Mars Humanoid Figure confirmed??

Thankyou, Internos. I have looked at your thread. Very interesting to me. I do agree with your statements that 'filters' use cause many to be suspicious of the data extractions. I simply must concede - that I do not possess the sophistication or 'the eye' that Vze - or RikRiley have - when discerning/identifying 'oddities' in these images. And in this way, I surmise that I truly am 'riding on the shoulders of giants.'

But I also feel that there is some validity - when an average person like myself ; through the concerted efforts of other as well - can recognize that there is often more in those pictures ( to be cliche' ) - 'than [ initially ] meets the eye.'


And as I have previously alluded to - I am in the process of telling this story - in a production that truly will not require 'top experts' backing. And I believe that it is a tale that is worthy of being told; regardless of whether people deem it to be merely science fiction. Like I stated here - some pages ago - there are many more people that are familiar with the concept of 'flying saucers' than there are believers. But there are also relatively few that are aware of the concept of 'multiple species of current life on Mars.'

Probability dictates that I most likely will never be able to 'prove' any of it. But I surely can ( with mounting effort ) - present the concept to a wide audience - through varied media. So - just so that you know, this thread is also providing research materials for that quest. And I thank you all - very much; for sharing with me what you know. It is remarkably well thought-out on your parts. And remains a fascinating possibility.

Since I was a small boy - I have loved NASA ; and their apparent quest to take humanity out into the heavens. But now, as an adult - I feel tricked by them; and honestly, I feel a bit 'ripped-off.'

The men of the Apollo program will always remain personal 'heroes' of mine.

And... the quest continues.

jb
..

reply to post by Johnbro


oc ra5h
azimuth +5
.
zr -60 declination (constellation reticulum ra 3.18
.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


vze2xjjk, how can I have any confidence in your work when you say that you are "unmasking" the photos but you use a photo that has another image superimposed as a "cleaner" version?

The "eye" of "your" figure is just a small rock that is visible because both images used on the 3D composite are translucent, we can see through them, so we can see the darker rocks "behind" the other rocks.

This little animation may show better what I mean.


As I said before (and you are not the first ATS member to who I say it), if NASA is masking the photos, there is no way of unmasking them, once masked there is no way of knowing what was there before.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


vze, Thanks for your response. What is interesting is a photo showing from the 1976 Viking 1 lander a Sandmarie that looked to be squashed by one of the landing pads and his face is looking toward the sky. I will have to dig up the drawing I did of the Sandmarie he reminds me of a wizard looking being not lizard but wizard. LOL Near the landing pad of Vikinig 1 is a tiny tiny speed boat with windows laying on the surface. When I first saw the boat I thought it was a kids toy but later understanding the small size of lifeforms from the ground zero missions I know better now.

This is a good point of the tiny lifeforms being mowed over by both the rovers. This was my concern exactly especially when you see Spirit and Opportunity enter amongst the Sandmarie villages.

You also make a statement about the multitudes of lifeforms on the surface and you are 100% correct the lifeforms are everywhere beyond belief and no one seemed to believe me when I first started talking about how much life actually was on the surface of Mars.

What the average viewer misses is the poses these lifeforms have and they turn there heads looking back over their shoulder and also their heads looking down toward the ground as to be grazing or scrounging for food with action and movement similar to animals on Earth. I know you and Johnbro understand what I am talking about. Keep up the great investigation and exposing of the lifeforms on Mars. Rik



[edit on 18-2-2008 by rikriley]

reply to post by rikriley


Many of the images from the rovers were taken with some seconds between them, the difference between the first and the last photo of the "figure" is 82 seconds.

Did you ever noticed movement between the images? In the false colour composites, for example, if something moved between the time of the first and the last photo there would be a visible change in colour because of the movement.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMap, Very seldom does NASA let that happen allow us humans from Earth to see the positioning change of lifeforms. If you look very carefully you will on rare occassions detect a movement or position change of a lifeform.

What is tricky and confuses people the rovers are set up like the human eyes close one eye open the other and anomolies are in one position. Close the other eye and open the closed eye and again anomolies appear in an offset position. It is like holding your thumb in front of your face opening and closing one eye at a time you will see a 2 to 3 inch variance from the positioning of the thumb. Yet your thumb never moved this makes it easier for NASA to see photos in 3D and gives a truer sense of what a human sees on Earth. Rik Riley



[edit on 18-2-2008 by rikriley]

reply to post by rikriley


I know that the rovers have two cameras and that the images from those cameras cannot be used directly to see if something moved, those images can only be used to do that when converted to a 3D composite image, but those images are usually taken at the same time, so any moving object will be on a apparently stationary position in the 3D composited images.

The difference in wavelength may also create the illusion that some things move from one image to the other, but superimposing all the images in a graphics program will show if there are any objects in different positions.

PS: I am familiar with your technique of seeing through the "lens" made with our fingers, when I started noticing that I needed glasses and before I got them I used that technique whenever I needed to see something better.

reply to post by ArMaP
This is an easy one to answer.Compare the other Statue pics from each set of Panorama pics ans see if the figure moved.If they do not match up 100% the same then there was movement between frames.Is that logical? Secondly,when you used the 3D image,you did not bother to lighten and brighten,even wash out the thick shadow over the face to arrive at the detail I achieved.So,yes you did at least LOOK at the 3 D image,but failed to brighten it to find the hidden detail.That is what I did,and anyone else can do who doesn't mind going beneath the minor shadows,instead of trying to get past an obvious hack blackout/blackface job in the other impenetrable images above,and what the press was handed to shoo them away.Few people will bother with the 3D images,and that's what Nasa was counting on,so that's where I went. Wash out those dirty shadows.Dirty Nasa,playing tricks. Side by side compare them and I see movement ,meaning LIFE on Mars being masked,and fraudulent data used to scam us all into believing otherwise.I read"ImageTampering" and know when I see it.Blackface,song and dance minstrel show,side show side stepping Blackface Black Ops,black lies.Just my opinion,and how I spend my time.

