immediate noticed as compared to, if we were to see kneecaps everywhere. So in may ways, the face, any face makes a lot of sense. In fact Rich, I have come to understand that the image of a face in all it's constructed designs (pictorial or statue type bust) is of immense importance to the alien mind. What needs to be ascertained now; is why is it SO important to them.
Of course, one will see and recognize the EMOTIONS of life in the expressions in the face. And moreover, one will see more emotion in a cartoon or a caricature that in any other art form of the facial construct and by most all ages of life I think universally.
Also, the cartoon plays a very big roll in the imagery on Mars. Both facial and figurines are materialized in numerous places quite stunning!
This is why you will and will continue to see faces in two and three dimensions and multiple dimensions on the Martian surface.
Malcolm Scott
rd
[/quote]
Rich, it does appear that you have had quite some experience with this issue of seeing faces and I can understand why you would place them into the field of pareidolia (in any form). However, reading your quote above concerns me where you state "my first inclination is always going to be".
I have a suggestion here for you and is meant with all respect. Try placing this preconception on the back burner for a while as we evaluate the evidence. As you can always recall this position at a later date, I feel this my serve you better as we proceed.
Have you ever wondered why so many people are seeing so many "faces" when researching Mars imagery?
I can tell you from my own experience that the reason is very simple in as much as it is complicated. The fact is, these faces are indeed littering the Martian landscape. After two solid years of extreme close up work on both hi resolution and medium resolution (HiRISE/ESA Mars Express) not only are these faces and figurines a real phenomenon but more importently, <u>the facial designs have a very specific signature</u>. This is what I refer to as their "style". And in cases where Pareidolia (Modern) is present i.e. seeing images of tea Kettles in tree bark, the difference is profoundly clear and should not confused with one and other.
So, why faces? Well every living creature (even on Mars and beyond) has a face. My belief is, is that the alien uses these faces ubiquitously as in the pattern of a face we see one consistent common denominator - intelligent life! Whether a bird or a human or a reptile....life is immediate noticed as compared to, if we were to see kneecaps everywhere. So in may ways, the face, any face makes a lot of sense. In fact Rich, I have come to understand that the image of a face in all it's constructed designs (pictorial or statue type bust) is of immense importance to the alien mind. What needs to be ascertained now; is why is it SO important to them.
Of course, one will see and recognize the EMOTIONS of life in the expressions in the face. And moreover, one will see more emotion in a cartoon or a caricature that in any other art form of the facial construct and by most all ages of life I think universally.
Also, the cartoon plays a very big roll in the imagery on Mars. Both facial and figurines are materialized in numerous places quite stunning!
This is why you will and will continue to see faces in two and three dimensions and multiple dimensions on the Martian surface.
Malcolm Scott
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Marsevidence01
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 9 months ago #22318
by Marsevidence01
Replied by Marsevidence01 on topic Reply from Malcolm Scott
<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 />Malcolm,
Suppose the rover that recently found that 'donut' had found several piles of rocks instead, in fairly close proximity to each other? Just ordinary rocks, like we have seen strewn all over the surface of Mars.
The first pile had two rocks. The second pile had three rocks. The third pile had five rocks. And the fourth pile had seven rocks.
What would you conclude?
LB
Rich, you can answer this as well if you want to. But let Malcolm go first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What a delightful question!
Well to to quote Tom, random pattern sets do appear naturally so, (I do presume we are talking about "found on Mars") we must first recognize the pattern set of prime numbers as being a positive and secondly, is how they were stacked together. If they appear to be piled with some sense of due care and attention, then it would also count as a second positive.
If however, there were many other rocks in the immediate vicinity that seemed to be piled in irregular intervals, this would, in my opinion discredit the first two positives and conclude; insufficient evidence to state artificiality.
Do I get a lollypop now?
Malcolm Scott
<br />Malcolm,
Suppose the rover that recently found that 'donut' had found several piles of rocks instead, in fairly close proximity to each other? Just ordinary rocks, like we have seen strewn all over the surface of Mars.
The first pile had two rocks. The second pile had three rocks. The third pile had five rocks. And the fourth pile had seven rocks.
What would you conclude?
LB
Rich, you can answer this as well if you want to. But let Malcolm go first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What a delightful question!
