Possible smoking gun Mars rodent picture - 2nd picture found - help needed

After studying the pictures for a long time, I now think the most important stones might have been misidentified at first. This is what I see now when I compare the picture 1 and 2:





Larger sizes:

Pic 1: oi67.tinypic.com...

Pic 2: oi67.tinypic.com...


In the pictures that I've attached, I've circled stones and I've numbered the most important ones. Stone 1 in these pictures, might be the most important one to place correctly, together with stone 2 since they look alike. In the previous configuration stone 1 was not identified in picture 1 at all, but it's a rather large stone that should be seen in both pictures.

I had a good look at the smaller rocks surrounding these stones. I think that the rocks I circled in pink, show us where stone 3 actually lies relative to stone 2.

If you look at stone 2 in picture 1, there's not directly anything of size next to it on the right side. With stone 1 in picture 1, you do clearly see something of size to the right side.

I think that what the scientist identified as the rodent rock, is actually part of the region I circled in orange, in between stones 1 and 2.

Also, when drawing the black line of sight, using the identified circled rocks, you end up with a different spot for the rodent. I believe the rodent was to be found between stones 1 and 2. Since the 2nd picture was taken downhill, the perspective fools the eye at first and the stones 1 and 2 seem very close together.

Also note in picture 2, that when you draw the black line, you get a nice straight view of the side of stone 2. This completely corresponds with stone 2 in picture 1, since there you get a nice straight side view.

Another big clue in picture 2, is the form of stone 1 on the left side. You see a straight line, but then a 90 degree angle which stops the straight line in the stone. Also at the top on this side, the stone slopes down. After looking carefully for a while, this corresponds very nicely with stone 1 in picture 1. You should not see a nice straight line of the side of stone 1 in picture 1, because the straight line is blocked by the 90 degree angle of the same stone. Here's a picture:



Larger size: oi66.tinypic.com...

I'm pretty confident the stones are now properly identified.

This would mean the lemming rock was positioned between stones 2 and 3 and is not there anymore...

I'm a trained observer....the rodent is real.....notice the separation from the ground thussly...the shadow that has such great definition...that if someone cannot realize the implications therein, decorum dictates not listing public reaction at this time

So, understand me better, I'm saying I love the op for bringing this to the forefront.....this a textbook arctic lemming ladies and gentlemen

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.

Richard emailed me back with the links to picture 2. See the post above this one

Fantastic!!!

I notice Brucyboy hasn't been back yet?

Now that we have links for both originals we can do some work!

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.

Richard emailed me back with the links to picture 2. See the post above this one

Fantastic!!!

I notice Brucyboy hasn't been back yet?

Now that we have links for both originals we can do some work!

Check my final post, just above!

I'm pretty confident I've now got it. Tomorrow I will have another close look, but the way it looks now the rodent rock is clearly gone.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: rickymouse
I didn't think there were hampsters in the deserts here on earth.

Maybe it got out of the filming staff's trailer.

Desert pocket mouse

Those are right here in America.

It's nice to know that they are filming the Mars videos right here in America. I am all for American made deception. Support our own people, we have lots of people who like to make films

???

You said you didn't know there were desert rodents on Earth, so I showed you an example of a desert rodent in our own country. The OP has another good thread that shows the lemurs that live on the same Canadian island where he/she is speculating that the rovers are actually on.

I know, I am just trying to stress that these videos do not have to be coming from Mars. The lander could have crashed or it could have experienced a defect and quit working but since saying everything is working fine will get them more money in the future, then the rover is still working officially. Pictures coming from a rover stuck in the sand wouldn't be impressive at all.

I don't understand why people bother posting serious questions on ATS anymore. This place if filled with shills/idiots. Clearly the OP photos show an object that is not in the later photos. I spent nearly a hour studying these trying to match the rock/mammal in the two photos. These is no way the object suspected of being a rodent is in the other photo. In the second photo the object between the two rocks lines up pretty much flush with each other. in the fist photo the "rodent" extends beyond the plane of the line of the two nearby rocks, and by a fairly large margin.

