Claims of Lunar Anomalies/Structures and Examples of Pareidolia

I've been a member of ATS since the middle 2000s although my profile shows me from 2009 and that's due to my changing names. Since the beginning my specialty was debunking claims of lunar anomalies and structures as allegedly seen on NASA photos. At no time did anyone ever post crystal clear photos. The claimants always posted blurry, pixelated photos and some contained highlighted features. In these posted photos the claimants were victims of pareidolia, seeing things that were not really there. Their minds trying to make order out of visual chaos.

A few times, some of the replies asked what pareidolia was or meant and it was explained. That didn't stop further claims to be posted. Some would help by posting photos of clouds that resembled known earthly figures especially animals.

Here I post some serious images of pareidolia as found in my apartment building's marble lobby. I didn't include all of the photos I've taken but the 3 that I do include are excellent examples of how mother nature can fool the eye if one lets go of reality for a moment.

I also include an example foisted on us by Richard Hoagland who tried to insult our intelligence by turning upside down a lunar photo of landslides on a crater wall and claiming that the landslides were "Crystalline Ruins"!

I hope that in seeing how easily the eye can be fooled you'll think twice before you post what you think are real lunar anomalies and structures especially if the images you post are less than ideal in quality. Enjoy.

www.enterprisemission.com...
NASA-LRO Image of More "Crystalline Ruins on the Moon" ....


www.abovetopsecret.com...
Have I caught Hoagland in a major blatant lie?
Landslides in Marius Crater - part of the same Hoagland photo but in proper orientation, pointing down!


Marble image of face in white bunny headdress


Man weaing white bunny outfit


Marble image of jaguar hiding in foliage


Jaguar


Marble "caribou" looking up on hill


Sculpture of caribou

That jaguar is incredible! Astounding find good fellow!

There must be evolved Jaguars from the cymtapta star group trying to send us a message of imminent chaos.

Great find, the eyes and facial features are as clear as day. I'm excited to see what the debunkers have to say about this one.

reply to post by Vipassana


Which Jaguar.. I can't see it.. The bunny was cool though. No seriously though I tried really hard to see anything in that picture at all, and it just has no pattern for me.

Maybe OP should outline it.

reply to post by Vipassana


Lol, omg i can't breath haha.



I saw spots all over the place and there are spots all over a jag, maybe that is it?

reply to post by Vipassana


debunkers of what? marble?

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Vipassana

 

Which Jaguar.. I can't see it.. The bunny was cool though. No seriously though I tried really hard to see anything in that picture at all, and it just has no pattern for me.

Maybe OP should outline it.

edit on 10/2/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

Vipassana saw it and was astounded. Perhaps you ought to look at the photo of the jaguar first and then scroll up and relax your vision. Do it a few times and you should see it. I saw the image on the marble panel next to the 3-step stairs that lead to my apartment door. It just popped in for me as I spend time in the lobby looking for other pareidolic images. You won't believe it but my wife's face is in one of the panels. As well as a lobster-like image, a perfect arrowhead, a surfer riding a wave! It doesn't stop.

And I don't know how to outline it cause I don't have photoshop and by the time I can work it with Paint my edit time will end. Keep trying. If one can see it so can you.

I outlined it for the OP:





Notice how its eyes are well defined, indicating an intelligent creator.

More information on the cymtampta star group and the jaguar aliens can be found here:

Cymptampta Star Group and the Humanoid Jaguars

Pareidolia is a fancy word which doesn't have much real depth. Have a look at the list of references on Wikipedia and see how many of them are scientific. Pareidolia is just your brain doing one of its normal tasks - face recognition from partial data.

So these people are saying 'I see a face on the moon!'

and you're saying 'haha, don't be silly, that's just your brain doing face recognition'

and then they say 'um, I know, I just told you I thought I recognised a face'

and you say 'but that's pareidolia!'

and they say 'I KNOW. I just told you I could see what looks like a face!'

When you look at a smudged black and white picture of a human face in a newspaper, that's pareidolia. You aren't actually seeing a face, you are seeing a scattering of inked pixels. So I'm afraid simply saying 'that's pareidolia' doesn't add any authority to whether something was intentionally designed or not (not that I think any of those things on the moon are intentionally designed).

Here is a good test of pareidolia:

Good thread Shrike. It's clear that all these photos of 'monuments' are on the moon are simply cases of pareidolia as of course we know that NASA airbrushes out the real buildings

Originally posted by The Shrike

Vipassana saw it and was astounded. Perhaps you ought to look at the photo of the jaguar first and then scroll up and relax your vision. Do it a few times and you should see it.

