2nd figure on mars found?

This is why you are all so very hard to believe even slightly...

This is CLEARLY a cliff section shadow and yet.. so many of
you are willing to believe even when evidence is right in front of you.

Instead of looking at the actual image, you look at the dark spot
and fit it into what you want it to be.

If many of you just stopped for a moment, accepted what it IS rather than what
you WANT it to be, you would have so much more credibility/influence on me/others
who think you're all wishful thinkers.

This is PROOF:




This is what someone who has zero critical skills believes:

Originally posted by gormly
This is why you are all so very hard to believe even slightly...

This is CLEARLY a cliff section shadow and yet.. so many of
you are willing to believe even when evidence is right in front of you.

Instead of looking at the actual image, you look at the dark spot
and fit it into what you want it to be.

If many of you just stopped for a moment, accepted what it IS rather than what
you WANT it to be, you would have so much more credibility/influence on me/others
who think you're all wishful thinkers.

This is PROOF:

This is what someone who has zero critical skills believes:

I can see it is only a illusion. But at first when I had seen it. It look like something was there. Even I thought that something was there.If someone was there in person. She or he would walk around it and notions that it is nothing but part of the cliff face. But it still doesn't leave out a Martain using illusion. Making whom ever see it, will think it is nothing but shadow part of the cliff face.Until we see a actual Martain lifeform. We will have to assums it is just a illision.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by kennethmd]

I don't think it's a shadow, but rather just composite rock.

In the image below I've desaturated the hideous orange hue that NASA seems to have on (nearly) all Mars photos. I've highlighted the rock portions in gray and the sand portions in yellow.

However, I think the darker regions of the "figure" must be some sort of marble-like rock composite because if you compare this rock's "shadows" with other rocks in the image, they don't seem to correspond with one another.



EDIT: to note that there are many more rocks in the image, but I didn't want to spend an hour highlighting these and polka-dot my image in the end.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by tyranny22]

Big Snake fossil at bottom,posterized to show snake holes where the bigger animals dwell at night cold shelters underground and also find the water.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


vze, the first time I saw a monkey on Mars was during the Pathfinder Sojourner mission. This was closer to being a chimp then anything, and what NASA does is put lifeforms in as shadows of rocks as you already know. You can actually see the face, hair and how thick of a coat is on the monkey from Mars.

Also I discovered the Cow Monkey it was lying on the surface and had the body of a small calf with an apes face. Standing next to the Cow Monkey was a Sandmarie, tiny hybrid humanoid.

vze, you and I know the truth about life on Mars it is not up to us to convince anyone but it is up to others to convince themselves if that ever takes place.

We are talking a different planet here with different mind sets and different an bizarre lifeforms. The lifeforms play by different rules depending on each situation on how much food and water is available. I will stick my neck out and say this is standard throughout the Milky Way the survival of the fittest.

Today on the news and net you can read about and actually see bizarre new lifeforms found in the deep cold waters off the coast of Antarctica. I do not think some humans on Earth have the problem of excepting bizarre lifeforms on Mars the only problem they have is actually seeing them. Rik Riley



[edit on 20-2-2008 by rikriley]

look dont you get it the goverment knows about alians but they dont tell us enything because its TOP SECRET i mean they have pictures of everything

I'm relatively new to this, but have been reading ATS for a while now and researching every angle possible and with more I discover the more I am becoming a sceptic, so I will ask you just what evidence or proof do you have that NASA know and have photographic evidence of "aliens" ?

Congratulations you found the side of a rock.

I think I found something in the same picture... If you look really closely to the left there appears to be some sand?



[edit on 20-2-2008 by porschedrifter]

reply to post by tyranny22

Although I do believe this is a solid image, this is not to say that it is a live creature. Indeed it could be all rocks, but in that case, it could be a petroglyph! The image just doesn't behave the way light and shadow should. For example, this is my take on the image(i275.photobucket.com...). Now comparei275.photobucket.com...). Its just too coincidental that so many humanoid traits could be present. We are not talking here about seeing faces or simple shapes in rock profiles. I'm seeing human anatomy face on. If this is all rocks, as it could be, then it may very well be a petroglyph!

Sorry, wrong picture. Here's another try(i275.photobucket.com...). Now compare to the previous picture.

