There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Should we look for a copy of Bin Laden (or Satan) looking down on the two towers burning? You know, the one that seemed to form from the smoke. Or would that be in bad taste?--Bobbing up 11:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, only if it's in bad taste, though. ħuman 13:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- OH, I once saw a Dana Carvey in a potato. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 13:58, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Now I can clearly see the image of a computer screen and a computer keyboard in front of me. Proxima Centauri 08:19, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Bringing this up again, I think it might be relevant to the article, given that there was a definite internet reaction to it at the time. Granted, it's not specifically a religious one, but I believe it marked one of the first times that people perceived (and spread the perception) of such an image in live broadcasts. I may be making a bit much of it, though, since I actually "saw" the face (the one on the left) in footage slightly after it was broadcast and without seeing anyone describe it beforehand (the day of the attacks). And yes, before you wonder, I do find myself unnerved by the initial image of the Cydonian face, the Belmez floor markings and the vicious, cruel prank with the toast pictures. 220.127.116.11 07:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It caused quite a stir at the time. But I'm unsure of the copyright situation.--BobNot Jim 11:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Shroud of Turin?
- I would say no, as specifically pareidolia is about something random being percieved as ordered (as an image) because the human brain is a glorified pattern recognition device. I doubt the shroud is like that as it's far too clear that it's an image of a person, although people attributing that image to being Jesus could sort of count. Armondikov 17:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- If it were the real shroud and an image of the real Jesus that got there via natural causes (being wrapped in it), then no. If it is one of the fakes, then no, since any "image" was an intentional design by the hoaxers. If, however, one found a sheet on the drying line had accumulated a bit of "random" dirt and creases that looked like teh baby jeebus, then YES! ħuman 17:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Good point. Thanks for clearing that up. Shroud of Turin, no. Image of Orel Roberts appearing in teh knot of a wooden plank, yes. Image of Ronald Reagan in the stains on one's underpants, perhaps. Speakerface 07:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
- I thought I farted, but it was the image of the Virgin Mary that I had to wash out. ħuman 08:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)