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

originally posted by: Neill887

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

Exactly!
As for all the assumptions of "Pareidolia", well, some people are not using that word for what its meant for, because that thing in the pic DOES look just like a rodent, no imagination is necessary!
We dont call it Pareidolia when we look at a statue of a person and then say it looks just like a person. Its the same with the lemming in the op, it looks like a lemming!
Its the people who think it looks like a rock that are suffering from Pareidolia!

originally posted by: tommyjo

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!

No you're wrong. I've done a thorough analysis and I have identified the most important individual stones. The 2nd arrow you placed makes no sense at all.

I get it though, it's a mindset.

a reply to: Neill887 Hi Neil


the craft was tested in Canada.......on an island....that looks like the mars pics..........

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Neill887

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

Exactly!
As for all the assumptions of "Pareidolia", well, some people are not using that word for what its meant for, because that thing in the pic DOES look just like a rodent, no imagination is necessary!
We dont call it Pareidolia when we look at a statue of a person and then say it looks just like a person. Its the same with the lemming in the op, it looks like a lemming!
Its the people who think it looks like a rock that are suffering from Pareidolia!

Probably everything that happens in their minds is pareidoliatic

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Neill887

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

Exactly!
As for all the assumptions of "Pareidolia", well, some people are not using that word for what its meant for, because that thing in the pic DOES look just like a rodent, no imagination is necessary!
We dont call it Pareidolia when we look at a statue of a person and then say it looks just like a person. Its the same with the lemming in the op, it looks like a lemming!
Its the people who think it looks like a rock that are suffering from Pareidolia!

Probably everything that happens in their minds is pareidoliatic

You need this belief in your life though! The question is why?

The back end of your "Rodent" is the formation with the black line. Explain where this formation goes in your analysis if a rodent is actually there? It makes no sense!





Oh I see what you are implying now that the "rodent" is in front of the formation with the black line. Absolutely ridiculous. The formation IS the "rodent". It is just a ridiculous analysis but I get that you must go along with your mindset!

originally posted by: tommyjo


Oh I see what you are implying now that the "rodent" is in front of the formation with the black line. Absolutely ridiculous. The formation IS the "rodent". It is just a ridiculous analysis but I get that you must go along with your mindset!

Instead of constantly yelling it's ridiculous, how about actually spending some time analyzing the pictures properly like I did?

I've made it a bit easier to identify the stones if anyone is interested:

Larger panorama: oi68.tinypic.com...

Zoomed in: oi65.tinypic.com...

That type rodent is native to this area and guess what. NASA is there with rovers.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: tommyjo

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!

No you're wrong. I've done a thorough analysis and I have identified the most important individual stones. The 2nd arrow you placed makes no sense at all.

I get it though, it's a mindset.

You haven't really done a thorough "analysis". All you have done is let your mind be fooled that you are seeing a rodent. The 2nd arrow does make sense because you have failed to comprehend that the head of this "rodent" isn't physically part of the "rodent" body. The formations, and that includes the "eye", that make up the "head" are in the background.



Yellow ringed area that is obviously in the background.



The yellow ringed area where the formation make up this "head" area of this "rodent". It is you mind that if fooling you into believing otherwise.

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: tommyjo


Oh I see what you are implying now that the "rodent" is in front of the formation with the black line. Absolutely ridiculous. The formation IS the "rodent". It is just a ridiculous analysis but I get that you must go along with your mindset!

Instead of constantly yelling it's ridiculous, how about actually spending some time analyzing the pictures properly like I did?

But it is ridiculous! You have spent many wasted hours "analysing" but the end result is that your mind is still fooling you. The formations and areas that make up the "head" and particularly the "eye" of this "rodent" are beyond the formation that makes up the "body". It is clear as day but of course you need this conspiracy in you life.

Look I've found a Seal!

originally posted by: tommyjo

The yellow ringed area where the formation make up this "head" area of this "rodent". It is you mind that if fooling you into believing otherwise.

Oh my god you're kidding me. You're still looking at the wrong rocks!

One more time for you. This is the identification of all the stones:

oi65.tinypic.com...

These are the three most important stones in the middle:







THIS is the situation. I've circled the area of your favorite stone in your favorite color pink and I've put a pink arrow in to show where your pink stone is located.


Large picture : oi64.tinypic.com...

Your pink stone plays no role in this. The rodent rock is not even close to your pink stone, since the rodent rock can be found between stones 2 and 3. Your pink stone is located between stones 1 and 2. It's in a completely different position. Your pink stone doesn't even come into the (green) line of sight that I drew from the rodent rock in picture 1. Even when you move the position of the camera far to the left in the first picture, to that green line of sight, you would still miss your beloved pink stone. So how can your pink stone contribute to a so called illusion if it's not even in the line of sight?

You can talk all you want, but you can't even identify all the stones properly and you apparently don't understand how lines of sight work. Better leave this stuff to the big boys from now on okay?

originally posted by: Neill887

originally posted by: tommyjo

The yellow ringed area where the formation make up this "head" area of this "rodent". It is you mind that if fooling you into believing otherwise.

Oh my god you're kidding me. You're still looking at the wrong rocks!

One more time for you. This is the identification of all the stones:

oi65.tinypic.com...

These are the three most important stones in the middle:

THIS is the situation. I've circled the area of your favorite stone in your favorite color pink and I've put a pink arrow in to show where your pink stone is located.

Large picture : oi64.tinypic.com...

Your pink stone plays no role in this. The rodent rock is not even close to your pink stone, since the rodent rock can be found between stones 2 and 3. Your pink stone is located between stones 1 and 2. It's in a completely different position. Your pink stone doesn't even come into the (green) line of sight that I drew from the rodent rock in picture 1. Even when you move the position of the camera far to the left in the first picture, to that green line of sight, you would still miss your beloved pink stone. So how can your pink stone contribute to a so called illusion if it's not even in the line of sight?

You can talk all you want, but you can't even identify all the stones properly and you apparently don't understand how lines of sight work. Better leave this stuff to the big boys from now on okay?

In your picture "stone 3 from 2 angles" I think maybe the red circled rocks don't match up.
The red line from the big pic should go to the pointed rock above and to the right of the red circled rock in the little pic.

so is this rodent living of rocks, because that is all there is, no plants at all.

a reply to: Neill887

I think something like this. The red line.

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
a reply to: Neill887

I think something like this. The red line.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you

I think the stone that you're looking at is too far back in picture 1. In picture 2 the stone we're talking about lays directly next to stone 2 it seems.

originally posted by: Neill887

You can talk all you want, but you can't even identify all the stones properly and you apparently don't understand how lines of sight work. Better leave this stuff to the big boys from now on okay?

Leave it to the "Big Boys" Oh, good grief! I might as well be talking to people that do "analysis" on ISS videos and claim that it is all faked on earth! All you have done it "over analysed" the complete situation and fooled yourself. I get it though it is a mindset. What else do you think has been "faked"? I do feel genuinely sorry for you wasting your time. I shudder to think how many wasted hours you will spend on future images? Sad that you believe that this discovery is in your eyes "fake"

www.scienceworldreport.com...

www.space.com...

Very sad that you believe that these recent images must be filmed on earth.

From the evidence that is presented. ... there is something missing in between those rocks. ...?

Wow, it's the face on Mars for a new generation!
I'll make this easy: You are seeing photo's of rocks. There is no gerbil there. Please don't bother using your time analyzing these images, it is a fools errand.