The public is being utterly and completely misled about the solar system and galaxy. Of this I have certain knowledge.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Neill887

Following your logic, I see the Old Testament in there...

...a cruise boat...

...and even a miniature planet Earth!...

It sure is busy on Mars when you have rocks and pareidolia!

Funny how we still haven't seen any lampposts though...

Wow, I think this member completely missed the boat. This thread is about the absence of the "rodent rock" in the second photo... not it's shape or how it's perceived.

Do yourself a favor and spend more time actually reading the OP rather then jumping at the chance to make jokes about it.

from studying the two pics it is clear that the rodent stone is either missing or buried under sand in between the two rocks. Neill887's pics are spot on, the only thing i wonder is that there seems to be a sizeable amount of sand where the rodent should be, so it looks to me like it's just buried under it, being lower and flatter than the stones either side of it.




one image would need to be flipped to get the 2 side rocks in the correct place, they're the wrong way round here, but you get the idea. The "rodent" in between them appears to be buried by sand

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: neo96

Then going by your logic, these can be real after all. There are clearly more than 99 rocks in those NASA photos.

The ONLY way a rodent be on mars is it somehow miraculously survived launch.

Found enough food to eat along the journey although I don't know what it could have eaten.

Then miraculously survived the landing.

Only to die of asphyxiation cause mars doesn't have air.

The likely hood of ALL that happening is statistically nil.

from looking at the rodent pics flipped round the way i have it above, it does look to me like the ear of the rodent is actually the stone above it. Also, if you follow the light area from the neck to the end of the foot you can see it looks like the rock just has a chip out of it, creating the illusion of jaw going into the neck then the foot in front of it. If you take out the ear and the foot illusion it looks just like an oblong stone, the only thing left looking strange is the eye.

this thread has actually put the rodent theory to bed for me, i believe the stone is buried under the sand, proving it isn't a rodent (unless its a very stupid one allowing itself to be buried alive) and that the ear and foot features are the stone above it and a chip off the edge.

I'd like to thank the OP for finding this 2nd image and posting this thread.

nope...we have pics of Cananda.......the next step is are these pics mixed in by accident....oh yes....just a mix-up in the pics....by accident..

I've now spent at least 10 hours (no kidding) looking at these pictures.

I am now 100% sure that I have identified the stones correctly in both pictures. The scientist did identify the 2 stones correctly in the large panorama view, but in the zoomed in pictures he clearly misidentified the stones and I can show this convincingly.

The first thing we have to keep in mind, is that picture 1 (zoomed in) is taken uphill and picture 2 (zoomed in) is taken downhill. This makes it hard to judge distances between stones. That's why I first started identifying other stones around the rodent rock spot. These are the 2 pictures zoomed in with the stones circled with the same color in both pictures:

Picture 1:

Large: oi67.tinypic.com...

Picture 2:

Large: oi67.tinypic.com...

Both pictures together for easier comparison: oi65.tinypic.com...

It's important to have a good look at those two pictures and see if I correctly identified the stones in both pictures. This will give you a better overview of the entire scene.

After identifying the stones I drew a line (black) in both pictures above, starting from the stone circled with purple at the bottom of the hill, through the gap in between the two stones in front of it, circled in orange and yellow. Doing this will give a better sense of perspective.

After doing those things, I'm already very confident, stones 1,2 and 3 are correctly identified, but I added another 3 pictures in which I look at the details of these stones. These are the pictures:

Stone 1:

Large: oi67.tinypic.com...

Stone 2:

Large: oi66.tinypic.com...

Stone 3:

Large: oi68.tinypic.com...

When looking at that rodent spot close up in picture 2, it's better to see that there's space between stones 2 and 3, the same as in picture 1. When looking at that scene from further away, stones 2 and 3 look a bit odd together. This is because we're looking downhill and it's hard to get any perspective from far way.

