Consider the following argument, between one who 'sees' Mona on the sheet, and one who doesn't:
Gullible: Hey! Somebody printed out a picture of the Mona Lisa on this old printer!
-- Skeptic: What are you talking about? That looks like a simple printer test.
You know, where they print random characters.
Gullible: Huh? No, look at it from back here. Can't you see her in there? It's HER! See the corner of the lips in that mystical smile?
-- Skeptic: You are seeing things--what an imagination! I see a bunch of dots, colons, semi-colons etc. There's nothing there, bud.
Gullible: I can't believe it! You really cannot see it? Look, here--if I connect these dots like this you can see her hair, and look with a simple connection here, you can see the eyes...
-- Skeptic: Gotcha! You are seeing connections where NONE are. YOU are adding the connections--it's just random dots to me. You are ADDING STUFF to the picture! No wonder you see stuff 'there'--it is NOT THERE until you imagine it 'into the printout'...There is no "MONA" there; there are only individual "MONAds"...he, he, he...
Gullible: Wow, this is frustrating...it is as plain as the nose on my face...I am at a loss how to proceed to get you to see her in the pattern...
-- Skeptic: All I can suggest is that you power it down, and run the self test again (heh, heh)...maybe it will connect the dots for you this time!
What advice could we give the Gullible in this example? Probably none, if the situation is confined to those two participants. The 'proof' was ONLY in the inspection of the image. It was NOT demonstrable in the least sense of the word. It was purely ostensive; purely a 'pointing' kinda proof; purely a kerygmatic event. He could only 'proclaim' that ML was in the image, and hope that the other person would 'see' the gestalt. Without the connected dots, there was no 'evidence'.