Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/reports/401-500/462

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-20 | 18.0 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!yama.mcc.ac.uk!zen.dmu.ac.uk!dmu!moleary
From: [e-mail] (Mark O'Leary)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.ufo.reports,alt.paranet.abduct,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.science,uk.media
Subject: Re: Are all believers crackpots?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 14:00:14 GMT
Organization: De Montfort University Leicester UK
Lines: 364
Message-ID: <4qblhe$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.dmu.ac.uk
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88586 alt.paranet.ufo:53909 alt.alien.research:26276 alt.ufo.reports:9541 alt.paranet.abduct:5913 sci.skeptic:72923 alt.paranet.science:3232 uk.media:17232

In article <[e-mail]>,
jiri_mruzek  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>>Who says there is no way to encode exact ideas into art?
>
>>Nobody, as far as I know. The symbolism of Elizabethan portraiture, for
>>example, is an exquisite language that can relate a lot of biographical
>>information in the guise of ornament.
>
>Good evening, Mark.
>No matter, how much I compare "encoding Exact ideas into art", to
>" Exquisite language - biographical information - in the guise of ornament,
>it escapes me how  I should equate the two.

*sigh*

Your implied claim was that people (i.e. skeptics) say that there are no
ways to 'encode exact ideas' into art.

I answered this with an example of a universally accepted 'encoding' that
can be seen in any gallery. If a simple full length portrait contains visual
codes that tell you how many miscarriages the subject has had, and who she
is having an affair with, then it obviously fulfills the criterion of
"encoding exact ideas in to art".

>Sure, ornaments, and any other objects in the Elizabethan portraits, might
>have an established meaning. But just as indubitably, convention might imbue
>the same symbols with any other arbitrary meaning. Example:
> "Pan" (pronounce pun) - means Mister in the Czech language, yet, in English
>the same sounds mean "Pun", no pun intended.
>But we couldn't decree that the equilateral triangle should mean the square
>instead, in Geometry.
>Without detailed historical knowledge of the Elizabethans, we could never
>ever figure their symbolism out(.)

Contrast the two scenarios:

a) Art historian sees a picture with 4 dogs in it, and puts forward the
hypothesis that one of the dogs is just ornament but three of them represent
miscarriages the subject of the picture had (basing this idea of the pose of
the dogs etc). Subsequent painstaking research reveals that the subject did
indeed undergo some kind of medical treatment three times during her life,
and was noted as being depressed afterwards. The same rule is applied to
different pictures, and similar historical backing is found. The case is
considered strong, and the rule that "dogs drawn in a certain way in art of
this period are indicative of the reproductive history of the portraits
subject".

b) You see a picture with 4 crosses on it. You decide that one of these
crosses is irrelevant, but that the other three intentionally represent the
vertices of an equilateral triangle. This is where the correspondence ends.
You can't conduct research that denies that this placing wasn't
coincidental or simply artistic. You cant disprove that the fourth point
wasn't just as, or more, important to the artist as the three you see as
significant. As far as I can see from your web-page, you havent shown that
the same ideas apply to other art from the period.

Your position is even worse in that the picture you are analysing is highly
complex: hundreds of points are defined, not just four. yet the
correspondances you see to complex geometry only include small selected
groups of these points. It is common knowledge that selective quoting can
distort a text: you are selectively quoting 'pure' geometry out of an
abstract mass of form, yet claiming that these quotes selected by you
reflect the intention of the piece.

By way of analogy, If I were to write:

"Jiri presents a hypothesis so flawed that no stretch of the imagination can
persuade me to say that it is either sensible or correct".

This sentence represents my 'drawing'. Each word is a line or a point.

Now you analyse my drawing, and choose your significant 'points':

"Jiri...is...correct"

When you take your three points and say they prove the caveman was trying to
show an equilateral triangle, it is equivalent to whats happened above, with
you claiming that "Jiri is correct" is a true reflection, the core of what I
was trying to communicate to my readers. It's just selective quotation, and
the meaning you draw from it says more about what you want to see than what
the artist was trying to show.

