UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 13

Re: Was Ectoplasm Formed To Render Art In Clouds?

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com