Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries

rd, have you read any of Sitchin's works? If not, go the the nearest library & see if any of his later works (post 1999) are available. You will find it very interesting.

shando

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />rd, have you read any of Sitchin's works? If not, go the the nearest library & see if any of his later works (post 1999) are available. You will find it very interesting.shando<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">shando, I was actually reading "The 12th Planet". I'm doing some travelling now, and I packed it to finish reading. Only problem is that I can't find it where I thought it was, so I'll probably order a new one tomorrow.

Remember, I'm not totally opposed to the whole theory of an ancient Martian (or whatever) civilization, I just happen to believe that pareidolia is an interesting subject that intercects with it. I've said right from the beginning that some of this stuff may truly be artificial, it's just that I believe that most of it is pareidolia. That's one of the reasons why I think pareidolia is such a powerful subject (as does Fred Ressler).

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've stated before that I consider the rationale of the Martian art proponents the same as those of the Intelligent Design adherents. Those who understand what I am talking about will see Neil's response as confirmation of the correctness of this proposition. [jr]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In a sense there is a superficial similarity between ID and what we are doing that's worth some comment. The ID advocate I’m most familiar with is Michael Behe, as I did a chapter on him for my book, <i>Apocryphal Science</i>. His point in a nutshell is that life at the molecular level displays many complexities, (Behe’s term is “irreducible complexity”), that could not have occurred by random chance according to the Darwinian model of variation and mutation of species by means of small incremental changes over time. Behe makes some very valid points IMO, in his book on the subject, <i>Darwin’s Black Box. </i>
But I do not think he is correct on the idea of intelligent design because (as he probably means it) that would require miracles and a supernatural god, both of which are unscientific concepts. But I do think the Darwinian model could have some mistakes. The idea of panspermia, if correct, would falsify, for example, the Darwinian belief that life had sprung spontaneously from the basic elements of the nascent earth around 4 billion years ago. And I suspect that if some causal mechanism were discovered for the DNA molecule whereby change (variation and mutation) was essentially “programmed” into the macromolecule, that notion could challenge the Darwinian theory of small, random, incremental variations over time, to that of change based on some principle of causality.

So by replacing random chance with causality, you have a rational, viable alternative to ID.

The reason I said there is a superficial similarity between the above and what we are doing in our Mars research, is because we are advocating a kind of intelligent design, but it is not the religious or supernatural kind; it is the kind of design that Picasso, or Michelangelo, employed, namely the design of the artist or engineer. All that is required is that we prove it. No small task.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I honestly don't know how Tom does it.JR<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My take on it is that Tom's good at it, so he doesn't mind doing it. Sort of like a Chess Master who plays forty games at one time with opponents of all different levels.rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The implication here of course is that TVF is tolerantly putting up with the <i>Artificiality Hypotheses </i>for Mars on his website, but this amounts to an incongruity to say the least. All one has to do is to look up TVF’s published record on the subject to see that he is squarely in our camp. Truth be known he is extremely tolerant of his critics and debunkers, and has remained professional and dignified about the issue in the in the face of heaps of abuse, prevarication, name calling and ad hominem—not here on his own turf, but it the scientific world at large and in the media in general.

The above quoted statements amount to standing the truth (and the scientist) on it’s head.

We could all learn from his example.

Neil DeRosa

<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 />The implication here of course is that TVF is tolerantly putting up with the <i>Artificiality Hypotheses </i>for Mars on his website, but this amounts to an incongruity to say the least. Neil DeRosa<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Those are your words, not mine, as I'm sure any reader will know. I meant no such thing.

I was responding to JR's comment about how tiresome it was to have to constantly repeat point for point all of the counter arguments on a certain topic. He wondered how Tom could do that, and I said it was because he was good at it and didn't mind doing it. As far as I could see Tom is being consistent across the board.

There's no telling what you're talking about.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Deny, deny, ignore, repeat, <b>ignore</b>, repeat (convolute), attack, attack. rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

rd

This has been an interesting topic. It was started to debunk the idea that pareidolic faces are rather common, but the topic was pretty much debunked itself, very early on. Actually, on page 1. Here's a little re-cap. I'm sure most readers are familiar with this, anyway, but it does show how much of a canard most of the original purpose of this thread was. None of this has ever really been addressed satisfactorily as far as I know. It (this topic) makes for interesting reading if read in its entirety.:

<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 /><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 />Frequent, elaborate, pareidolia theory is a false hypothesis that implies the possibility of extremely statistically rare forms appearing as everyday occurrences.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> This is the famous strawman argument. Nobody ever said they were everyday occurances, although they could be, if someone with your talents was looking for them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1- Elaborate pareidolia, (which will be defined), will be shown to be very rare or non-existent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I know of at least 300 at one guy's house.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2- Examples of pareidolia are never treated scientifically, as it was in its traditional form,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's because they are pareidolia, and nobody thinks Martians made them (this is another strawman). Pareidolia is <b>supposed to disappear on close scrutiny.</b> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> (as in the Levasseur MRB paper cited several times), with which there is no objection.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">He was trying to show that something on Mars <b>wasn't</b> pareidolia, not something on Earth that is. Plus, he was making the same basic mistake that you're making. Namely, because he wanted to protect his find, he did not actively seek out Earthly pareidolia.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3- Proposed cases of elaborate pareidolia are never substantiated, confirmed, analyzed, scrutinized or otherwise explained scientifically. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You seem to have forgotten what pareidolia is (another strawman)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3- Examples are never seen from different vantage points, in raw data formats, under different lighting conditions in different seasons, under higher and/or lower resolution.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Repeat previous comment.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4- Proposed cases almost never pass the artificiality threshold.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is an oxymoron. They're pareidolia.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5- The cases that do pass this threshold or come close, may not be pareidolia but artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> None of them should have passed any tests. If they did, I screwed up. They were merely examples of known pareidolia, like I said since square 1. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6- Borderline cases are either very rare or the result of unduely enhanced photographs. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Or in other words, "FRAUD!", like the 10,000,000 people who saw Satan in the Smoke all imagined it and can't be trusted.rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

rd