Mars color

[Koen1]

Thanks a lot there guys!

Heh, whaddayaknow, there really is a shoe on Mars!

I say the hunt for the sock is on!

And maybe we can find a yellow hard hat while we're at it

[Groundloop]

@Koen1,

I may not be able to find a yellow hard hat but maybe a fossil cat head instead?
(Or something very simmilar to a cat scull, I think.)

Groundloop.

[Bobbotov]

@Koen1,

I may not be able to find a yellow hard hat but maybe a fossil cat head instead?
(Or something very simmilar to a cat scull, I think.)

Groundloop.

You seem to be exhibiting Pareidolia. Most artists can do this at will (but they know they are doing it). Paint peeling on walls, clouds, rock formations, etc. are all rich environments for mentally projecting images on to them that are not really there. It can be a great exercise to assist painters to "pull" the painting out of the raw canvas. They just throw paint on at random or make loose washes and then concentrate on the results to see if any patterns emerge to develop. Sort of like a Rorschach test. I used to do this trick as a kid. I would ask someone to draw five lines at random of any shape and I would make a face out of it. I could do this so easily and still can to this day.

There was a book written in the 1970's by Wilson Bryan Key called "Subliminal Seduction" which tried to advance the idea that advertisers hid images in their ads to augment their message subconsciously. He asserted there were nudes in the ice cubes of liquor ads. Other sexual oriented images were supposedly hidden in all manner of pictorial ads. It was hogwash of course as the author was suffering from Pareidolia.

As to the reality of what you are seeing (shoes, cat skulls, coke bottles, etc.) the probability is so low as to be virtually non-existent consdering all of the fabulous conditions that would be necessary to make such ordinary objects appear in all the wrong places. Remember, people saw a man in the moon for a long time and canals on Mars. The constellations were clustered into recognizable shapes: Archers, dippers, chariots, etc. It is part of the human gestalt in perception to organize chaos into meaningful designs to help in identification and memory. We are programmed to see patterns. It is one of the hallmarks of being human. But it is not real.

[Groundloop]

@Bobbotov,

I will not go into long debate about pareidolia since English is not my first language. That said, lighten up a bit. Take my postings as entertainment. I have never stated that there exist any objects on Mars. I use words as "there seems to be" and "it looks like" etc. I have spent approx. 6000 hours studying the images from Mars. It is a fascinating planet because it is our closest neighbour and even NASA states that there is a possibility that Mars may have had life or even has life. There exists a lot of images that shows that Mars had rivers at some point in time. Maybe even oceans, who knows. And that is the main reason man sends remote controlled science equipments to Mars. We like to know. We like to see. We like to explore.

Now, what is real and what is not. JPL/NASA claims that the images is real raw data. I must accept that but there is no way I can be sure. Is pixels (as bits) in a computer real? Now, if you find 600 anomalies in a batch of 6000 images, is the images real or is the anomalies real? What is the probability of finding such a high number of abnormalities? I do not know. And so do you. The only way to know is to go up there and find out. Since I can't go there and you can't go there, all we have is the images to see.

BTW. The next time you get a compelling urge to do a psycho analytic evaluation of me, please suppress that urge. :-) 

Regrads,
Groundloop.

[Koen1]

You seem to be exhibiting Pareidolia. Most artists can do this at will (but they know they are doing it). Paint peeling on walls, clouds, rock formations, etc. are all rich environments for mentally projecting images on to them that are not really there. It can be a great exercise to assist painters to "pull" the painting out of the raw canvas. They just throw paint on at random or make loose washes and then concentrate on the results to see if any patterns emerge to develop. Sort of like a Rorschach test. I used to do this trick as a kid. I would ask someone to draw five lines at random of any shape and I would make a face out of it. I could do this so easily and still can to this day.

So let me get this straight, we are clearly jokingly talking about anomalous "rock" shapes on Mars,
and you turn it into a variation of "seeing shapes in the clouds" of which we don't realise they are not "real"?
Well obviously if we were truly convinced they are "real" shoes etc we would act a lot more serious,
but what we are quite convinced of is the fact that certain "rocks" on the Mars pics look quite unnatural
and in some cases very much unlike natural rocks.
You may interpret that as you like, but do not dismiss that observation simply by saying we are seeing
Rorschach-like "whatever your subconscious sees in it" things; there really are anomalous "rock" shapes
on those pictures.
Instead of climbing onto your psychoanalytical horse there, perhaps you could provide realistic alternatives
to natural rock formation that could produce such odd shapes?? How, in your lofty opinion, does a natural
rock on a planet with no water and continuous dust storms, become square for example?
How does one rock look vaguely like an animal skull, which admittedly could be a wind-eroded rock
smoothed at the edges, while the rock next to it looks pristine and untouched by that same alleged erosion?
What was that "Martian bunny"? Obviously it was not a bunny. But it sure doesn't look like a rock either.
What are those weird little "Martian blueberries"?
What natural process produces square holes in rocks?
Answer me some of those questions, before spouting psychological pseudo-scientific analyses. Please.

There was a book written in the 1970's by Wilson Bryan Key called "Subliminal Seduction" which tried to advance the idea that advertisers hid images in their ads to augment their message subconsciously. He asserted there were nudes in the ice cubes of liquor ads. Other sexual oriented images were supposedly hidden in all manner of pictorial ads. It was hogwash of course as the author was suffering from Pareidolia.

Of course. And subliminal influence is also not real. And ad companies don't use suggestive advertising. Sure.
And santa lives on the north pole.

As to the reality of what you are seeing (shoes, cat skulls, coke bottles, etc.) the probability is so low as to be virtually non-existent consdering all of the fabulous conditions that would be necessary to make such ordinary objects appear in all the wrong places. Remember, people saw a man in the moon for a long time and canals on Mars. The constellations were clustered into recognizable shapes: Archers, dippers, chariots, etc. It is part of the human gestalt in perception to organize chaos into meaningful designs to help in identification and memory. We are programmed to see patterns. It is one of the hallmarks of being human. But it is not real.

Right. Obviously not everything we think we can recognise as an object necessarily is such an object.
But those same people you mention imagining there was a man on the moon or canals on mars, they did at the same time see a moon, and mars.
Do you dismiss that? No, you don't. And while those people did indeed claim to see things on Mars, don't forget they did not have pictures taken
up close.
As to the reality of things, you must be aware of the fact that Sigmund Freud himself was a bit of a nutcase who simply applied his own
projected fantasies and presented them as scietific fact? Poor little Hansel who was afraid of horses, after a few session with mister Freud,
was accused of having penis-envy of his father, which seeing a horses' dong reminded him of. The fact that little Hansel continually told
him that he was afraid of horses ever since seeing a scary nasty dead horse did not deter Freud from presenting the boys father with
his favourite fantasy diagnosis. Pseudoscience. Not objective at all. Which is a known fact to epistemologists but not to psychologists
themselves, who are often convicned their field is objective.
So, what I guess I'm trying to say is: How can you be so certain that what you are proclaiming here is any more "real" than our joking
interpretations of anomalous rocks?
You come here to tell us we are seeing what we want to see and not what is really there.
Well, I get the feeling you're doing exactly the same. But at a different angle.

BTW. The next time you get a compelling urge to do a psycho analytic evaluation of me, please suppress that urge. :-)

I second that!