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 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

The moderator god has accepted LB's proposed official definition of pareidolia(new).


LB

being a god is so cool - you can do just about anything ...
of course, I try to be reasonable. but it's not always easy.

Larry, I have a little problem with the word "error" in your proposed definition.

I have to go out right now, but I'll give you my reasons a little later.

rd

D*mn. Are we going to have to define error, too?

Have I created a monster?


LB

The pattern IS recognized. Not recognized in "error".(All words used from the Hindu/Perelman/Bohm point of view which is the quantum point of view).

Of course it was recognized. So what?

You take a picture of a B, and your recognizer says "I recognize that ... it's an A".

***

I guess we ARE going to have to define the word 'error'.

So, Fred, you go first. In <u>this</u> case, nothing less than a properly formatted request for acceptance of an official definition is going to be considered.

And I just demonstrated how to do that.

LB