posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:45 PM
After someone mentioned that the gates did not appear to be the same, I scrutinized them quite closely to try to make a determination. There are
definitely some differences, especially where the surrounding buildings are concerned, but it appears that there was a significant period of time
between the two states of the gate, which is a sufficient explanation. I think the gate is the same in both photographs. I does appear that there was
some "work" done on the gate, as what appears to be mortar can be seen everywhere. I am guessing that is what the white stuff is.
As to the question of whether the removal was purposeful, I think we first need to determine the structure of the "alien" segment. To me it appears
to be a solid block, like the keystone of an arch. If this is the case, there was nothing to put back together, and I do not see how it could have
been broken so that we can still see the outline of the alien figure. What I think happened is this: There are two blocks, one with the figure, and
then a thicker block behind it. The larger block was not replaced, rather the thin portion with the figure was put where the larger block was supposed
to be. This is evidenced by the large recess that is not there in the first picture. Whereas the alien block protruded in the 1st image, it is
recessed in the later images. But that does not seem sufficient for explaining the absence of the figure in the later images. It should have been a
solid figure after they put this piece in, and I am thinking that the figure was actually chiselled out to a large extent. It was essentially
defaced.
I suppose it is logical to assume that since there does appear to have been work done that the apparent defacement is just an error in the work of
those working on the gate, and that does make sense...but that is just not what I'm seeing. I am not knowledgeable where stonework is concerned
however, and that is just my opinion based on what I think I see in the images. As to whether it is truly an alien...it sure looks more like an alien
than many of the artifacts that are claimed to show aliens. There is one reason that I believe this does not depict an armored figure, and that is the
chin area. Do you see the shape of the chin? That is a chin that is not covered by any type of armor...so essentially a bare chin. And I wouldn't
think that only the top of the head would be armored, as I am unaware of any armor of that type that would look this way. It almost would have to be a
metal skullcap. But then again, the figure appears to have eyebrows as well, which I doubt a hairless alien would possess. So I don't really know to
be honest.