From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:51:22 -0400 Archived: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:29:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Was Ectoplasm Formed To Render Art In Clouds? >From: Carol Maltby <carolmaltby.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:06:19 -0400 >Subject: Re: Was Ectoplasm Formed To Render Art In Clouds? >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates<post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:02:54 -0400 >>Subject: Was Ectoplasm Formed To Render Art In The Clouds? >>Pareidolia is often the explanation for unusual shapes seen in >>clouds. Nevertheless, I offer for your consideration a photo I >>took last August that presents a complex piece of art in the sky >>that may even tell a story. In my opinion, the odds that this >>particular scene was placed there somehow by some intelligence is >>higher than the odds that it was merely a chance arrangement of >>cloud material. >>http://www.treurniet.ca/cloudpics/skyscape.htm >You didn't mention the monkey skull that's about to bite a Grey >just behind its right eye, which is located just above and to >the right of Halo 2 and Object 1. But that's pareidolia too. It seems you are trying to muddy the water, Carol. You call a new thing I hadn't mentioned pareidolia, and then you imply that everything else is as well. I think that's called a "straw man" argument. I don't recognize the 'monkey skull' you are seeing, even when you tell me where it is in the image. This conforms with the definition of "a vague and random stimulus...being perceived as significant". That would be pareidolia on your part (if you actually do see it). On the other hand, I expect the humanoid figures in the image are easily seen by most people. If you saw the scene mounted in an art gallery somewhere, you would easily recognize the figures, and would be quite willing to say there was an artist. But when the scene is in a location where the art medium and artist can't be imagined, some people prefer to dismiss it as a random configuration of cloud when it is clearly meaningful. That is putting one's head in the sand, and is not likely to produce any new understanding. It occurs to me that the mindless UFO skeptics (or debunkers) out there use the same kind of argument to put down interesting UFO sightings using mundane explanations. A sighting of a clear but unfamiliar object in the sky becomes, without much further examination, a bird, a star, marsh gas, a meteor, a conventional airplane, anything but an unknown. This is equivalent to a charge of pareidolia. It's an easy one to make since apparently no justification is required. So it is not easy to disprove, and it seems plenty of people are satisfied with it. When the context of a sighting is unusual and violates our expectations, it is justifiable to explain it as pareidolia when the stimulus is "vague and random". But when an image in the sky is clearly identifiable, contains two interacting objects of the same class, and hangs together as a scene, then it's time to consider other explanations. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp