My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />
Orion. Man in the Moon. Horse head nebula. NOT PAREIDOLIA
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Since this is incorrect, I have to correct it.

Orion = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (stars, sky, gaseous clouds, dust, etc.)

Man in the Moon = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (surface of the moon)

Horse head nebula =<b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (sky, stars, gaseous clouds, etc.)<b></b>

Pareidolia = <b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b>

Therefore: <b> Orion, the Man in the Moon and the Horse head Nebula</b> all equal <b>pareidolia (ressler/new) </b>

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

I disagree but will explain later.

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 /><b>[Marsevidence01] "... my quest is to try to ascertain IF these anomalies were created in the Martian past, or if they are a result of an ongoing process.</b>

... my quest is to try to ascertain IF these anomalies were created in the Martian past <u>(by some natural process)</u>, or if they are a result of an ongoing <u>(natural)</u> process
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree but this statement was in respect to my sentence just preceding:

<i>What I do say is that I am confident that many the anomalies are of "intelligent design" which have been "created" vis-a-vis natural.</i>

Oh boy...I just know you guys are not going to give me any quarter!

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 Marsevidence01</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 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 Marsevidence01</i>
<br />
Orion. Man in the Moon. Horse head nebula. NOT PAREIDOLIA
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Since this is incorrect, I have to correct it.

Orion = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (stars, sky, gaseous clouds, dust, etc.)

Man in the Moon = <b>pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (surface of the moon)

Horse head nebula =<b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b> (sky, stars, gaseous clouds, etc.)<b></b>

Pareidolia = <b> pattern in a non-homogeneous material</b>

Therefore: <b> Orion, the Man in the Moon and the Horse head Nebula</b> all equal <b>pareidolia (ressler/new) </b>

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

I disagree but will explain later.

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I presented was <b>by definition. </b> Unless you happened to be a world-class linguistic (no offense intended), there's nothing to disagree with. I suppose you can create your own definition out of thin air, but for the most part, I think we'd like to see your reference for a new definition. At least, by providing a reference, the viewer can put it in its proper perspective.

rd

<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 />Oh boy...I just know you guys are not going to give me any quarter!

Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my opinion (that's always a good disclaimer), you are spending way too much time "talking" (as in writing) and way too little time "proving."

A little hint for you if I may be so bold.

You're never going to talk us into thinking differently, but you may some day provide proof that makes us think a little differently. So maybe a little change in tactics might be advisable.

rd

<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 /> Elimination of the word pareidolia is tyranny. ... Lighten up anti-pareidoliaists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> If you ask me, it's down right 1984-ish. I find this attempt to discredit the word odd, to say the least. Almost sounds like there's money at stake, or political power. Usually those can two lead to some very contradictory/odd behavior.

It's already been floated here in the past that "money" was the reason why JPL never gave us good images, so they can avoid having to send manned space flights and continue with the current programs, so I see no reason why it couldn't be a possible explanation for this incessant badgering of a word, simply because it flies in the faces of some people's theories.

rd

[/quote]In my opinion (that's always a good disclaimer), you are spending way too much time "talking" (as in writing) and way too little time "proving."


rd
[/quote]

I write and you respond. You are always free not to respond.

Malcolm Scott