>OTOH, any intelligence in the Universe can figure out the exact geometrical
>meaning of the Nasca Monkey. That's why Geometry is an Exact Science.
>That's why your agreement is very misleading.

Not only that, any geometer could get an arbritarily large number of
*differing* geometrical interpretations out of the same image. Its
sufficiently complex that numerous perceptual overlays could be imposed
upon it. That doesnt mean that all (or any) such interpretations reflect the
intention of the artist.

For instance, I'm certain that one could find an arbritrary group of points
within the diagram that correspond to a certain constellation as it would
appear in modern times. Does this prove that the artist was capable of
complex astronomical calculations and was sending us a message about a
particular date? No, all it proves is that theres an awful lot of defined in
points made by the crossing lines in his artwork.

>>>************************************************************************
>>>Summons:   Debunker! Tell it to the Nasca Monkey's face..
>
>>Well, as I said, I checked the mans page. I've left the URL above - check
>> it yourself, as he wishes us to.
>
>Please, check it very carefully, folks, I wish Mark had..

If you invite people to check your page, you'd better be prepared for theit
honest assessment of its content.

>>However, I find no logical basis to support his arbritrary selection of
>>'significant' lines out of a complex drawing other than to support his
>> thesis of mathematical ratios and concepts encoded into the piece.
>
>Here, you're presenting a virtue, as a flaw..
>" No logical basis .. other than to support his thesis of mathematical
>ratios and concepts encoded into the piece"?
> Excuse me - but, that's a pretty awesome basis, you should know so much!

Your comment makes no sense as an answer to your objection. The pages
present no reason for choosing line 'C' instead of A, B, D or ... Z other
than the fact that line C is the one that makes a 'significant' piece of
geometry rather than an 'insignificant' one.

> "to support his arbritrary selection of 'significant' lines out of a
>complex  drawing"
>
>Arbitrary Selection? Than how do those lines provide the support, which
>you admit to yourself?

Selective quotation by you again.

"arbritrary ... other than than to support his thesis"

My objection is clear. You do not provide criteria that distinguish the
important lines form the merely random ones. Each is chosen to fit the shpae
or ratio you are claiming was intentionally encoded.

In effect, choosing the lines doesnt reveal whats encoded: its deciding
whats encoded that allow you to choose the lines. The message is only
readable/decodable by someone who already (thinks they) know what it says!
If you'd been into astronomy rather than geometry, doubtless your page would
be covered with starmaps 'encoded' into the image.

I suggest you apply your same techniques to any other complex pattern - say
a map of an archipelago, or a photograph of the night sky. I guarantee you'd
find just as many 'remarkable' geometric coincidences in there as you do in
your primitive art. Does this mean that the inanimate universe is sending us
the message that it understand geometry? No, no more than your analysis
proves a geometrical message was sent to us by ancient man.

>"his arbritrary selection of 'significant' lines out of a complex drawing"
>
>The lines are in place to do the job, and what a job it is. The whole Monkey
>integrates into one intelligent, thematic system, nothing is left out.
>Take the "Head-Hands-Feet-Inner Star-circle category. What does it lack in
>Consistency, and Perfect Completeness?

Why do you capitalise these words? What indeed do you mean by them? What
human message ever displays 'Consistency' (consistency with what?) or
'Perfect Completeness' (!).

>Mark, Mark, you have not read my work through.

I read every word before I decided to comment.

It is you that havent *thought* your work through.

>>defined as significant *because* they, out of many that don't, do support
>>that thesis.
>
>Again, simply not true. Check the passage, where I speak of how I measure
>the existing alignments for probability. I have thus answered similar
>charges on sci.archaeology once, and it stopped any further criticism dead
>in its tracks. - The alignments are fantastically improbable!

I am afraid that I don't beleive you. Present the math.