Nope.. I obviously tried that as OUTLINED by the fact that I said I tried really hard to see it.. there are 3 black areas that I guess when most people see think 2 eyes one nose!!! But I don't do that. They aren't aligned right, and the "eyes" are not the same shape unless it's a drunk jaguar, and it's face it all crushed like it was just smacked with a bat... As per outlined by visspana.. I don't see it..

And I don't know how to outline it cause I don't have photoshop and by the time I can work it with Paint my edit time will end. Keep trying. If one can see it so can you.

That was just humor signified by the laughing face... Your OP mentions outlining in the same context..

It's just not there. My brain needs closer to real life looking patterns to actually see anything. Even after he/she outlined it I don't see it. I'm no Picaso..

"If one can see it so can you" IS not true at all. It's based on psychology. My psychology is prone to viewing things in more realistic rather than artistic ways than some other peoples I guess. I have very good vision so it's not that. I don't get the moon/mars anomalies.

There is a clown in that picture with the columns of black and white from the other poster. See it? It's on the left half. It's the only thing I could pick out from the whole picture.

These have to be the worst examples of pareidolia ever. I don't see a jaguar, I don't see a caribou, and while I see a face, I don't see a bunny outfit. Additionally, when I look at that photo of the Moon, I don't instinctively see crystal structures.

I don't think there are any structures on Mars or the Moon, and I think all the evidence Hoagland puts forward is very poor, but I'd also like to point out that just because pareidolia exists doesn't mean these things can't be what they look like.
Sometimes something looks like a face because it's meant to look like a face.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Vipassana

 

Which Jaguar.. I can't see it.. The bunny was cool though. No seriously though I tried really hard to see anything in that picture at all, and it just has no pattern for me.

Maybe OP should outline it.

edit on 10/2/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

I forgot to add a point of reference with the marble bunny's image but if you can visualize a quarter (25¢) next to the face area the "face" is the same size. The "jaguar's" face is about 11" across and the "caribou" is about 15" from tip of tail to tip of nose.

I forgot to add that I call my lobby's images "Marblelous Pareidolia".

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Good thread Shrike. It's clear that all these photos of 'monuments' are on the moon are simply cases of pareidolia as of course we know that NASA airbrushes out the real buildings

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments but I've never claimed nor do I agree with claims that NASA has ever done any airbrushing or hiding of alleged structures. The only way to accept your statement is for anyone to provide 2 similar photos of the same lunar area, one showing unnatural features, i.e., alien, and the same photo with the alleged unnatural feature airbrushed or smudged out.

I'm aware that certain personalities have gone on record as saying they witnessed such but no evidence was ever provided, just hearsay.

I give the alleged lunar aliens more credit for keeping their alleged structures hidden from human view.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by The Shrike

Vipassana saw it and was astounded. Perhaps you ought to look at the photo of the jaguar first and then scroll up and relax your vision. Do it a few times and you should see it.

Nope.. I obviously tried that as OUTLINED by the fact that I said I tried really hard to see it.. there are 3 black areas that I guess when most people see think 2 eyes one nose!!! But I don't do that. They aren't aligned right, and the "eyes" are not the same shape unless it's a drunk jaguar, and it's face it all crushed like it was just smacked with a bat... As per outlined by visspana.. I don't see it..

And I don't know how to outline it cause I don't have photoshop and by the time I can work it with Paint my edit time will end. Keep trying. If one can see it so can you.

That was just humor signified by the laughing face... Your OP mentions outlining in the same context..

It's just not there. My brain needs closer to real life looking patterns to actually see anything. Even after he/she outlined it I don't see it. I'm no Picaso..

"If one can see it so can you" IS not true at all. It's based on psychology. My psychology is prone to viewing things in more realistic rather than artistic ways than some other peoples I guess. I have very good vision so it's not that. I don't get the moon/mars anomalies.

There is a clown in that picture with the columns of black and white from the other poster. See it? It's on the left half. It's the only thing I could pick out from the whole picture.

edit on 10/2/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

I can appreciate that your brain is not allowing your mind to roam free and see a jaguar's face. Perhaps the trouble could be that I should have found a real jaguar's face in a photo slightly obscured by foliage so that the marble image could blend easier. I'm grounded in 100% reality and I look at life artistically also. But being exposed to pareidolia many moons ago I see shapes in almost everything I look at.

