Additional humanoid shapes in the Mars "statue" photo?

One of the guests on Coast-to-Coast AM last night (Friday night) claimed that in addition to the much-discussed object which some folks think looks like a statue of a woman, there are other human-looking forms seen in NASA photo PIA10214, one of which appears to be waving.

I've looked, and I can't find 'em.

Naturally, there was nothing I could find on the guest's Web site to clarify the matter. I hate that.

Would anybody here care to enlighten me?

Thanks so much; I'm looking forward to what y'all can come up with....

127MB? could you post some screenshots? many people still have dialup and not super fast broadband...

Sorry; I shoulda warned you about that. Heck, I've got cable broadband, and it's a slow load even for me. Just Google "PIA10214" and you'll get various results, many of which should be smaller. Again, I apologize for not mentioning that.

reply to post by flightsuit


I know what you're talking about. I've heard the interview and tried finding the additional figures but with no success.

If it's the interview I think it is, then the guy is apparently some lawyer who has tried to take credit for finding the "Statue" and has made a big spectacle about it.

I honestly think the guy is just talking nonsense. If there were additional humanoid looking figures in the image people like Richard Hoagland & JP Skipper of Mars Anomaly Research would have been all over it by now.

And for those on dial up, here's a small image of the "Statue"

I downloaded this image where you can zoom in and I just dont see anything. I looked through the entire picture over about a week. I still just think IMO that it's a rock.

Some people see many things on those photos, like the lawyer that is (or was) suing NASA for hiding the "life forms" he sees on that photo.

If you look on ATS you will find some members that also see many things in those photos (animals, people, faces peering from behind rocks, etc.), but I see only rocks shaped by the wind and/or other elements.

reply to post by flightsuit


Found it, it's on the left just past the large rocks running from the bottom up, you need to zoom in to see it.

This photo has ether been cut into pieces and badly joined back together or it's multiple shots to make one panoramic shot.

Have a look at the base of the largest hill where that blue strip is and zoom in on it. I know it can't be water but it's the only part of the photo that has that ripple effect, very strange.

reply to post by Illuminottie


The image was made with several photos taken from Sol 1,366 to Sol 1,369.

The photos were also taken with three different filters (to create a RGB image), but not with the right filters for the red, green and blue channels, so the colours are not right.

The ripples are small sand dunes, made with an extremely fine sand, that is noticeable on several photos.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yeah that's what I figured, although I didn't think of different filters.

I noticed some more, there just don't stand out like that particulate one.

I see it on the far left about a quarter of the way up.
Looks a little bit like somebody sat on the edge of the rocks.
Very strange
here it is zoomed in
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9d3167525f7.jpg[/atsimg]
sorry I didnt see mrvertigos post

[edit on 18-4-2009 by chris34]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by chris34]

holy hell, you mean to tell me there are 120mb pictures when the best images I could find are less than 200kbs in size?

of all the things we could see if NASA were publicly uploading pictures sized 120 mbs

reply to post by star in a jar


Who do you think published that 127MB image?

The problem with this "figure" is that it is very small on that large 127MB image, and there is no other image of that "figure".

Ahh yes,many long threads of this pic...nice rock.Thats all it is imo and its not even that hard to tell in all honesty.

This "rock" in zoom and some image work has two correct eyes. Also the extended hand has has three fingers hanging together as would an extended right hand would if pointing. It is pointing to a second statue out of this picture It seems to be a woman sitting on her feet with a robe on..

Did anybody saying "found it!" actually bother to read my original post? Yes, we all know about that alleged statue. It's old news, and it's not what I'm asking about. As previously stated, my curiosity pertains to the other alleged human-like figures which one of the guests on Friday night's edition of Coast-to-Coast AM claims to have found in the photo.

Sorry if I'm being bitchy.

Regarding the lawyer dude, I don't think he was the same person that was a guest on Friday's C2C, but I did happen to find on the Web a copy of the letter which the lawyer had sent to National Geographic or somebody. Hoo-boy; I must agree with the assessment that the guy was making a spectacle of himself.

Personally, I do believe there are artificial objects on several of the heavenly bodies in our solar system. I don't, however, believe the Mars "statue" is one of them. I mean come on; there's this big, wide-open area of nothing but Martian rocks and sand, yet it just happens to have this one, solitary, anthropomorphic sculpture sitting there all by itself, and it just happened to be in the right place to be randomly photographed? Stranger things have happened, but I don't buy it.

reply to post by Markafeller


There is no way to see "eyes" or "three fingers" on that image, the image is too small, there is not enough detail for it to show such small features.

The "hand", for example, is just three pixels wide, how can we see three fingers with just three pixels?

The problem is that people resize the image and then get things that do not exist in the original photo, things do not work like on "CSI", where they can zoom without limits and always get a good image (unless the script says that they can not identify something at that time).

Also, I have seen some people using the anaglyph as a way of showing an "eye" on the figure, ignoring (by ignorance or malice) that in an anaglyph we see two superimposed images, and what we see is one pixel from one image superimposed on the other image, in the place where we are expecting to see an eye.

This is the "figure" on its original size.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/c6f6dbbc36c58fa2.png[/atsimg]

Btw armap is the man i might add,he may be from portugal but he knows his stuff..i've read a good 30+ threads with him and internos on the ball and he is for lack of a better word an image genious..i'd trust anything he says any day of the week whether or not that means im gullible i dont care,the man knows his stuff and certainly doesn't need such remarks aimed at him from rather dubious new members.

what if it wasn't a statue? the color could have been changed, as most photos of mars are said to be color corrected before they are released. It may look like a statue because it has the same color as the surrounding rocks, but it could have different original colors. Then it would appear to be more life-like.

reply to post by elusivetruth


The colours are not real, they used photos from the infrared, green and violet channels instead of the red, green and blue that would give a look more close to the truth.

But that is one reason to use greyscale images, that way we are not influenced by the different colours.


Thanks, Solomons, for trusting my work.

Here is why you missed it before.The bottom pic holds the key to finding the truth.All your other shots of the "statue " have the face blacked out purposely,destroying evidence of facial features.Only when you see this major difference can you see your first Mars animal/being/living breathing neighbor,even if she's 6 inches tall with a pet snake in her lap.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by vze2xjjk]