Also, the fact that there's sand up against the back of stone 3, makes it look a bit odd from far away. This, together with stones 1 and 2 being relatively similar in appearance, is the reason the stones were misidentified in the beginning.

After looking at the stones closer up, I'm now 100% confident I've correctly identified them.

To conclude, I added a picture which compares the rodent rock spot in picture 1 and in picture 2. When zoomed in on picture 2, between stones 2 and 3, that's where the rodent "rock" should have been.


Large: oi65.tinypic.com...

Take your time to have a good look at these pictures. I think you could classify this as a smoking gun...

reply to: Neill887

what do you think about my post higher up? It looks to me like the rodent stone is buried by the sand.

originally posted by: bitcoinforever
reply to: Neill887

what do you think about my post higher up? It looks to me like the rodent stone is buried by the sand.

Yes, that's what I thought yesterday as well. I thought it was buried in between stones 2 and 3. I thought maybe someone tried to cover something up.

I now do think it's a matter of perspective. There's sand up against the back of stone 3 and together with the perspective downhill, it makes the scene a bit hard to judge from further away. Even when zoomed in, the back of the front stone blends in with the line of the sand coming down again.

Check out these pictures to get a better understanding of the situation:
oi66.tinypic.com...

oi68.tinypic.com...

oi65.tinypic.com...

This is basically the situation:


Large: oi66.tinypic.com...

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
nope...we have pics of Cananda.......the next step is are these pics mixed in by accident....oh yes....just a mix-up in the pics....by accident..

You can see the tracks of the rover going back pretty far, so I don't think so

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: bitcoinforever

And thank you for your effort, my Bitcoin friend.

To the moon!

a reply to: Neill887

Whatever it was, its gone!
Sprinkling sand about the place would be a good way to explain its disappearance, however, there does not appear to be enough sand to hide something the size of the rodent.

Conclusion: It walked away!

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Whatever it was, its gone!
Sprinkling sand about the place would be a good way to explain its disappearance, however, there does not appear to be enough sand to hide something the size of the rodent.

Conclusion: It walked away!

No the conclusion is that there never was a friggin rodent in the first place. Pareidolia strikes again. Not just Pareidolia but a deep mindset that agencies and organisations are lying. The reality is that they are not but it is amazing what a mindset will do. Just the same as there was no "Mummified Seal, Shoe and Mystery Fish"

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Whatever it was, its gone!
Sprinkling sand about the place would be a good way to explain its disappearance, however, there does not appear to be enough sand to hide something the size of the rodent.

Conclusion: It walked away!

No the conclusion is that there never was a friggin rodent in the first place. Pareidolia strikes again. Not just Pareidolia but a deep mindset that agencies and organisations are lying. The reality is that they are not but it is amazing what a mindset will do. Just the same as there was no "Mummified Seal, Shoe and Mystery Fish"

No, something that's there in picture 1 is gone in picture 2:



Large: oi65.tinypic.com...

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Whatever it was, its gone!
Sprinkling sand about the place would be a good way to explain its disappearance, however, there does not appear to be enough sand to hide something the size of the rodent.

Conclusion: It walked away!

No the conclusion is that there never was a friggin rodent in the first place. Pareidolia strikes again. Not just Pareidolia but a deep mindset that agencies and organisations are lying. The reality is that they are not but it is amazing what a mindset will do. Just the same as there was no "Mummified Seal, Shoe and Mystery Fish"

No, something that's there in picture 1 is gone in picture 2:

Large: oi65.tinypic.com...

No it hasn't! It is simply perspective that is fooling you. Your "Rodent" is a combination of the two arrowed formations. That combined with an over active imagination! I get it though it is a mindset!



The back end of your "Rodent" is the rock/sand formation. It is that formation combined with a formation in front that makes people think that there is a rodent there. It is simply perspective, pareidolia and a deep set conspiracy mindset that leads you astray.