Then it is confusing that you started this thread with
Post #1
So if everybody agrees it is pareidolia, are we done here?
We are not done yet.
That "if everybody agrees" doesn't make sense because you now "believe" not "know".
I will explain you all went wrong.
This is a by the way good examples of social psychology.
This Comment and this reaction is an exact copy of the the context of the Book:
Gustave Le Bon - psychology of growds.
It's a bit strange that in this thread, on this topic, some users take an opinion that is not logical.
In fact this is hilarous, that user upvote/ agree this.
The only logical conclusion about the image and whether it is a simple stone or a statue with context is that you don't know.
This Stone is in fact Schödingers Cat.
-----
What "that can't be true" means.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mars-face-on-original-nasa-photo-2014.13854/post-330995
You do not understand "that can't be true..." and miss-interpret that term.
You interpret it as an statemant of "yes or no".
Actually, as i wrote, Its a term of "wondering" similar to "this is not possible" or "no way" as some examples.
That means not "this is not true, this not happens" eather it means "i can't believe it" even though it was just happening.
SPOCK: "it is true, it just happens, how you say "no way" then?
That is what you do and all seems agree with that.
The evidence to make such a claim simply does not exist. Probabilistic formulae such as the Drake equation depend entirely on what parameters are input, and no-one actually has any idea whatever as to what the last 3 or 4 parameters of the Drake equation actually are. No-one even knows what the chances are of life forming given a perfect Earth-like planet. The level of ignorance is such that, as Professor David Kipping has argued, we may actually be totally alone in the entire universe. He's not saying we are....he's saying the true level of ignorance is so wide that it is a possibility. He is right, and people claiming that the nearest civilisation is xyz light years away are peddling sheer guesswork as mathematical rigour and making claims with zero actual substantiation. It is all the more irksome that it is a scientist doing this.
Thank you this supports my opinion being between the two options of the statue and the mere stone.
---
Typically a believer would counter that we do know Mars used to be very different. It had water, a thick atmosphere, rainfall, and an oxygen rich atmosphere (in addition to the rust that gives it that distinctive color, we have found oxides in the soil which can't be produced by water reactions).
But not for long. By the time Earth underwent it's oxygenation event Mars's was over and done with, its oxygen lost and its seas already dwindling. By the time Earth had cyanobacteria Mars was long past its prime, and by the time we had life as complex as a sponge Mars had been dead for 1.4 billion years. It's still tantalizing to think the planet may have had life, but if it did at all it likely didn't for long. There's a reason experiments look for the most primitive and basic signs of life.
However, Mars Rover can't even search 2 meters deep to take samples. The question is also how long the period was that Mars could have harbored life and how far it could have developed.
Further investigations must take place deeper in Mars. Finding underground structures that indicate intelligence may change the context. The Rosalind Franklin rover will be able to drill 2 meters deep (2025).
---
Therefore here is a better argument for "we don't know".
The Thing in the vicinity of Dingo Gap.
The discovery of a statue with a partially formed visage, serendipitously located within the Martian rock and characterized by intricate facial features, raises the inquiry of whether this is merely a random occurrence or an artifact of an intelligent life form. This finding also prompts considerations regarding the potential existence of life on Mars. Current investigations focus on possible indicators and origins of intelligence or structures that may have once existed on Mars or could have been transported to the planet.
While there is currently no definitive evidence of intelligent life, there are indications pointing towards non-intelligent forms of life, such as microorganisms. The likelihood of discovering signs indicative of intelligent structures and life—whether on Mars or beyond—has not yet been realized. Speculation surrounding this matter is informed by the vast number of potentially habitable planets, the brief duration of human existence thus far, insufficient advancements in scientific exploration, and inadequate in-depth examinations conducted on Mars. Consequently, it remains plausible that such a statue could indeed have been constructed by extraterrestrial intelligence; hence, one cannot categorically dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
Structures resembling faces, animals, or other recognizable forms are classified as pareidolia when they manifest within inanimate objects or formations. Although reflecting facial halves provides a more cohesive theoretical image, it simultaneously intensifies the phenomenon of pareidolia. A more precise assessment would necessitate the visibility of another half of the face. To date, potential signs indicating crafted structures have not been thoroughly investigated or discovered and do not yield any current evidence supporting intelligence on Mars according to prevailing scientific understanding. Numerous instances of pareidolia can be found even if they lack detailed resemblance to the primary object under consideration. The original Martian face and pyramid-like structures have been attributed to erosional processes. There remains an absence of definitive evidence for civilizations having existed on Mars thus far.
The absence of information implies that one cannot provide proof and is currently in search of data, which logically does not preclude the existence of life. Consequently, it also does not rule out the possibility that such life forms may have created, transported, or positioned a statue on Mars, or arrived there through other circumstances. The prevailing assumption that all phenomena observed on Mars are mere pareidolia is therefore illogical and equally speculative as the existence of an actual statue.
Three possibilities regarding the object at the location are as follows:
- Exclusion of a statue (Claim) = pareidolia, random rock formation.
- Uncertainty = non-excluded possibilities, pareidolia and statue (Schrödinger's Cat).
- Certainty of a statue (Claim) = statue has been manufactured, potentially transported or emerged un-naturally.
Arguments for Uncertainty. (This is Truth)
Due to a lack of information and the absence of a thorough investigation of the object, no definitive conclusions can be drawn; this aspect was overlooked by the NASA.
The current state of our scientific understanding is insufficient, as we have barely ventured beyond our solar system. The universe remains poorly explored, and the hypothesis regarding habitable planets suggests the possibility of other life forms existing, capable of intergalactic travel and potentially creating or transporting such stone structures.
The ignorance of this leads to the assumption that aliens are near or far, its unknown.
The impact location of meteoroids is unknown; it is conceivable that the object arrived on Mars via an impact.
No in-depth examination has been conducted at the site. There has been no discovery of genuine microorganisms that could indicate the existence of further life forms. Uncertainty persists regarding other life forms based on current evidence; Mars has not yet housed any intelligent life.
The context of the object is non-existent, other than that of half a human face with good detail. Taking into account the other uncertain information, one can only tend and "believe".
The facial features are explicit and the level of detail is appropriate for the Martian rocks. What should be highlighted is the constellation of the edge of the face, eye, nose, mouth orientation, eyelid, nasolabial fold, hint of the eye socket/eyebrow area, also a possible headgear, diadem similar to Egyptian paintings.
There are only two images of the object available, thus limiting assessment to optical evaluation, which encompasses both interpretations (statue and pareidolia).
It is certainly a statue or pareidolia when the points of insecurity have been excluded.
There is no correct statement without further information.
