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 />Namely, unsubstantiated, unprovenienced images are cavalierly and routinely considered as "proof" of elaborate pareidolia. But do a little digging and you always come up with an "Image 2" as the theory’s backbone. Addressing Image 2 is the <i>raison d'etre</i> for this topic. Why leave it aside?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Once again, your entire argument falls back to what we affectionately call "the flim-flam theory". In the beginning I told you you were crying "fraud" when I first posted links to Fred's photos, and you said, "no go back and see what I said". You wanted us to measure the shadows or something. Then three months later when all of your subsequent arguments fell short, you finally admitted that the essence of your problem with Fred's photos had something to do with a Mineola Carney. Translation: Fraud.

The reason why I say to leave aside the flim-flamed Mary, is because we don't need it in our side of the argument. We have all of Fred's photos, and now we have Mephestopheles. Although, I suppose you could come up with some theory about how I flim-flamed that one

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A good place to start would be an analysis of Image 2, and proof of its “pareidolia-hood.”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, a better place to start would be to do a direct comparison between Meph and all of your keys, using the Ressler Scale. In a few short weeks of trying, I proved to myself and anybody whose interested that there are images of faces merely sitting in between the branches of trees, waiting to be seen by anyone willing to look. And these images are far more complicated (elaborate) than 90% of the so called Martian Art. That's all I've been saying all along, and I've just proved it.

Anyone care to do the count? We could set up a little spreadsheet. I did a cursory count of your keys and found that 3 to 5 features is typical of most of them. So, in all honesty, your pareidolia is rather low grade itself, just like Image 1 of Mary.
rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />if someone doesn't write a doctoral dissertation on the correlation between political ideology and skepticism of UFOs, Global Warming, Intelligent Design and Martian artifacts, I think will.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If someone says something absurd, and you reply, "that's absurd" (a la Ann), is that ridicule? I don't think it is. Even if you add a little flowery description (like the visualization of Martians trotting around etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintsones all over the landscape").

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the beginning I told you, you were crying "fraud" when I first posted links to Fred's photos[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It seems where back to "fraud" and Fred again. But I never said that.

I said, (many times, but no matter), that evidence must be substantiated, verified, and provenienced, for it to be acceptable <i>qua</i> evidence. No "postcard" art or "pics-for-sale" as evidence. Well Yeaah! I'm sure you're familiar with the concept; it's called the Scientific Method. Even Darwin, Carl Sagan, and TVF must follow its rules. If they don't...well you know the rest. You do don't you? (Oh yeah, and no invoking Solipsism to substatiate facts.)

You seem overly concerned with being accused of fraud--like E. A. Poe's tapping sound behind the wall.

<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 said, (many times, but no matter), that evidence must be substantiated, verified, and provenienced, for it to be acceptable <i>qua</i> evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I took this seriously once, and then posted "Satan Smoke" by Mark D. Philips. I explained how it was seen live by over 10,000,000 people, how ABC bought the rights to it.

Ever since then, I've considered this line to be a dodge, no matter how many Latin words are thrown in.

Shall we start the spreadsheet? Or I could start a new thread called: "Key to the Elaborateness of the Keys, A Study in Mars Pareidolia <i>Qua</i> Art"

rd

<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 />If someone says something absurd, and you reply, "that's absurd" (a la Ann), is that ridicule? I don't think it is. Even if you add a little flowery description (like the visualization of Martians trotting around etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintsones all over the landscape").<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I didn't think you were resorting to ridicule, I was just surprised by your familiarity with Ann Coulter and willingness to quote her.

From the beginning of this Martian art topic I have been as fascinated by the beliefs, theories and debating style of the participants as by the evidence and arguments. I have long held that the belief system that one adopts in one domain, such as politics, is predictive of one's approach to scientific inquiry, but that's a topic for another day and another forum.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I was just surprised by your familiarity with Ann Coulter and willingness to quote her.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's not an all or nothing thing. I just happen to admire her fearlessness. There are huge gaps, however, like the fact that she's a strong advocate of ID, which I found very surprising the first time I heard it, but that is definitely a subject for a different forum.

I just used her as representative of how honesty holds the trump card. Interviewers are constantly saying things to her like, "you don't really believe we should.........(cites some outrageous thing she stands for)", to which she cuts in and says, "yes that's exactly what I think we should do." There aren't many who are willing to do that.

rd