I think most people would agree the random form of the rock looks like, but is not, a spoon, (there is no spoon...probably). This is pareidolia as we commonly understand the definition of the word: mispercieving randomness as purposfulness.
I think most people would agree the random form of the rock looks like, but is not, a spoon, (there is no spoon...probably). This is pareidolia as we commonly understand the definition of the word: mispercieving randomness as purposfulness.
Another image of the same thing: https://mars.nasa.gov/raw_images/276379/?site=msl
That's a paper by Rhawn Joseph. His name crops up repeatedly in pseudoscientific astrobiology, and everything he says or even suggests should be automatically suspect.
This is also useful in pointing out context. When I saw the original photo, I just assumed it was a long shot and that I was looking out over a vast Moab or Monument Valley type landscape with this incredible spoon-like weathered arch-thing. something it would be cool to walk on if we ever get to Mars. Now seeing this photo above, it looks like it's just a small rock something the size of my hand maybe? Certainly not part of a sweeping vista I had seen in the original:
And yes, I now see the shadow in the lower right and realize the scale of the image. Still, a big spoon shaped natural arch formation one could walk on would be pretty cool.
I think when people go looking for shapes on Mars, it's evident that they're people who want to find things to fit a narrative, and this alone can make their findings suspect. It's amusing to find shapes in the clouds. It can be productive to find sites on earth that indicate they might be worth exploring for such purposes as mining or archaeological studies. It is more like science fiction to posit civilizations on Mars based on nothing but shapes on the ground.
But the "gee whiz" photos from Mars (which all look like rocks to me) are often photographed from other angles or at higher resolutions which clarify the shapes, so when these stories periodically crop up, the writer has been extremely selective. For example, the writers zero in on a tiny bright portion of this photo in that article, completely oblivious to the huge area of equal or greater brightness to the left of that which makes it not unlikely that he is seeing a little bit more of the same shiny rock formation. There's another spot to the far right. Nothing but the shape (dare I say Tic-tac?) suggests a craft of any sort. I also note that no scale is given, and have no idea of the size of any of the features. As I recall, the cameras on Curiosity can get down to nine microns per pixel, so some of those pictures may be of things at the scale of a grain of sand.
Just picked up by the Daily Mail...
In a new research paper, they estimate there is a one in 10 chance the true solution to the UFO mystery could be 'cryptoterrestrial' — meaning they belong to an advanced species hiding on Earth.
I'll not delve into their seemingly faulty logic like saying the "Alaskan Triangle" is remote and sparsely populated, yet over 20,000 people have disappeared there in the last 50 years. I would think there has to be a lot more than 20,000 people running around for that many of them to disappear, making it not quite as remote as they claim.
One region, dubbed the 'Alaskan Triangle,' is a remote and sparsely populated area between the cities of Anchorage, Juneau and Utqiagvik that the authors described as 'a prominent 'hotspot' for UAP [UFOs], as well as other oddities.'
The triangle, they noted, has been ground zero for over 20,000 unexplained disappearances since the 1970s, above and beyond its penchant for UFO sightings.
Other major candidates, the researchers put forward, include long-term bases deep underwater in ocean trenches or on the dark side of the moon, whether built by an ancient advanced terrestrial race or our long-term extraterrestrial co-inhabitants.
Yes, the same one I based the thread [#1] on (although I focus on a particular claim within the paper, as you say, it's part of their argument).
Yeah, perhaps there should be a separate thread about how these papers fit into / compliment the "UAP Campaign Plan" mentioned above. Is this the "shaping" stage, because it certainly doesn't seem like we've got to "demonstrate existence" yet.
Paper author Michael Masters has a number of seemingly logical interests, as described in his own web page, but then adds this:
https://www.mtech.edu/arts-sciences/faculty/michael-masters/index.htmlMy new book, Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon, cautiously examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us, as members of their own hominin evolutionary past. This text challenges readers to consider new possibilities while cultivating conversations about our ever-evolving understanding of time and time travel.
