Good VS Evil

dant

The Living Force
I had some fun... here are some altered images:
==================================
dad1-lf-crop.jpg
dad1-lf-crop-blue.jpg

dad1-lf-crop-pink.jpg
dad1-lf-crop-purple.jpg

dad1-rt-crop.jpg
dad1-rt-crop-blue.jpg
 

Al Today

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I love observational puzzles.
No matter how I look at your picture.
The form on the left looks like a Saint Bernard.
At least some kind of dog with a mask.
Like the dog Bandit in the old Jonny Quest cartoons.
The form on the right does look demonic to me.
I came back some time later for another lookie.
Nope, now the one on the right looks kinda like a lion.
Strange how I see something different whenever I look at the right form.
Something humanoid looking to it's left.
Or is it looking to it's right?
The form on the left still looks like the masked dog.
Thanks for the excersize.
 

Ryan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I see what look like aged "smear stains" on the glass/plastic over the top of the photo - the kind of oil residues that one might leave with the thumb/"thumb palm" area if one repeatedly picked up and put the photo down over time without immediately cleaning it.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think this thread is a good example of how our minds influence what we see, and so in a larger sense, why calibrating our reality reading instruments to become more objective is so important. So it seems understanding our reality is not *just* about collecting data/evidence, it's also about calibrating our ability to assess this evidence objectively - in other words, to SEE it for what it is. Otherwise we all look at the same thing and see something different.

No wonder, despite all the massive amount of evidence of 911 being a fraud, people can look at all the evidence and brush it off as not important or meaningless. For many it's not just fear of the implications, I think many people simply don't "get" the implications of the evidence even after they examine it. I know people who agree that the Pentagon was *not* struck by a 757 and STILL manage to somehow explain how al qaeda could've used a missile or something, etc. It's like they're seeing the evidence, they even understand it and agree with it at face value, but the conclusions they come to based on this evidence are utterly absurd and use a lot of insane mental gymnastics.
 
Top Bottom