>>Another objection is that the accuracy of the line measurements
>>required to make the ratios come out right exceeds, imo, the accuracy with
>>which the lines could be drawn with a primitive implement on a curved
>>surface - especially considering the overall free-flowing and spontaenious
>>nature of the artwork itself: these were not (again, imo) carefully
>> measured and painstakingly scribed codes.
>
>>"the accuracy of the line measurements exceeds, imo, the accuracy required
>>to make the ratios come out right"
>
>Again, that's pretty good, in my opinion. Sounds like a historic first.
>Don't skeptics charge Hoagland's geometrical analysis with inaccuracy?
>And so - if it were accurate -  would they charge him with that too?

Blatant misquoting to reverse my meaning again, and (I now notice) forging
the number of quote marks. For other readers, I point out that I didn't
misquote myself immediately after the paragraph in which I made the point.
Jiri has pulled out the quote, snipped and rearranged it to make it match
his requirements, and then stuck a '>' in front of it to make it look like I
wrote it.

I did not say "the accuracy of the line measurements exceeds, imo..."

You've made my analogy of misquoting compared with point picking come true!
You really do beleive that you can take any subset of a meaningful group and
arrange it in a way that suits the meaning you *want* it to have, whether
words, lines, points... Utterly incredible. The fact that you leave the
original in place suggests that rather than trying to hide a deliberate lie,
you actually beleive you are commenting on what I said, rather than on an
exact reversal of it constructed by yourself!

Even if I had written your distorted version of 'my' words, your comments
in answer to them are nonsensical!

>>"especially considering the overall free-flowing and spontaenious
>>nature of the artwork itself: these were not (again, imo) carefully
>> measured and painstakingly scribed codes."
>
>Appearances are deceptive, sometimes. Aren't they?

They've certainly taken you, hook line and sinker.

>>Overall, I'd suggest that any sufficiently complex doodle could be
>> subjected to the same kind of 'analysis' and similar results could be
>> obtained. Anyone wishing to 'prove' that their two year old is a
>> mathematical prodigy, take note.
>
>Ho, ho, ho, sir _ You go ahead and try to doodle, then show us the result.

I'm almost tempted to put in the time that would require. I don't really
feel it neccessary, because its simple common sense. However, if once my
house move is completed I find myself with the time, I will do so.

>Again, your mistake is in expecting order out of unpremeditated chaos.

Any perceptual overlay onto a complex enough pattern will produce apparent
order. A random distribution of a couple of hundred dots onto a sheet of A4
paper will always produce points that form the vertices of 'significant'
geometric figures, to within a millimetre or so.

I'm not saying there'd always be a *specific* order. I couldn't say "there
will definitely be <a pentagram, or a map of the london underground
stations, or whatever>" on the sheet, but I can say "there will be
recognisable geometric figures".

>What you propose has Never been done, but it has been proposed countless
>times. Good Luck with the myth! Good try! Please, try again..
>( If you'd like me to elaborate, I have written on the subject before.
> Too bad, you must have missed it!!)

It'd have to be a hell of good case to dissaude me of the evidence of my own
eyes virtually every day! The brain is wired up in such a way it picks out
simple patterns from a complex background.

>>I answered your summons, but I wasn't out to debunk. I was quite
>>disappointed that your case was made so sloppily.
>
>So what is it that you're doing - if you can't show the sloppiness, yet
>charge  it. You just spoke about my excessive accuracy!

No, idiot (sorry, but your misquoting of me is annoying).

To phrase it such that you cant reverse the meaning by shuffling and
editing:

1) In order to make exact 'significant' ratios appear in the selected
   portions of the picture, you had to measure to a high degree of accuracy.

2) Since you claim that these ratios were the deliberate intent of the
   artist, the implication is that the artist must have deliberately drawn
   to those same high degrees of accuracy.

3) In my opinion, however great the craftsman, the limitations of his or her
   tools and the curved nature and size of the surface on which it was
   enscribed preclude deliberate drawing to that degree of accuracy.