When I describe to you what that Nasa Monkey thing is,since I looked at negative images closely,you might not have guessed it because yesterday it seems I was slightly off the mark..It's one of the right side legs of a giant caterpillar laying belly up,and just across the top of that small mound is the matching left leg turned at same 90 degree angle.There's the possibility that I'm wrong and the head is laying downhill instead of uphill,but probably either way it's within 20 feet of those 2 legs.I'll have to show the pics,but I just had to work today,so didn't get to it,saw it though pretty clearly. This is a negative image posterized to show details missed in ORANGE.The caves both mappen to be in the mouths of large REPTILE FOSSILS.That pair of legs stick out because the CATERPILLAR body rests on a Large reptile head,so theres a BUMP upwards,jutting them out of the ground level NOW.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I got you on this one.....


I found this to be strange as well....ran it through PS...and it definately leaves one guessing.





I basically highlighted the anomaly. Now while I am not stating that this is in fact, clear evidence of water on Mars... I will say that it really looks like it.


Now the other side of the coin is, that sand can in fact form shapes that closely resemble waves, especially from a distance.....







Read up on it!


So again, as with most photographs that really show no scale it is nearly impossible to tell for certain. Very curious though INDEED.

This is Bonneville from Spirit 3D images page marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... and I used the right side/your right hand side of the image rather than the Nasa Monkey side. There is a very fake looking Nasa cartoonish image in the bottom left hand corner of this negative of that 3D image....it was just too easy,which made me suspicicious,so I really doubt its authenticity,however the reast of it has many layers of faces. Just for the record I can pretty much tell that the larger boulder in center of the 3 frames of original appear to me to have neck bones that are symetrical,so that even if Nasa masked the body it makes me wonder about the wunderkinder who masked in 2004. Because images overlap many times due to overlayed interfering layers,you can see a large EYE on the right with a round pupil,and this isn't the best version,but it's an example of an EYE on Mars with and Oval rather than round slit,and brightnot a black marble like most. My guess is there's so much to know that these imperfect pics will just tempt me further along.

reply to post by 1nL1ghtened
Doc.I'm telling ya I see Nasa Monkeys playing around the heat shield. No ,Really !

reply to post by 1nL1ghtened

I basically agree with you. This image has been manipulated. Isn't it strange that the suspected water feature is so blurry compared to the rest of the image? As for the reflective anomaly, I suppose that NASA will say that it is SPACE JUNK. That's why I have ignored that and the other similar anomaly. We have been led to believe that there is no liquid water on Mars, and that the climate is so inhospitable to humans. Yet I see numerous evidence to the contrary from NASA's own pictures. One of my critics has pointed out that there is no oxygen on Mars. Yet we have been told that the redness of Mars comes from the oxidation of iron in the soil. This is why NASA continuously portray Mars through that rust-colored filter. But in order to have rust, there must be oxygen to cause the oxidation of the iron. So at least at one time (and I believe currently) there was oxygen there, and liquid water, which to me implies earthlike lifeforms at one time.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
I found some faces by the heat shield. The female face is a "sunflower dragon "female face with claws surrounding the circular cheeks like the numbers on a clock or petals on a sunflower (if I'm correct and she is one).They are tubular,and in her case I'd rough guess the size of a stack of standard paper plates 4-6 ft long.Some look very human facially.It took me a while to accept this fact.

reply to post by goosdawg

That was purely an artistic illustration,the last one.I was just showing the general structure of what a snakelike or caterpillar-like typical rovers visitor looks like internally,though those bones are way too rugged looking for Mars today. Like the dinosaurs here,Mars too had a dinosaur era.But now more animals seemed to have scaled down to live in a more sparse atmosphere and food supply.

reply to post by rikriley

That's funny you mention that because I saw a Discovery chan CHUPACABRA "documentary". I didn't see the end,but have seen net pics of tose dead chupacabras,like nasty weird dogs or coyotes.

reply to post by Ameneter
From my last night's work on that area I foung the 90 degree bend(very un rocklike,was stuck in the air like a claw,and a parallel one matching it was obstructed by the mound.The creature was in excess of 6 ft long easily,more like twice that laying belly up with most other legs buried,yet propped upward over the HOLE/cave that was a symetrical large animal mouth suitable for a cave.There's a snake fossil(Nasa could have planted) with a hole in the mouth almost too perfectly as an illustration of Large animal fossil cave mouths protecting smaller species. Your monkey solo pic has other animal faces around it if you will allow yourself to see 2 dar horizontal fuzzy focus dots as EYES that either Nasa masked out or they moved from frame to frame and blurred. The frames overlap so moving things get blurred,saving them tons of editing time. Find the dragon faces.