Which one's the prettiest?

[John Jackson]

This is a really good illustration of why we can't always rely on what we see.

Look at the picture then walk 15 to 20 feet away from your monitor and look again. Walk slowly towards the picture whislt looking at it.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/graphics/CalmAngry.jpg

[Jessie]

Ooooooer that is weird ......

[John Jackson]

I find it quite fascinating.

One thing we all tend to take for granted is that "seeing is believing". If we see something then it's real. It's things like this that demonstrate how we can be fooled by our own senses.

[Eddiesilence]

Aaargh, oooo, and shudder, all at the same time. That's so weird, that like the responsible parent I am, I'm off to scare the kids silly by proving to them that the computer is haunted...

[Tony P]

I love things like that.

Don't we have some more John? We should put more up. O0

[John Jackson]

I have some somewhere - not all as good as that one though. I'll have a look and see what post a few more.

[Nucular]

Heh, that is a good one - I tried to make it into an avatar once, but the effect didn't seem to translate to 100x100 pixels.

Are you sure it's paranormal though John? ;)

Here's another: which of these is prettier?

http://members.tripod.com/~RBHcognitions/thatin.gif

Does one look a little strange, in a difficult-to-put-your-finger-on kind of way?

Click here (http://members.tripod.com/~RBHcognitions/thatup.gif) to see quite how strange.

[John Jackson]

Those ones are even better when you only see the one face. Most people don't even spot that there's anything wrong until the photo is flipped.

Then it amazes them at just how wrong it is.

[Aardvark]

I am not sure what the science behind this is but it is probably a pixel effect as picked up by different parts of the retina.

At near distances and when focussing is spot on, the image will fall on the fovea, an area or densely packed high intensity colour resolving cone cells.

At a distance I would suspect that more of the image will fall outside the fovea on to the more sparse rod cells, this is lower energy and lower resolution, but we can use this area better at night.

Or it could be visa versa

I have read about a few studies looking at the imaging pathways of frogs and how they perceive their world. Apparantly they have an adaptation which acts as a bug detector, picking up shadow fall across adjacent photo receptor cells, this helps them react much faster than if higher centres are involved in the decision making pathway.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here are a few more:

http://cvcl.mit.edu/gallery.htm

[Dr B]

I wish you could all have come and seen my talk on the paranormal brain....alas it is not going ahead now...... :'(

[tkingdoll]

I wish you could all have come and seen my talk on the paranormal brain....alas it is not going ahead now...... :'(


Why don't you do it at Skeptics in the Pub then? They're always looking for guest speakers and that's a great topic.

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub/index.html

Nick's phone number and email addy are at the bottom of that page.

[Dr B]

I anticipated this (in a non-psychic way of course). I am happy to, but at the moment my time is very limited.

The talk is done and i have given it elsewhere - always goes down well - i would be delighted to do a skeptics in the pub thing - do they have powerpoint facilities????

[median]

aardvark wrote:I am not sure what the science behind this is but it is probably a pixel effect as picked up by different parts of the retina.

At near distances and when focussing is spot on, the image will fall on the fovea, an area or densely packed high intensity colour resolving cone cells.

At a distance I would suspect that more of the image will fall outside the fovea on to the more sparse rod cells, this is lower energy and lower resolution, but we can use this area better at night.

Or it could be visa versa



I suspect this has more to do with focal length. The same effect can be achieved by crossing your eyes. The picture seem to be composite, obviously designed for different focal ranges (one near and then the position reversed as you move further away)

Bit like the old stereograms of about 15 years ago (was it Bela Julesz or someone)

Mind you, I could never manage to see those which I put down to my lazy eye ???

Err or am I just plain lazy ;D

[Jessie]

http://www.msn.co.uk/htx/signs_taken_for_wonders/

I am so hungry, I would eat the Shrine to the Tortilla.... bit of Garlic and Onion dip would go down nicely as well ::) ::) ;D

[John Jackson]

I love that cinnamon bun :D ;D

[Jessie]

I am trying desperately to find the Virgin Mary on the Milton Hospital wall....even going "cross-eyed" is of no help whatsoever ??? ???

:D :D

[John Jackson]

You need to have more faith Jessie ;)

It's not a very good one that.

[Jessie]

I have found the possible whereabouts of the "Nun Bun" :D :D

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/NEWS01/605250387

You need to have more faith Jessie

;D ;D pah !!!! (must pray more) :D

[John Jackson]

I thought someone had scoffed it ;D

I think it looks more like Walter Matthau than Mother Teresa ???

[Jessie]

;D ;D ;D


http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/detail.asp?cat=General+News&id=5131629

OMG.... Jesus and Crumpet :o :o :o

At first, staring through the haze, Mr Garrod thought that the crumpet was emblazoned with the image of Bee Gees singer Barry Gibb.

Now, that is just insulting the poor crumpet >:( >:( >:(

[John Jackson]

OMG.... Jesus and Crumpet :o :o :o


You've seen the da Vinci code then? ;D

[Jessie]

You've seen the da Vinci code then?

Oh yes, I have....damn good film I thought :)

[John Jackson]

Oooerrr - did you have your skeptic's hat on or your movie-goer's hat on? ???


I haven't seen it BTW.

[Jessie]

Oooerrr - did you have your skeptic's hat on or your movie-goer's hat on?

I kept chopping and changing - it really hacked off the people behind - BIG hats ;D ;D

In all honesty, it is a good film as far as a story goes as that is all it basically is ;) Not read the book btw...still waiting for Amazon to bloomin deliver it >:( >:( >:( >:(

[John Jackson]

I thought as much.

I think films like this are fine as long as it's realised they are fiction.

Of course, this book was meant to be written as fiction masquerading as fact - PCTs love it ;) but it is fiction.

It's no different to me watching Sherlock Holmes, Poirot, or Mr Spock and suspending critical judgement in the interest of being entertained. I even liked the X-files :o - the early ones anyway.

[Jessie]

I think films like this are fine as long as it's realised they are fiction.

:o :o What !!!!!!! you mean to tell me that Stuart Little's clothes can't really be washed in a washing machine :'( :'( :'(

I am heartbroken now.... :D :D

[John Jackson]

No, and I'm afraid he had to be killed to shoot that scene. >:D

[Jessie]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ooooops...gorn off topic rather...

http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/5616737/detail.html?qs=1;s=1;p=news&dm=ss&tn=b

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

[Jessie]

One more....sorry :-[

"Blessed is the Pretzel"

http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/4256603/detail.html?qs=1;s=1;dm=ss;p=news;w=320

[John Jackson]

Yes, you did take the thread off topic didn't you? :P

http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/5616737/detail.html?qs=1;s=1;p=news&dm=ss&tn=b

Actually, that looks more like Osama bin Laden than Jesus to me! ???

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I thought the Nun Bun looked a bit like Fungus the Bogeyman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus_the_Bogeyman

Are they by any chance related?

[Jessie]

;D ;D I wonder ??? ???

Here you go..... make your own images :-

http://jesuspan.com/