Egyptian statue on mars?

reply to post by acurioushuman


Once again the nasa announcement was a dissapointment because, again the people here are quick to say "oop they are going to announce that aliens have been found and were controlling us mentally for years" lol. It's like every little event or picture that is shown here is made into some fantasy-like alien-connected thing. i bet if i were to post an extreme close-up of my butt cheek and say it's from planet "abc123" i could probably guarantee that a lot of people here will manage to "find alien statues on it or a secret base or a "mysterious tunnel" lololol.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
That's the strangest rock I've ever seen.

To me it looks like something embedded or encrusted in rock. I have many samples of things that look like bits of metal or ancient machinery, broken and half encrusted with rock... This is one of the better ones

And it seems NASA was interested in this one too as the rover drove right up to it

[edit on 20-5-2008 by zorgon]

I believe those little round rocks on the surface are little balls of iron. The rock in question, you can see where the conglomerats have been exposed by aeolian erosion processes. The rover drove up here not to look for simulacra in rocks, but more than likely to look at the exposed striations, and the fractures in the exposed face.
You people still amaze me.

[
All this time the skeptics have said all they see is 'blurry rocks' and they cannot make out anything...

Then when we show super resolution that even the skeptics can see (but not accept) the Egyptian statue... they say the High res images are not valid...

And you, my dear, haven't so far said anything AT ALL on the subject of mimetoliths -- even though, I am sure you'll agree, it's a perfectly valid and relevant set of facts to consider in this case...

Originally posted by cruzion
I believe those little round rocks on the surface are little balls of iron.

Well it takes more that 'belief' to make such a bold statement

balls of iron indeed... you 'rock nuts' crack me up can you offer any proof that they are 'balls of iron'?

You people still amaze me.

Thank you we try our best...

Mike Singh's SNAIL (more 'balls of iron' no doubt )

Originally posted by Vanitas
And you, my dear, haven't so far said anything AT ALL on the subject of mimetoliths -- even though, I am sure you'll agree, it's a perfectly valid and relevant set of facts to consider in this case...

Sorry I do not agree Having cut many picture agates in my life to get the best scenic view out of them I know what you are saying. And just like the 'natural rock faces' it does not mean that there is 'nothing to see' in the Martian or Lunar images...




Sold! Cornflake goes for $1350 - CNN.com

Happy now?

Originally posted by wang_ke_~
Wow!

Awesome photograph Zorgon! It gave me goosebumps when I saw it -- and shivers too because it's so mind-boggling that our media only chooses to report on the mundane and not the extraordinary in terms of their selection of photo's from Mars that they choose to focus on as opposed to "the good one's".

It goes without saying that the media is engaged in an active disinformation campaign via omission of those extraordinary photo's of Mars but the avg. person out there is oblivious to this fact and do not have a clue, what-so-ever, on what they are missing out on!

What's mind-boggling is that people will take a simulacra such as this, and use as a verification of whatever tenuous conspiracy theory you ascribe too.
It's just a shape in the rock, that at that angle, looks like the upper torso an Egyptian statue! Well woop de friggin doo. I will agree that the likeness is pretty amusing, but that's about it. It's hardly proof of an alien civilisation on Mars. What it is proof of, is that there are some people with far too much free time on their hands. Combine that with an almost scary level of "I want to believe" syndrome, and we have one of the basis for why the general public laughs at the stereotypical conspiracy theorist. Seriously, I mean, I hate to take a dump on the table at your celebration dinner, but stuff like this does way more harm than you realize. Some of you people are so removed and closeted in your basements, and surrounded by side-reality, it's embarassing.
Even worse is that some of you wonder why you're not taken seriously, and why it's not in mainstream news. This I can get a handle on. I mean, mainstream media prints articles about Jesus' face in a slice of banana, or a dried grape that kind of looks like Bill O'Reilly or something, so why not a rock that looks like something too? On that level I can understand it. But how you can say "Why don't they show the proof that this is alien civilisation and the whole world is one big conspiracy and they're all interlinked, yada yada". They don't show it because it is not particularly newsworthy. Not because they are part of some vast Illuminati conspiracy to thwart peoples amazing investigations into photos of rocks that look like stuff... It's as simple as that.
What it did confirm for me, is that there are indeed aliens* on this planet.

*an alien being someone who is either extremely gullible, has no common sense, is deliberately misleading, or will just make up stuff for the sake of attention, or a combination of all four.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by cruzion
I believe those little round rocks on the surface are little balls of iron.

Well it takes more that 'belief' to make such a bold statement

balls of iron indeed... you 'rock nuts' crack me up

can you offer any proof that they are 'balls of iron'?

You people still amaze me.

Thank you we try our best...

Mike Singh's SNAIL (more 'balls of iron' no doubt

)

OK, they might not be iron, but they are balls of minerals.
www.nasa.gov...
They are obviously a mineral that is a lot harder than it's surroundings. Hence they are not moved or erroded by the aeolian system, and we can see them protruding from eroded rocks. I presume they are either a result of the volcanism, or as it says in that article, the result of a concretion process. We have the same processes here on Earth.
The pic with the shadow, is one of these 'balls' that's been exposed. It has an extrusion that is still attached to the rock it has been exposed from. Unusual and interesting, yes, but alien life?

Originally posted by cruzion
OK, they might not be iron, but they are balls of minerals.

Actually the "Blue Berries" as NASA dubbed them are Hematite spheres that formed in the sedimentary rock that they are eroding out of. I see you are new here, but this has been covered extensively here in the Mars science thread (anyone know where "Bluebird" went to )

Blue Berrys

Blueberries and Earth Equivalents

However the EGYPTIAN STATUE in this thread is not a "ball of iron" or a "Blueberry"

And yes I DO know Hematite is an ore of iron

[edit on 21-5-2008 by zorgon]

Studying the original photograph, it appears to be heavily edited (edge artifacts, smudges, and fill in's), but they must of missed the carving.