On Google Images you can see 24,900.000 of "sad" clocks! Not the ones purposely designed but the controls on the back of some clocks. Have a look: www.google.com... 0.3625.9.8.0.1.1.0.187.766.4j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.msIeQvsbkic

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Good thread Shrike. It's clear that all these photos of 'monuments' are on the moon are simply cases of pareidolia as of course we know that NASA airbrushes out the real buildings

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments but I've never claimed nor do I agree with claims that NASA has ever done any airbrushing or hiding of alleged structures. The only way to accept your statement is for anyone to provide 2 similar photos of the same lunar area, one showing unnatural features, i.e., alien, and the same photo with the alleged unnatural feature airbrushed or smudged out.

I'm aware that certain personalities have gone on record as saying they witnessed such but no evidence was ever provided, just hearsay.

I give the alleged lunar aliens more credit for keeping their alleged structures hidden from human view.

I don't think NASA (if anything really was airbrushed) were airbrushing the photos of structures on the ground. I think they were airbrushing the sky. Apparently (according to Hoagland and his 'whistlerblower'), the sky was deliberately blackened because the photos contained a sky full of long streaks. I charge you to consider why this might have been.

Originally posted by yampa
Pareidolia is a fancy word which doesn't have much real depth. Have a look at the list of references on Wikipedia and see how many of them are scientific. Pareidolia is just your brain doing one of its normal tasks - face recognition from partial data.

That is entirely the point, though: that you can see faces when there are faces, but you can also see faces when the data is random noise. Therefore "seeing a face" on mars or on a piece of toast or in a rock formation does not indicate that some intelligence went out of its way to make a face there.

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Good thread Shrike. It's clear that all these photos of 'monuments' are on the moon are simply cases of pareidolia as of course we know that NASA airbrushes out the real buildings

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments but I've never claimed nor do I agree with claims that NASA has ever done any airbrushing or hiding of alleged structures. The only way to accept your statement is for anyone to provide 2 similar photos of the same lunar area, one showing unnatural features, i.e., alien, and the same photo with the alleged unnatural feature airbrushed or smudged out.

I'm aware that certain personalities have gone on record as saying they witnessed such but no evidence was ever provided, just hearsay.

I give the alleged lunar aliens more credit for keeping their alleged structures hidden from human view.

I don't think NASA (if anything really was airbrushed) were airbrushing the photos of structures on the ground. I think they were airbrushing the sky. Apparently (according to Hoagland and his 'whistlerblower'), the sky was deliberately blackened because the photos contained a sky full of long streaks. I charge you to consider why this might have been.

One cannot wait to experience if Hoagland employs any common sense so I cannot have a clue as to why he makes the claims that he does such as claiming that he sees glass and/or crystal structures on some NASA lunar photos. I don't know if he is still making such claims from digital photos of the moon from the latest flights over the moon.

But in the beginning emulsion film was used and the one thing that you can count on with emulsion film negatives AND prints is that they're subject to scratching. If the emulsion is removed light comes through like a stained glass window. The negatives were handled by many NASA employees and the negatives were not always treated like the precious cargo that they were. So if they were mishandled chances are they got scratched up the wahoo. I don't think that Hoagland ever saw pristine negatives.

I was able to see what I think you were trying to "hint" or "show" but the jag one is not as good as the others.

The bunny one looks like there are 2 faces.

The caribou was kinda cool.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by yampa
Pareidolia is a fancy word which doesn't have much real depth. Have a look at the list of references on Wikipedia and see how many of them are scientific. Pareidolia is just your brain doing one of its normal tasks - face recognition from partial data.

That is entirely the point, though: that you can see faces when there are faces, but you can also see faces when the data is random noise. Therefore "seeing a face" on mars or on a piece of toast or in a rock formation does not indicate that some intelligence went out of its way to make a face there.

It's not entirely my point. My point is that pareidolia has no explanatory depth as a theory about why people attach design and causality to perceived objects (even when those objects are actually random).

There are two issues here: a) the natural tendency of your brain to match visual or audible input (even noise) to something which might make sense b) the tendency to look for authorship in your input.

The fact your brain is biased towards a) says nothing about the rationality of your assessment of b) and it says nothing about whether the input was intentionally designed or not. Most people on this board throwing out the word pareidolia are trying to use it as a pejorative. It's a way of them saying 'I don't agree that there is intentionality behind this object, so I'm going to use this sciencey sounding word to attempt to give authority to my viewpoint'.

If you don't think there is design or causality behind someone's perceived input, you are far better using reasons about why something is unlikely to be intentionally designed. Rather than simply saying 'your brain is biased towards face recognition' and trying to feel superior about making a banal statement.