Well to to quote Tom, random pattern sets do appear naturally so, (I do presume we are talking about "found on Mars") we must first recognize the pattern set of prime numbers as being a positive and secondly, is how they were stacked together. If they appear to be piled with some sense of due care and attention, then it would also count as a second positive.
If however, there were many other rocks in the immediate vicinity that seemed to be piled in irregular intervals, this would, in my opinion discredit the first two positives and conclude; insufficient evidence to state artificiality.
Do I get a lollypop now?
Malcolm Scott
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 9 months ago #21918
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Very good.
This is the sort of 'shovel' I want to see.
This is the sort of 'shovel' I want to see.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 9 months ago #22258
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Of course, an actual shovel would work too.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 years 9 months ago #21919
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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />1. However, reading your quote above concerns me where you state "my first inclination is always going to be".
2. Have you ever wondered why so many people are seeing so many "faces" when researching Mars imagery?
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't want to spend too much time right now, because I have some family commitments, but there's two points I'd like to make to ease your mind about this.
1. Remember (or maybe you didn't know), my first inclination when Neil first showed me and my wife the Cydonia Face was that it was pareidolia, <b>but then </b> over the next few years, I was firmly in the camp of your side, with the AOH advocates. Neil and I even wrote a couple of papers on the assumption that we were dealing with Martian Artifacts.
Only later did it hit me like a ton of bricks that this is all pareidolia (modern), but even having said that, I've also stated numerous times that I was still open to being proven wrong. So don't sell me short. If you've really got something, I'm open. Just remember that we're never going to be convinced unless it's convincing.
2. Have we ever wondered why people see so many faces on Mars? Absolutely! That's pretty much what we've been trying to define here and elsewhere. I have my opinion and Fred has his. In many instances we're in total agreement, but there are subtle differences (go back and look at the five definitions).
One other thing I'd like to say, in the spirit of fair play, and in the same spirit that you're asking me to keep and open mind. Consider giving some thought to the fact that we may be right and that this is all a classic manifestation of pareidolia (modern). Learn about it. Who knows, you may end up having the same epiphany I had.
rd
<br />1. However, reading your quote above concerns me where you state "my first inclination is always going to be".
2. Have you ever wondered why so many people are seeing so many "faces" when researching Mars imagery?
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't want to spend too much time right now, because I have some family commitments, but there's two points I'd like to make to ease your mind about this.
1. Remember (or maybe you didn't know), my first inclination when Neil first showed me and my wife the Cydonia Face was that it was pareidolia, <b>but then </b> over the next few years, I was firmly in the camp of your side, with the AOH advocates. Neil and I even wrote a couple of papers on the assumption that we were dealing with Martian Artifacts.
Only later did it hit me like a ton of bricks that this is all pareidolia (modern), but even having said that, I've also stated numerous times that I was still open to being proven wrong. So don't sell me short. If you've really got something, I'm open. Just remember that we're never going to be convinced unless it's convincing.
2. Have we ever wondered why people see so many faces on Mars? Absolutely! That's pretty much what we've been trying to define here and elsewhere. I have my opinion and Fred has his. In many instances we're in total agreement, but there are subtle differences (go back and look at the five definitions).
One other thing I'd like to say, in the spirit of fair play, and in the same spirit that you're asking me to keep and open mind. Consider giving some thought to the fact that we may be right and that this is all a classic manifestation of pareidolia (modern). Learn about it. Who knows, you may end up having the same epiphany I had.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 years 9 months ago #22096
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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />
Rich, you can answer this as well if you want to. But let Malcolm go first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I tend to agree with Malcolm's answer. The first 4 prime numbers <i>could </i> be significant. Someone trying to signal us using math (a universal language). If we later scanned out and found that there were 11 rocks right next to it (a priori prediction and all!) that would be very convincing that an intelligent hand was involved.
Having said that, just the first four primes could be coincidental, for the reasons Malcolm gave you.
rd
<br />
Rich, you can answer this as well if you want to. But let Malcolm go first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I tend to agree with Malcolm's answer. The first 4 prime numbers <i>could </i> be significant. Someone trying to signal us using math (a universal language). If we later scanned out and found that there were 11 rocks right next to it (a priori prediction and all!) that would be very convincing that an intelligent hand was involved.
Having said that, just the first four primes could be coincidental, for the reasons Malcolm gave you.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.468 seconds