My pareidolia knows no bounds.

It appears that you are attempting to create an 'official' definition for the word 'believe'. If so, you have only completed the first step (providing a reference to a definition of the word) required to do so.

The second step is to state the definition, here, in words.

The third step is to provide a name for your definition.

***

The word 'pareidolia'(various) has been through this process (several times now - please read the last few pages if you missed the postings), and when that word is used explicitly or is alluded-to it is expected that one of the official definitions will be pointed-to by using one of the officially recognized names in parenthesis. If you mean to refer to more than one particular definition, use 'various' or similar in parenthesis with the word as I did above.

For example, one might say '... and here is another example of pareidolia(modern) that I just found yesterday." The statement tells readers that the official definition named 'modern' is being used by the author for the example in question.

LB

<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 />It appears that you are attempting to create an 'official' definition for the word 'believe'. If so, you have only completed the first step (providing a reference to a definition of the word) required to do so.

The second step is to state the definition, here, in words.

The third step is to provide a name for your definition.

***

The word 'pareidolia'(various) has been through this process (several times now - please read the last few pages if you missed the postings), and when that word is used explicitly or is alluded-to it is expected that one of the official definitions will be pointed-to by using one of the officially recognized names in parenthesis. If you mean to refer to more than one particular definition, use 'various' or similar in parenthesis with the word as I did above.

For example, one might say '... and here is another example of pareidolia(modern) that I just found yesterday." The statement tells readers that the official definition named 'modern' is being used by the author for the example in question.

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

Belief has great meaning to a lot of people however, to infer belief in what one "sees" is only partially conclusive. Therefor, for the purpose of this analysis, the definition is limited thus:

To believe:(foll by: in) to be convinced of the truth or existence (of): What one sees
NAME: (WOS) "what one sees"

To see: To have a mental image of; visualize:

Malcolm Scott

We have three officially registered definitions for pareidolia, repeated here for convenience.

* 1 ****************************************************
<b><u>Reference:</b></u> encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

<b><u>Definition:</b></u>
Pareidolia (/pr#616;#712;do#650;li#601;/ parr-i-doh-lee-#601;) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant, a form of apophenia. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse.

The word comes from the Greek words para (#960;#945;#961;#940;, "beside, alongside, instead") in this context meaning something faulty, wrong, instead of; and the noun eid#333;lon (#949;#7988;#948;#969;#955;#959;#957; "image, form, shape") the diminutive of eidos. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, seeing patterns in random data.

<b><u>Name:</b></u> modern
NOTE - formerly named 'rev 1', changed on 12/20/2013


* 2 ****************************************************
<b><u>Reference:</b></u>
Fred Ressler: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pareidolia

<b><u>Definition:</b></u>
Pareidolia is the phenomena of seeing faces/figures/forms in patterns; as opposed to where one normally sees faces/figures/forms (on animals including people/landscapes etc.)

Pareidolia is seeing what appears to the individual to be a representation of a face, figure, or form in the clouds, wood grain, marble, smoke, shadows, or any non-homogeneous area. It can also be an auditory phenomenon as in hearing white noise or a record played backward that sounds to the individual like words or a melody that isn't actually there.

<b><u>Name:</b></u> Ressler

*3 ****************************************************
<b><u>Reference:</b></u>
The Journal of Mental Science, Volume 13, Pg. 238 (Apr 1867); books.google.com/books?id=66g8AAAAYAAJ&p...areidolia%22&f=false

<b><u>Definition:</b></u>
Pareidolia is the manifestation of a mental condition causing, changing hallucination, partial hallucination, and/or perceptions of secondary images.

<b><u>Name:</b></u> original
NOTE: alt name suggestion - German Psychological Literature
NOTE: this definition from the early days was brought to our attention by member Zip Monster, and has led to some 'spirited' discussions

As of this time we have ZERO officially registered definitions of the word 'belief'

As of this time we have ZERO officially registered definitions of the word 'see'

Treat each word independently. IOW, in separate posts.

<ul>Provide the reference

Provide the definition

Provide the name</ul>(If you study the ones that have already made it through the process, you might get some hints about what works and what doesn't.)

I'd appreciate it if you format them like I have done, but if you don't I'll do it for you and post an 'official' list again.

<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 />Evidently sitting atop of a strange and mysterious life form is the apparent specimen of a humanoid figure. The specimen does appear to be clothed and upon close inspection, is wearing some form of footwear! This is quite astonishing and exemplifies life on the planet. What is truly astounding are the surrounding entities which the specimen appears to be sitting on. I will go into this in more depth later as the evidence as to the apparent probability of a yet unknown life form is groundbreaking.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Malcolm, it would be very easy for a person (like me) to categorically make the claim that: "Aw shucks, this is just another example of pareidolia (modern or ressler), the surrounding area fits the formula required for a rich assortment of pareidolic (modern) images. And then just leave it at that."

However, since I appreciate the sense of frustration Zip Monster exhibited, coupled with my hope he'll come back, I think there's a better approach.

There's a way to give these images perspective. A simple mathematical comparison. I don't mean to give you a homework assignment, but if you want to, there's an easy way to put this into perspective.

I'll do it first for the Mt Rushmore picture.

The area of the scene depicted (Google "how big is Mt Rushmore?")

<b>1.998 sq miles - let's use 2 sq mi for convenience</b>

The original picture I used (not what you see here, because I don't know if Photobucket compresses, but the basic argument will still hold) has the following properties at 100%

<b>2048 x 1536 pixels = 3,145,728 total pixels</b>

The size of the scene is 2 sq mi which equals:

<b>55,756,800 sq ft </b>

Which means each pixel on my monitor at 100% represents:

<b>17 sq ft of the scene, or an area 3'6"h x 4'10"w</b>

Now, if you were to do the same thing with the image you posted, we could make a comparison as to which has more information (higher resolution). We may be able to make some logical inferences. For instance, suppose you do that and you find that the resolution is much worse, well then we can say, we need better resolution to be sure.

However, suppose you do this comparison and find that the resolution of your image is actually <b> better</b>, what would that mean? Logically, it would mean we are seeing <i>crystal clear</i> what the scene depicts (which isn't all that much, really).

Note that my measurements are all rough approximations, but they are certainly representative of the order of magnitude we are dealing with. I think with the Mars data, you can actually get very accurate numbers (I used to do it all the time with the MRO data), and will tell us a lot.

rd