I just asked the nearest Ph.D anthropologist (Cantab., no less), and it appears she can neither confirm nor deny it. Very suspicious, if you ask me...
10:01 <FatPhil> "My new book ... examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us"
10:01 <FatPhil> You're the anthropologist - tell me about this tool of yours?
10:02 <theanna> Ethics guidelines say I can't do that, Dave
10:02 <theanna> PS Stop doing this to yourself
I think when people go looking for shapes on Mars, it's evident that they're people who want to find things to fit a narrative, and this alone can make their findings suspect. It's amusing to find shapes in the clouds. It can be productive to find sites on earth that indicate they might be worth exploring for such purposes as mining or archaeological studies. It is more like science fiction to posit civilizations on Mars based on nothing but shapes on the ground.
But the "gee whiz" photos from Mars (which all look like rocks to me) are often photographed from other angles or at higher resolutions which clarify the shapes, so when these stories periodically crop up, the writer has been extremely selective. For example, the writers zero in on a tiny bright portion of this photo in that article, completely oblivious to the huge area of equal or greater brightness to the left of that which makes it not unlikely that he is seeing a little bit more of the same shiny rock formation. There's another spot to the far right. Nothing but the shape (dare I say Tic-tac?) suggests a craft of any sort. I also note that no scale is given, and have no idea of the size of any of the features. As I recall, the cameras on Curiosity can get down to nine microns per pixel, so some of those pictures may be of things at the scale of a grain of sand.
Yes, the same one I based the thread [#1] on (although I focus on a particular claim within the paper, as you say, it's part of their argument).
I think there's just too many individual claims in that paper to talk about it in one thread, especially because to evaluate them you have to follow the often weak or non-existent evidence in the references - so it's pretty endless.
Anything with Harvard's name on it will get picked up by the media. Lomas is doing Phase 0 work here.
Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/-1QCFtod6i8?si=UWwtkFMcv5JY7snW
Thanks for giving me a few new words to look up!
They have the same periodic table on Mars, and the electrons pair in the same ways. I'm not sure there should be anything unknown up there at all. As far as we know, *everything* follows the principles of physics, that's a really safe starting point to base your ideas on.
One of the big unknowns is the history of the planet, such as "how much water, if any, did they have at a particular place at a given time". And since new features of geology are still being discovered - and their interpretation hotly debated - right here on Earth, it would be naïve to write off Mars as something we know all about, based on our examination of a few tiny spots.
I think you're both right!
What's the alternative? If it's not pareidolia, what is it?
It's probably worth pointing out that it’s AI generated art. Like this is:
His implication seems to be that it's (woo to follow) little green men, or ancient advanced civilizations, or time travelers, or whatever "they" don't want us to know about. Yes, it's true that if we see shapes and instantly write them off as pareidolia, we may miss something significant. Similarly if we see something that looks significant, it may turn out to be mere pareidolia. I'm reminded of archaeological investigation of aerial photographs, in which a circular crop mark might be either a Bronze Age roundhouse or the mark left by a portable animal pen by a modern farmer, and a line might be a medieval field boundary ditch or might just be a gravel lens in an ice age earth crack.
But that's not not pareidolia.
Depends on the "it," doesn't it? Some things look like a specific thing because that is, in fact, what they are. Example:
I'm specifically talking about these its that we supposedly shouldn't be assuming are pareidolia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PareidoliaPareidolia (/ˌpærɪˈdoʊliə, ˌpɛər-/;[1] also US: /ˌpɛəraɪ-/)[2] is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one detects an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApopheniaApophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things.[1]
No joke, we got actual death threats for that. If you're going to try and guess why, take a second guess, you are almost certainly wrong with your first guess. Back in those days (early 2000s) we were hosted on a very friendly ISP that would have never have blocked our server no matter the complaint.You might have heard your friends talk about a project, called Jesuspizza, to use thousands of Internet-connected computers to help in the search for the perfect pizza, the pizza containing the face of Jesus.
Great point NorCal Dave. I also thought the same thing when seeing the picture. What went through my head:
