UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 4

Re: Martian Cultural Artifacts In Spirit Photos?

From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 03:54:40 -0700
Archived: Sun, 04 May 2008 09:15:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Martian Cultural Artifacts In Spirit Photos?


>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: <UFOupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:56:16 -0400
>Subject: Re: Martian Cultural Artifacts In Spirit Photos?

>>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
>>To: <UFOupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:13:18 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Martian Cultural Artifacts In Spirit Photos?

>>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>>>To: <UFOupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:09:47 -0400
>>>Subject: Martian Cultural Artifacts In Spirit Photos?

>>>I would like to draw your attention to two Spirit Rover images
>>>from Mars. These images show evidence of sculptures of non-human
>>>beings. One sculpture depicted a humanoid female judging from a
>>>torso remnant. The other was of a being with a somewhat canine
>>>face. Both sculptures were smashed somehow, and some of the
>>>remnants are there in the photos.

>>>The evidence is presented at the following addresses.

>>>http://www.treurniet.ca/artifacts/torso.htm

>>>http://www.treurniet.ca/artifacts/marshead.htm

>>>As far as I know, no one has made these observations yet.

>>>I would be interested to know what you think.

>>Well, I've been hesitant to say this before now, but since your
>>post did generate some supportive response, I will tell you
>>what I think:

>>I see rocks. Odd looking, yes, but just rocks. And a highly
>>developed case of  pareidolia on your part, Mr. Treurniet.

>Hi Steve, and everyone else who politely refrained from saying
>that I am completely off my rocker. I sense that some people
>found such restraint extremely difficult. It's hard to say how
>representative these respondants are of all readers of the list.
>Maybe those whose world views were threatened the most were also
>most likely to respond. Please allow me to comment in return.
<snip>

You know, Mr. Treurniet, I can also see the anthropomorphic
shapes you characterize as being parts of a "broken sculpture."
Let's take the "torso", for example. Yes, this could be seen as
the upper torso of a female, due to the two protuberances which
appear somewhat like breasts. There even appears to be what you
refer to as a "nipple" on the right one. Others might suggest it
seems more like a slight raised areola, or the ring of color
around a nipple. But, it's more oval than round. And, it's more
flat than protuberant.

In fact, if that's a nipple, it's a rather odd one, given its
shape. Now look at the dark spot on the left "breast" - looks
like a small hole or divot. There is no matching areola or
nipple shape - just what appears to be a somewhat concave dark
spot.

What would account for that? Also, the "breasts" are not
symmetrical. Are we to assume erosion or breakage accounts for
these differences? Poor quality of "sculpting?" I guess what I'm
saying is that one can often see a variety of subtle artifacts,
but that even within what the various anthropomorphic shapes
suggest to you, there are even more that would contradict those
assumptions when examined more objectively and closely, and thus
suggest a more prosaic explanation.

As a child, I used to sometimes be intrigued and marvel at the
pine board ceiling in a house I once lived in, where the
combination of the pine grain and knotholes in many parts of
that ceiling appeared like odd, big-eyed, surreally distorted
faces. But even then I knew I was looking not at faces, but a
simulacrum, or something that had a superficial resemblance to a
face.

You can make all the indirect allusions you want to those who
don't agree with your anthropocentric interpretations as having
visually "rigid templates", or that a "diagnosis of paeidolia is
equivalent to saying all UFOs are swamp gas", but I would have
to disagree. Nor am I a debunker, as that term is often used
within the UFO community, such as it is.

I have seen a UFO, or more properly, an unidentified aerial or
atmospheric phenomena over 35 years ago, on a camping trip in
the company of other witnesses. It came to within 50 or 60 feet
directly above us, at the forest tree line, after having zipped
across the sky at incredible speed, and then back, before
appearing overhead, moving relatively slowly, and making a semi-
circular movement above us. So, you're not addressing a pseudo-
skeptic, as Truzzi defined that term, but someone who just
thinks it's very important not to become too credulous or to
view things that are truly anomalous with anything less than an
empirical, objective, and rational perspective. And so, in the
spirit of scientific objectivity, I re-examined the stereo photo
blow-ups on your site, and even blew them up a further 200 to
400%. I still see rocks. And while I also can see how they might
be seen as having somewhat anthropomorphic shapes,  I stand by
my opinion of pareidolia in this case.


--Steve Sawyer



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com