And just like the 'natural rock faces' it does not mean that there is 'nothing to see' in the Martian or Lunar images...
:

And I agree with that.

It's just that I think that people should be much, MUCH more aware of the wonders that nature can do. (Think of fractals!)
It doesn't make the universe - or history, for that matter, both hidden and recorded - any less fascinating OR mysterious.







[edit on 21-5-2008 by Vanitas]

Decided to examine the image a bit.

I've brightened the area around the "statue" and tried to make the image a bit sharper:


Here, the image is flipped. Sometimes one can find new things, or see things differently, when an image is mirrored:


The head curves inward and ends at the base of the "neck":


Looks definitely like a head of a statue to me, although heavily eroded and weathered.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by TurnPike]

Originally posted by Smokersroom

Originally posted by Tybrus
I understand that some people want to see things everywhere but I am afraid you are reaching too far.

Yep. Given the scale of the 'Statue' I don't think this is an artificial sculpture. Its tiny, its on a cliff face and very innaccessible.

Its just not the modus operandi of the Egyptians or Syrians or whatever. They built BIG, grand edifices. Not wee statues on a crumbly old cliff face.

I should take a photo of cliffs around Britain and see how many faces and statues I can see in those too...

Sigh.

Edited to add - There are numerous very ropey editing artefacts on this image; I'll give you that!

[edit on 17/5/08 by Smokersroom]

I agree with what you said about the modus operandi of these civilizations, but i must add that who knows what that surface looked like a few billion years ago? Maybe it was flat and similar to what we see in egypt today? It looks so obviously carved into that cliff side, i mean just look at the depth that leads into the actual "statue", given that this statue appears to be severely weathered and worn down, i still make it out to be something somewhat familiar, i post this image

1.) The head of the actual statue is very rounded....there is not other object in this image that is that round, most have jagged edges, this one obviously looks carved.

2.) What seems to be a very prominant chin decoration

3.) A very straight and vertical chest leading up to the head

4.) What looks to me like the feet of a sphinx


Just my 2 cents

Originally posted by zorgon
Then when we show super resolution that even the skeptics can see (but not accept) the Egyptian statue... they say the High res images are not valid...

Super-resolution images are not real images, they are created by an algorithm that uses many images and creates a bigger image.

When there is a difference between the original images it tries to create new pixels with values based on those of the original images.

If one of the images has a different pixel because of some fault then that fault will be merged with the original image, creating an artifact.

This was my interpretation of what we see on the super-resolution image (those small, blurred squares), and after using PhotoAcute to try to see the results I noticed that it also creates some artifacts.



The program used by NASA may work in a different way.

But having said that, I can not see any faulty pixel in any of the 16 images, so I don't know why those areas in particular have those artifacts.

And I do like real high-definition images, unfortunately, 1024x1024 is not high resolution.

dude it does look like its egyption there looks like theres a part of a pyramid cut into th mountain (the slant) it looks like at the top of the thing theres a chopped off leg like knee down

As much as I would love to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a statue carved into rock by an ancient Mars Civilization.

I find it even harder to fathom that a near perfect rock carving would survive after the massive impact that formed the crater. And even if somebody "created" this after the impact, why wouldn't it be more detailed or even essentially the only indication on the cliff? Also, i'm not talking about all the other anomalies people are pointing to that are from 16 pictures being merged into 1.

Is anybody looking at these pictures a geologist by chance or experienced in some other related field?

To me this seems more like a section of rock that has smoothed by either a liquid given the almost river/channel like area above to the left of the figure or some sort of other natural weathering causing erosion.







[edit on 21-5-2008 by zarlaan]

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for posting that. I tried 3 times to respond to his post about the super-resolution algorithm but my IE kept crashing lastnight. I gave up eventually.

From what I've been reading it seems that these artifacts are usually rectangular like a block. Nasa has a few ways that the algorithm is applied, but from what I've read it basically involves layering the different colors over one another either automatically or manually using photoshop (though both methods use the same means to reach the final end result).

This is a great PDF that NASA has which explains this better and how the algorithm was applied to imaging from the pathfinder mission.. as well as some of the criteria which can result in these artifacts.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

This is simply a wikipedia link to a brief definition of what super-resolution is.
en.wikipedia.org...

-ChriS

[edit on 21-5-2008 by BlasteR]

I know I'm new here but..

I ran a filter on Photoshop to get a new angle at things:



If you look at the red circles, they look similar to the rest of the indents on the surface.

To me the blue circle looks like an indent due to the shadow.

The green triangle looks like the same plane.

The orange lines denote the shadow, which would be the edge of the "cliff"



[edit on 22-5-2008 by drexhex]

Originally posted by BlasteR
I don't think anyone else has pointed this out yet.

Doesn't it look like something is under there? It is a completely different color than the surrounding rock. It just looks like something that was placed there.

-ChriS

[edit on 19-5-2008 by BlasteR]

What do you guys think of this object I pointed out earlier? Doesn't it seem odd and out of place?

-ChriS

[edit on 23-5-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Looks like a rock lying on a ledge, I can't make anything more of it.

It is rather shapeless to represent anything. The light colour might be caused by material and/or sunlight

Originally posted by ArMaPSuper-resolution images are not real images,

Well you have not yet explained to me the key issue...

IF these super res images are being 'created' by NASA to better enhance an area, WHY would they create these if it was NOT a valid way of seeing more detail?

And I do like real high-definition images,

So do I but every time I find some it seems they 'vanish'.