Saturday, February 24, 2007

Pareidolia: part n + 4

Mary's back. And this time she's got a sweet tooth. Now, she's appeared on a cookie sheet in Houston.

I think the best line from the article is this, "'I started looking at it, and started looking at it, until I realized it was the Virgin,' [Rodriguez] said."

So apparently it wasn't strikingly obvious. She had to sit there and convince herself she was actually seeing something.

To me, it looks like a rather cartoonish plunger.

6 comments:

mollishka said...

Technical terminology question:
Does the recent-27-years-ago discovery of the graves of Jesus et al. count as pareidolia?

TheBrummell said...

Off-topic, sorry, but a friend of mine just saw a talk by Dr. Lee Smolin about his natural-selection-black-holes theory, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts of Smolin's recent stuff. My friend's thoughts are on his blog.

Cheers.

mollishka said...

I don't blog about this junk, but I figure you might get a kick out of it: http://www.spiralupdatenews.com/viewing.html

Wanderin' Weeta said...

On my blog Wanderin' Weeta I have done a few posts about pareidolia, and posted several interesting photos to demonstrate, ending today with a "Jesus on the cross" on a stone, with a pilgrim on the back of the same stone.

Posts here, here and here (the "Jesus stone").

Chet Twarog said...

mollishka said ...
"Technical terminology question:
Does the recent-27-years-ago discovery of the graves of Jesus et al. count as pareidolia?"
Technically, yes.
"Jesus" Greek for "Jehu". There were hundreds of Hebrew men named "Jehu" during the Jewish Second Temple period.
All of the potraits of Jehu "Jesus" and the "non-Virgin Mary" were created long after any of them existed; there are absolutely no physical descriptions in New Testament text nor depictions. So, no one actually knows that "they" actually looked like.
Yes, so pareidolia are in the "eyes of the beholder".

mollishka said...

Technical terminology question:
Does the recent-27-years-ago discovery of the graves of Jesus et al. count as pareidolia?