Keys

More
17 years 9 months ago #16375 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 Zip Monster</i>
<br />If so, then maybe, just maybe, one of the main reasons they decided to (like the Maya) construct a lexicon of facial glyphs placed on the surface of Mars - was to get our attention. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes ZM, that's very true. It is possible. But remember there are two different debates here. One is the issue of artificiality in general, and the other is regarding the idea that "because I see a face, Martians made it", implying (or stating explicitly) that there is no such thing as elaborate pareidolia. It is this second issue that I've spent most of my time debating and researching. The NY Times article is just reflecting one more area of research done on the subject and shouldn't be rejected out of hand simply because one thinks "Nacho Pan Jesus" or "Mary in the Grilled Cheese Sandwich" is a fake.

rd

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

More
17 years 9 months ago #16470 by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes ZM, that's very true. It is possible. But remember there are two different debates here. One is the issue of artificiality in general, and the other is regarding the idea that "because I see a face, Martians made it", implying (or stating explicitly) that there is no such thing as elaborate pareidolia. It is this second issue that I've spent most of my time debating and researching. The NY Times article is just reflecting one more area of research done on the subject and shouldn't be rejected out of hand simply because one thinks "Nacho Pan Jesus" or "Mary in the Grilled Cheese Sandwich" is a fake. [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

{CONTENT OF RESPONSE DELETED AS INAPPROPRIATE IN ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION -- Stay on topic and say nothing about the person doing the posting or his/her motives. -- tvf]

So noted. The key point I made in the deleted post (perhaps too bluntly for this forum) was that the above quote completely distorts and misrepresents my position, which I have stated many times, plus my reasons for this opinion. But I didn't save the deleted statement and I don't see any point in trying again.

Best wishes,

Neil DeRosa

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

More
17 years 9 months ago #16406 by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
Here're two tube-like structures casting shadows, and associated with face-like structures.





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

More
17 years 9 months ago #16411 by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
Some of you may be interested in the following:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">“In a Psychological experiment that deserves to be far better known outside the trade, Brunner and Postman asked experimental subjects to identify on short and controlled exposure a series of playing cards. Many of the cards were normal, but some were made anomalous, e.g., a red six of spades and a black four of hearts…

“Even on the shortest exposure many subjects identified most of the cards…For the normal cards these identifications were usually correct, but the anomalous cards were almost always identified, without apparent hesitation or puzzlement, as normal…With a further increase of exposure to the anomalous cards, subjects did begin to hesitate and to display awareness of the anomaly. Exposed, for example, to the red six of spades, some would say: ‘That’s the six of spades, but there’s something wrong with it—the black has a red border.’ Finally, and sometimes quite suddenly, most subjects would produce the correct identification without hesitation. A few subjects, however, were never able to make the requisite adjustment to their categories…One of them exclaimed: ‘I can’t make the suit out, whatever it is. It didn’t even look like a card that time. I don’t know what color it is or whether it’s a spade or a heart. I’m not even sure now what a spade looks like. My God!’…We shall occasionally see scientists behaving this way too.

“Still other experiments demonstrate that the perceived size, color, and so on, of experimentally displayed objects also varies with the subjects previous training and experience. This makes one suspect that something like a paradigm is requisite to perception itself. What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual conceptual experience has taught him. In the absence of such training there can only be, in William James’s phrase, 'a bloomin’ buzzin’ confusion.’” (Thomas Kuhn, <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Those who are wondering what the significance of these experiments is relative to what we have been doing in our research on faces and other artifacts on Mars; my guess is that if some of these objects were found on earth (at least some of the best of them) there would be no question but that we were looking at objects of art or designed construction or manufacture. But when found where they are not “supposed to be,” they fall outside the accepted paradigm, and therefore by definition, they “can’t be” what they seem to be. As I related once before, a science PhD and local professor present at a talk I gave on the subject once admitted to me that even if she saw an obvious sculpture of George Washington in one of the verified, NASA images, she wouldn’t believe it. Perhaps she would say: “I’m not even sure what a face looks like anymore. My God!”

Neil DeRosa

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

More
17 years 8 months ago #16416 by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Originally posted by Neil DeRosa
Incidentally, I never put much faith in "press release science" like the NY Times study you cited; how do we know we are not looking at painted faces? The truth is, we don't.
<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">
You might try reading the article (or my excerpted version of it) before you condemn it. You would find that the examples they used have very little to do with the studies. They were merely well known examples that they chose, but they could easily have chosen four of your keys instead. Or, for that matter, any of the myriad examples of pareidolia on the internet.

rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, there is little logical cohesiveness in these statements . 1- having “little faith” in something is not the same as “condemning” it. 2- My comment re: all elaborate pareidolia is consistent, has never changed, and has never been proven wrong; namely that such images are never substantiated (never proved to be what they are claimed to be). They may be pareidolia; they may be art. We will never know. It matters not which images were chosen by the research/article writers; the crucial point is whether they were demonstrated to be what they are claimed to be. They were not and never are.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but they could easily have chosen four of your keys instead.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If they did, they would have committed the cardinal logical fallacy of taken as the given—and as proven—that which they are attempting to prove (as you do by suggesting it).

And allow me to assume that this vast network of pareidolia pseudo science that has arisen in recent years has the sole unwritten purpose of proving Cydonia, and many of the objects discovered subsequently on Mars, to be pareidolia.

Neil DeRosa

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

More
17 years 8 months ago #16609 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 neilderosa</i>
<br /> Incidentally, I never put much faith in "press release science" like the NY Times study you cited; how do we know we are not looking at painted faces? The truth is, we don't. Neil DeRosa

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You might try reading the article (or my excerpted version of it) before you condemn it. You would find that the examples they used have very little to do with the studies. They were merely well known examples that they chose, but they could easily have chosen four of your keys instead. Or, for that matter, any of the myriad examples of pareidolia on the internet.rd<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, there is little logical cohesiveness in these statements . 1- having “little faith” in something is not the same as “condemning” it. 2- My comment re: all elaborate pareidolia is consistent, has never changed, and has never been proven wrong; Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The bottom line is that you posted your open line (quoted here) and it was obvious to anyone paying attention that you hadn't actually read the article or my excerpted quote of it. Or if you read it, you either didn't understand it, or blanked it out and chose not to comment on it.

That's the real important point here. By merely going back and re-arranging words so that Tom doesn't ad-hominize you {again}, all you've accomplished is to highlight this fact once again. The use of the word "logical" in every other sentence changes nothing.

The science that's being done in the cognitive sciences is showing more and more that "pareidolia" is the likely explanation of all of your keys. Hiding from that fact is not going to help anymore than re-arranging sentences is.

rd

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

Time to create page: 0.285 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum