"The ability to take in visual cues and basically fill in the blanks allows humans to process information very quickly, but new research shows that it also can lead to misperceptions -- like seeing things that are not there."
I'm going to take a more methodical stab at this fluff-science piece later, but I think it's worth noting right away that the image cited in the article is none other than the original uncorrected Viking frame (shown above) that prompted Vincent DiPietro and Greg Molenaar to hunt out a second photo of the Face that confirmed a bilaterally symmetrical facial resemblance.
Of course, this second image isn't mentioned as it devastates the article's premise. Nor is any mention given to digital processing that shows the Face to be the most non-fractal object in the region; as I stress elsewhere, the odds of a formation appearing strange to humans and impartial computers alike, while not proof of anything in particular, should at the least sound some alarm bells and indicate the "seeing faces" argument might be lacking.
In fitting with its "what I don't know, don't tell me" theme, the article also excludes mention of predicted secondary facial characteristics that have since been confirmed by high-resolution images. Foremost among these is a frankly unmistakable eye, complete with pupil, on the Face mesa's western half.
I could go on. I could, for example, point out that some people have a neurological predisposition to not recognize facial forms even when they're real. Or I could point out that a debunker's tendency not to see anything odd when confronted with the Face on Mars is just as subjective as a "believer's" tendency to perceive a humanoid face.
But why spoil the fun when there are straw men to burn?
8 comments:
HEY! Have you been watching the Wizard of Oz too? Burning strawmen... ha!
Oh, and I think that the "eye" was just formed naturally, I mean, jeez Mac! Wind forms exact eye replicas all the time.
If the "eye" were on the "forehead," I'd agree with you. ;-)
But not only is it a good anatomical reresentation, it's right where it should be! And it was quite specifically predicted before we even photographed it! More on this later...
Thanks Denny. Coincidentally, I was planning on using your enhancements. You're one of the relatively few -- even among proponents of the Artificiality Hypothesis -- who realizes just how important and unlikely the "eye" feature really is.
It's not even good fluff science since the premise is patently incorrect (as applied to the Face on Mars). The "Man on the Moon" would be an accurate subject for this approach, but I'm sure attacking the Face made the writer think he was Carl Sagan, hence this imbecilic rehash.
He's been emailed my response, BTW.
Let there never be a thrust of pareidolia, without a parry of cognitive dissonance.
Carol--
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
"dp -- You're suggesting NASA KNOWS that there are artifacts on Mars and is deliberately keeping this fact a secret? Frankly, I'm very inclined towards this view too."
But why would NASA want to keep that a secret (that's assuming that NASA knows there are artifacts on Mars).
Fortunately the European Space Agency is getting in on some Mars action now.
Post a Comment