Mars picture showing a alien, footprints, manhole cover, tent and wall painting !?

a reply to: Spacespider

I can see Oscar the Grouch.

Muppets on Mars!

I usually find all these "findings" to resemble rocks. The tent, looks like a rock. The wall picture, rock, with not painting. But the human looking figure. That doesn't look like a rock. Unless it's a rock statue. Take that into Photoshop, or Gimp, play with the contrast. I really can't make that out to be anything other than a human looking figure.

if a rock falls over on Mars, and nobody is around to hear it, is it really a rock near a woman standing on a cliff surrounded by footprints near a manhole, tent and rock art?

Nope.
Still just a rock.

a reply to: Spacespider

The problem always seems to be context and scale. I would put the alleged figure at about 4 inches tall and possibly with wings. I think you have found faeries on Mars. Lol.

Cheers - Dave

So I looked at what you have circled. All I can see are the rocks. Can you show us where the things are exactly in relation to the rocks you circled?

Except the woman, that looks less like a rock and more like rock and shadows.

originally posted by: Spacespider
I added a picture in OP where I marked the interesting things

All you marked were rocks....

a reply to: Spacespider

aside from the obvious lack of perspective making it impossible to judge the size of the "objects" in question, the one thing that jumped out at me was, and I totally can see that you would view them as such, but the alleged footprints...while there does appear to be a "trail" of them, I find it very telling that despite them being everywhere in the background, they are however nowhere near your "woman". How did she get there without leaving any foot prints if the ground is soft enough everywhere else to leave them?

originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: tsurfer2000h.


I disagree.

Oh and you wrote that "wall painting" is a rock.. I should correct myself, it IS a rock painting
So that one you got right

But I guess your way of thinking is the most easy way.. I am not CONCLUDING anything, I am just pointing things out, keeping a open mind.
Try it.. its healthy

LOL pointing things out?
Your idea of pointing things out, and posting conclusions are two very very different things.

You have quite clearly made conclusions and posted them. Don't claim now you are only putting things out there.
Stand by what you claim you think, by your conclusions, or don't post such nonsense.

ATS has been filled with these sorts of silly threads.
Everyone thinks they are on to some big bad conspiracy or that they have discovered something that a multi-billion dollar agency like NASA, among other space agencies where many more billions are spent, with thousands of employees working on these things, and probably hundreds of them looking at the photos they release, haven't been able to.
Some how, you, some random person posting on an Internet forum, saw what a bunch of space agencies with billions of dollars to play with and thousands of employees not to mention the best technology out there that you and I don't ever have a hope in hell of touching, couldn't see. And you did it all with your personal computer and some image editing software that allows you to zoom in and draw some lines and circles and text on an image.

Congratulations. You are only the 10,000th person to post such rubbish.

a reply to: Spacespider

From taking a closer look at the photo and readjusting the contrast, gamma, and brightness; It seems to me that the woman looking creature is of the most substantiated anomaly in this photo. True all the extraneous features of the tent, manhole, and footprints do stand out a little but the woman figure doesn't seem to be a rock as I can tell. Rock formations don't have a bipedal-with arms-black to white type of gradient to them and this picture clearly shows what rocks don't. A rock of that size and gradient wouldn't support itself, or even form that way as judging by the surrounding rocks. It is out of place and no other rock in that area seems to correlate to the figure's stance, vertical and very humanoid looking.



The tent and manhole are a but of a stretch but I see where you could get that idea. The foot prints do seem to lead to one another, however if you look at the surrounding area, similar marks can be seen, just not directly around the alleged footprint marks. Also there is no detectable footprints behind where the humanoid would have walked to view the rover. Yet, it could be that the humanoid saw the rover so made an attempt to get to the nearest cliff to view it, so it would be only her footprints and undetectable to see as it's likely sandy. If the other marks are footprints, it must be a highly walked area, and It's hard to tell the distance and relative size of the objects from this picture, but I would have to look for specs on the camera in order to judge distance, size, etc.

originally posted by: iDope
A rock of that size and gradient wouldn't support itself

I hate to break it to you, but 4 inch tall rocks can suport themselves just fine, regardless of their color.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

That "rock" is over 100 yards away from the rover, so it is at least a human's height. look at the cliff it is perched upon.

a reply to: iDope

What is the basis for your estimate of 100 yards?

a reply to: peter vlar

viewing the link NASA PIC of original photo posted on the NASA site, it is obvious that the image is not several feet from the camera. Plus, the camera can only view objects atleast six feet away from the lense, so the rocks directly around the rover would be the six foot minimum range, as the rover is the size of a car, a camera on top of the car would see the ground about six feet aways from it's own housing. Follow a basic distance judgment up the terrain to a cliff and it is obvious that the structures pointed out in the OP are several hundred feet from the camera, as well as elevated higher, ptobably at least 30 geet above where the rover is. This is all judgment until I see the camera's true specs on a grid that NASA doesn't supply.

If you look above the "woman", there is a ledge with a large dark crack in it.
I think the "woman" is a trail of rock and soil falling from above and down the face of the cliff, thus producing a verticle display on the cliff wall that indeed looks like a woman but is a trail of different colored soils.

The hut does not impress me because it looks like a large stratified rock that has been weathered by sand.

The only thing that looks cool to me is the manhole cover. I like circular objects.

Oh, and left out the painting. That looks like a fractured basalt column to me with staining within the perimeter of the interior. That is cool because staining could have been caused by water, millions of years ago perhaps.

PAREIDOLIA

A daring project explaining, have fun

When I see that many redacted and blocked comments in a row it makes me wonder what I missed.

Was it anything fun?

Well, as small as the... sorry it's a blurry smudge in reality to me, but as small as this "woman" you're claiming to see is, I'd wager a guess you just found Santa's summer home & an elf patrolling the perimeter.

a reply to: Leonidas

Well that's what I mean. Some totally bash threads like these and rather put on delirium words to obstruct then discussing it with respect I would say..

because why would there be something significant lying in the open on the ssurface of Mars?
But I have say to bluntly speak out what you think you're seeing in your opening thread isn't wise thing to do. I recommend question marks .

I see the OP has done that..

This is top page on ATS. I'll see ya'll in a couple months, maybe. I need a break.