4) From (3) one must conclude that the ratios noticed in (1) must be simply
   coincidental.

>Now, it's turned into sloppiness? Sounds like a debunking tactic..

No, it's your argument that sloppy. You have shown no intellectual rigour.
Have you done a 'control' analysis on a random doodle to prove that such
ratios and figures do *not* appear, thus proving it must have been a
deliberate feature of the artists intention? Have you replicated the
analysis on other artworks of the same period? Have you researched the
literature on aberrant perception in complex patterns? I see no sign of
these in your pages.

>>But don't take my word for it. Go yourself, make up your own minds. I think
>>'the monkeys' case falls on its own merits.
>
>Thanks - if the Nasca Monkey's case falls on anything - it falls on deaf
>ears, and blind eyes, and politically correct hearts and minds..

You amuse me. You think my disagreement with you is based on PC, or willful
debunking despite evidence? Sorry, but its simply that your case is
pathetic, not that I don't want (or am not allowed to want) it to be true.

If you look at the so-called 'progress index' of brain volume to body mass,
neanderthal man had a bigger brain than we did, and early hom sap.sap. was
exactly the same as modern: I've long been looking for evidence that shows
they were just as *intelligent* as us - simply that they hadn't yet had the
succession of great ideas (agriculture, brewing, domestication of animals,
geometry, writing etc etc) that make some of us feel superior to them. Your
case, if proven, would've upheld my idea, adn I could've happily used it to
confront the smug ones that harp on our superiority to our 'caveman'
ancestors. Sadly, I can't in this case, because you don't even have the
makings of a case that can stand even the least informed scrutiny.

>>I might also point you to another 'image analysis' web page - but I cant
>>find the URL. It's some person who magnifies their 'automatic writing'
>>doodles, plays with the contrast of the image and then 'interprets'. I
>>looked long and hard at the blown-up squiggle, but I couldn't see the
>>'horses head just above the silhouette of the man in the hat' or whatever
>>was supposed to be there - and when I downloaded the 'mandalla' image that
>>became apparent when 'noise' was added to a magnified doodle, I nearly fell
>>off my chair laughing; it's obviously an artifact of the graphics package -
>>a symettrical image centred on the exact centre of the cropped graphic. You
>>could probably replicate it without having the original doodle in frame at
>>all!
>
>Now, you've gone elsewhere in space'n time.
>
>>"I couldn't see the 'horses head just above the silhouette of the man in
>> the hat' or whatever was supposed to be there - and when I downloaded
>> the 'mandalla' image
>
>You've given an example of the insanity out there. Is it supposed to tar
>me by association?  What's the point? There is Image Analysis, and then
>there is 'image analysis'!

I refer to it because I see no difference between the quality of proof
presented by the guy with the horses heads and angels - which you
acknowledge as 'insanity' - and the geometry and ratios presented on your
page. They're both there if you look in the right way. If you look
differently, they disappear.

>I wonder, if you would alsolarly fall out of your chair, when looking
>at the Oldest Image of a man on a horse in the world, available to you
>on my pages. Or, at the mandala of "Ten Nasca Monkeys".. You had a chance
>to look at those images, and then report on them. Yet, you didn't.. Why?
>Mark, you haven't found a single mentionable mistake in my thesis..
>Shouldn't you give my work more (way more) respect ?

A line-by-line critique of your owrk would require the ability to show the
images - a facility usenet does not present. Thats why I twice referred
people to your pages. I think they need only see your presentation of the
pictures with the arbritrarily highlighted lines to see the fundamental flaw
to the whole idea that leaves all the scholarship and painstaking measuring
that you've piled on top of it rather pointless.

>namon
>*******************************************************
>Regards from Nasca Monkey - Americas' Golden Mean champ

M.



--
-=-=-=-=-=-   -.-. .- .-.. .-..  -- .  -.-. --- --- ...  .-.-.-   -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary,                Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group.        Email: [e-mail]
De Montfort University, UK.