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

@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.

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 -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!

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.

I could understand one or two joking observations, but pages of them? And seeing anything that is clearly not there does have a psychological/perception basis whether you admit to it or not. Maybe the joke is on you.

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.

 The rocks are not anomalous except in how you perceive them. They are just rocks, they have always been rocks and they always will be. It is not like you are looking at Mt. Rushmore.

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?

By the reasons I described. That and lighting and shadows and poor clarity to the photos.

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.

If you hear a sound in the other room do you automatically assume it is because Bigfoot bumped into a table? You are looking at optical illusions and
 trying to rationalize with irrational explanations. What is the point of that? Some shapes will be more suggestive than others because of your gestalt formation abilities. Even some Rorschachs just look like ink blots.

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.

If there is one thing advertising does not do it is subtlety. They need to make their point as quickly as possible. Ads are more like sledgehammers. Suggestive advertising is not the same thing as subliminal either. If I want a sexy babe to associate with a product I put a sexy babe in there and do not obfuscate it. And Santa does live at the North Pole. Everyone knows that.

Right. Obviously not everything we think we can recognise as an object necessarily is such an object.

Finally something that makes sense.

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.

And you see so called regular rocks on Mars too. You see rocks that look like shoes and they saw a Moon that looked like a man. No difference.

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.

Proximity has nothing to do with illusions. You can see illusions close and far. I bet I could find scanning electron microscope pictures that do the same thing.

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 -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.

That just reinforces the argument that suggestiveness is prevalent in human beings.

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.

You seem to be awfully defensive if it really is a joke to you.

@Bobbotov,

>>So you can speculate on Mars but I cannot speculate on your speculation?
What you did write was not a speculation. It was more like a statement.

Why not comment on the science part of the images? Why is the crater ice blue?
What colour has the atmosphere on Mars? Can there be clouds on Mars. Is there
liquid water on Mars. Can there be plants or other life on Mars? There is many questions
that most probably can be answered by studying the images JPL/NASA/ESA has provided.

And to repeat, I do not claim there is cola bottles or whatever on Mars but I do find many
of the strange shapes fascinating. I do not know what forces that are involved to make all
those strange shapes.

Is it probable that we can find fossils on Mars? Considering that Mars once had rivers
and also (probably) oceans of water then there is a high probability that the climate
and atmosphere was different on Mars in the past. Maybe even the planet orbit was different.
So what has a higher probability, real fossils or wind/sand eroded rocks?

It is just my humble opinion that we can not dismiss any findings on Mars just because
they do not fit our current understanding of science.

Groundloop.

Well I'm getting the impression bobbotov only wants to spoil
our fun.

After all, if he's so convinced that everything we are shown is as is,
and that speculation on odd looking rocks on Mars pictures is dumb,
then why the heck did he stick his nose in a thread about it anyway?
Does he also go to every other website where people talk about it?
Does he also tell them they're dumb and being silly?

Or perhaps he doesn't understand that not every thread is bone serious
and that people do not need to be told off all the time if they're spending
their time speculating about silly things? Maybe people choose to do it eh?

Alright I just posted 2 new crops in chemtrail central, So laughing boys they tell you they can't find water.
Maybe they should check their own pipes. And to show you how easily they dupe the public I posted a pond and dump. Yes, they throw crap right in the water, they have lots of it. Maybe for laughs I should change the data and instead of sandy crap, I'll let you use your imagination here. Harti knows I'm a tile maker, I've shown him examples of my work. Game makers could do a better job and you guys buy it. Oh, by the way these airbrushers do make things that look like things. Just check out the faces on Mars. After all they get bored sitting there messing up pictures all day.

They left blue spots in the pond, there is also another pond just above it. Perspective of level and altitude is screwed up by the artists. All a trick of shading and shadows. Each of these do deserve 100 hours of study apiece. So really do keep looking and it is hard to cut through the bull. Just keep in mind what are they hiding and keep notes. As you go you will notice you start throwing things out as disinformation and you will start to find real things.

Alright I just posted 2 new crops in chemtrail central, So laughing boys they tell you they can't find water.

Why would they lie about finding water when that is one of the things they are looking for? That makes no sense.

Oh, by the way these airbrushers do make things that look like things. Just check out the faces on Mars. After all they get bored sitting there messing up pictures all day.

Nobody uses an airbrush for photo retouching anymore since it is all digital. Nowadays airbrushes are used for truck murals and finishing nails. The level of detail that even a Micron or Paasche AB airbrush provides cannot compare with the wealth of digital effects that can be done with Photoshop. It is the difference between an axe and a scalpel.  And the so called face on Mars I assume you mean this: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm.

They left blue spots in the pond, there is also another pond just above it. Perspective of level and altitude is screwed up by the artists. All a trick of shading and shadows. Each of these do deserve 100 hours of study apiece. So really do keep looking and it is hard to cut through the bull. Just keep in mind what are they hiding and keep notes. As you go you will notice you start throwing things out as disinformation and you will start to find real things.

The other guys were seeing perception illusions, You are just freaking hallucinating. Try staring at your face in a mirror for 100 hundred hours and report back to us.