Originally posted by vze2xjjk

 

This is an easy one to answer.Compare the other Statue pics from each set of Panorama pics ans see if the figure moved.If they do not match up 100% the same then there was movement between frames.Is that logical?

Yes, and that is what I have done, I was asking rikriley if he had noticed any movement between photos.

Secondly,when you used the 3D image,you did not bother to lighten and brighten,even wash out the thick shadow over the face to arrive at the detail I achieved.

No, because the 3D image has two translucent images superimposed I can not make any change in the image that only affects one of the images used. Any detail found can be the detail of the left camera image, the detail of the right camera image or detail that only exists because of the superimposition of both images.

If I can not know from where the detail came then I can not use that hypothetical detail to prove or disprove anything because I do not know if it really was there or not.

Once again, I would like to point that there is no way of "uncovering" any masking made on an image just by making adjustments and/or applying filters to an image that is in a "flat" format like JPEG or TIFF.

For example, you can not unmask or recover in any way the object that was on the wall to the right of the chistmas tree in the following photo.

reply to post by ArMaP


But, you can tell that there was something there. That, in and of itself is a very important piece, as it tells us when manipulation was used to hide or alter something.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


Yes, it is visible that something was there because I am not a professional graphics artist.

My brother had to change a dog into a lion for an advertisement where they had a lion next to a girl. Because they could not use a real lion they used a dog and my brother used the shape of the large dog lying besides the girl to put there a lion in the same position in a way that nobody can see that it wasn't really there.

Also, my idea in showing that image was to show that we can not recover the original data, not to see if was altered. Give me time and I will post a photo in which you can not see if it was altered in any way.

That's a challenge that I'll be willing to undertake. Just remember that the pic MUST be altered in some way. I'll have to find it.

Wow, do I love a challenge or what?

TheBorg

First of all, let me say that this was a very interesting and fun experience.

I only had used Photoshop to do some minor works, so making something like this showed me the capabilities that are available to those that want to use them.

It also showed me that it is easier than I though, although it took me some 5 or 6 hours this was something that I had never done before using a program that I do not really know how to use to its full capacities.

Below you have 2 images, only one of them was altered.

If you think that I should say which of the images was altered just say, but I think it is more close to reality in this way, you do not really know if the image was altered because you do not know which of the images was the subject of my work.

Ideally, you should be able to say which of the images was altered and detect the area(s) that were altered. For those that think that this is possible, they should be able to "remove the layers" and recreate the original image.

Here they are.

Image 1

Image 2


PS: sorry everyone for the off-topic.

The lightening of the original image was the purpose of why this thread was started in the first place. Ultimately, it was not about stating that there was 'proof' of little humanoids on Mars. That undertaking would be paramount to impossible at any rate. But - there is indeed some strong indicators that there is some 'funny business' in the dissemination of these images. And I continue to strive to extract more detail than the obvious. People like RikRiley, Vze - have been very helpful in this. I strongly believe that 'the best is yet to come.' Thank you again.

jb.

..

reply to post by Johnbro


Could you please present some of those "strong indicators"?

Thanks.

reply to post by ArMaP


First picture, lower left corner. I base this on the fact that that image is blurry in that section, and the keys are slightly shifted. It's almost like there's a smudge on the lens of the camera. I may be wrong, but I'm going with my gut on this one..

Calling it #1, final answer...

TheBorg

P.S. This isn't OT, as it directly pertains to the circumstances that we're discussing in this thread. It's a proof of concept.

reply to post by TheBorg


In case someone else wants to take this "test", I will answer via U2U, if you don't mind.

Why would any nation place such high priority for search and discover missions to what should be a dried up prune of a has been planet?

Couldn't have said it better myself.
And I am still waiting for the answer...

"Because it's there"?
That'll be the most likely answer.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's a truthful one.

I am really not into conspiracies, and I am afraid that the reasons for the state and aims of "space exploration" are, in fact, a direct consequence of the prevalent stupidly mechanistic frame of mind.

But I would still like to hear a thoughtful reply.

reply to post by Vanitas


To learn.

If we want to learn about planets' "lives" then any planet is a good subject.

Those closest to us are obvious first choices.

Originally posted by Vanitas

Why would any nation place such high priority for search and discover missions to what should be a dried up prune of a has been planet?

Couldn't have said it better myself.
And I am still waiting for the answer...

"Because it's there"?
That'll be the most likely answer.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's a truthful one.

I am really not into conspiracies, and I am afraid that the reasons for the state and aims of "space exploration" are, in fact, a direct consequence of the prevalent stupidly mechanistic frame of mind.

But I would still like to hear a thoughtful reply.

The reason for the priority of exploration of Mars is because life exists on Mars as well as vast reserves of minerals. Mars may look like a dried up prune of a has been planet but it is bustling with life. NASA does not want this out they need and want control of all info that goes out to the public. The mechanistic frame of mind is driven by money and control.

Do you realize the mineral wealth on the planet Mars is beyond comprehension. The planet Earth's Moon is being mined as well as Mars. Rik Riley