Mars Image with a Difference!

Meh -- It looks simply like a natural formation, such as this one on Earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e4f91ce5774.jpg[/atsimg]

and the many other faces that could be found in mountains and rocks and such here on Earth.

I suppose it could be something more, but why even assume it's something else when we know for a fact that it is very common to find faces in natural rock formations.

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
But the biggest anomaly in my opinion is the "glassy tubes".

I dare anyone to explain how these are determined to be naturally forming geological manifestations.

Please, explain...anyone....

If you mean these...:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b448b7acb04.jpg[/atsimg]

...then I would say they are most likely sand dunes that lie in narrow ravines or narrow valleys between mountains, such as this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b25efe00666.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 6/11/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by INJUNJAY


Thanks injunjay for your most gracious posting.

I called them alien just because they resembled something alien...whew!

How would I ever know for sure unless I lived there?

The trouble with typing instead of talking is that sometimes things get taken the wrong way!

I was staring at the image last night and got the idea to flip it vertical, I've gotten results doing this before with other images. It doesn't hurt to look now does it. People seem to get riled up very easy when it comes to image interpretation. I really don't understand whats causing it. Its only from asking questions that you can learn answers.

The chipmunk resemblance is uncanny. Pretty awesome stuff even if it is only rocks, but who knows for sure, nobody on this world anyway.

I do not come here to battle, I come to learn. ATS is a great site and some very fine people post very compelling things to examine. Its all a learning process and if someone makes a mistake should they be flamed so bad they can feel the heat. Not saying I made one in this case at all.
Just if someone made an oops. Patience and understanding can go a long way.

A star for the chipmunk poster, good find!

Mob

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Soylent I see this word "Meh". Could you explain what it means.

Is it a new young peoples' word?

Regards,

Mob

spelling mistake edit

[edit on 11/6/09 by marsorbust]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Meh -- It looks simply like a natural formation, such as this one on Earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e4f91ce5774.jpg[/atsimg]

and the many other faces that could be found in mountains and rocks and such here on Earth.

I suppose it could be something more, but why even assume it's something else when we know for a fact that it is very common to find faces in natural rock formations.

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
But the biggest anomaly in my opinion is the "glassy tubes".

I dare anyone to explain how these are determined to be naturally forming geological manifestations.

Please, explain...anyone....

If you mean these...:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b448b7acb04.jpg[/atsimg]

...then I would say they are most likely sand dunes that lie in narrow ravines or narrow valleys between mountains, such as this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b25efe00666.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 6/11/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Would that attempt to explain the translucence and noticable ribbing as the "dunes" as you put it can be seen wrapping around and below them.
I call the "dunes", "tunnels".

Watch the video at 3:45 minutes.

These are not "Dunes"

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Fascinating video.

There are many strange things about Mars and not the least of them is the tube structures.

You could be very right in thinking they are tunnels.

I lean towards Mars having had past civilization.

It sure would be interesting to know the truth someday.

Regards,

Mob

Originally posted by zorgon
Aliens? Paredolia? Figments of the Imagination? Elementals?

Some would claim such...

But if it was simply Paredolia then why does the camera see it as well? And why do others see the same thing?

If you ask nicely... and wish for them to appear... they will come. They appear to many, though those that see 'only rocks' will never have the joy. More is the pity
[..]
I have also captured many other elemental, of the forest, in the rocks and even in fire... U2U me and I will send a link. They would be wasted on the skeptics

Besides this is not the right thread

[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
reply to post by nicholaswa

 

Yes, it could be a rock. I find it strange how many "rocks" look like life forms or man made art.

But the biggest anomaly in my opinion is the "glassy tubes".

I dare anyone to explain how these are determined to be naturally forming geological manifestations.

Please, explain...anyone....

I'd gladly give a shot at explaining! However, first I'd like to make a note of how you are emotionally attached to recognizing 'special' things ("though those that see 'only rocks' will never have the joy. More is the pity"); I understand there is a lot of joy to be had. Like anything with an emotional reward, if I were to try to say that some of this joy has no ground, it will be seen as an attack instead of an explanation.
Furthermore, I've already indirectly pointed out that I'm not one of the people that experience joy by these images (although some definitely spark my interest) - so as soon as my explanation is seen as an attack, I'll probably be accused of simply not being able to appreciate the details ("They would be wasted on the skeptics

").
I wanted to point those two things out, because I've seen quite some emotions fly around in this thread (although I've seen much worse) and I don't think those are necessary. An explanation can be analyzed objectively.

First a little babble about odds: of course, if this is a rock, it is an anomaly of 1 in 100000000000. Rocks always look different, and you can only have so many different rocks before something is depicted, in a way. The chance of an upside-down alien may be astronomically small, but the amount of pictures/rocks Mob has scanned for these kind of anomalies must be astronomically large ;].

On to the case! We know from our forum-experience that a lot of images can divide us into two quite different 'groups' - those that believe something out of the ordinary is captured, and those that believe it is only our interpretation of the stimuli (graphical features in this case) that is out of the ordinary.
Who is on what side differs per image - but all too often the groups like to generalize the other group (implying the other to be either a 'skeptic' or 'fantast'). The interaction between those groups causes a lot of socio-emotional turbulence, while the image remains its innocent self.
Why are those groups so quickly defined? This brings us back to the question:
"But if it was simply Paredolia then why does the camera see it as well? And why do others see the same thing?"

Pareidolia does not relate to the stimulus (the image itself); it's the interpretation of the stimulus, the making sense of what you see, that tells us what the image is about - and it is in this process that pareidolia can occur.
Until an image is interpreted, it is nothing. Consider a drawing of a 2 year old - you need to hear what it is before you can say "nice horsey!". Maybe you can even see how the horse is depicted. But is the image itself really a depiction of a horse? It may look more like a complicated mathematical function than a horse. Does this mean you're not going to put it on the fridge and show it to the rest of the family as a horse? Of course it doesn't - our appreciation of the image depends on the intent instead of the content.
An image like this is being appreciated for its content and implications rather than intent. Imagine the implications of having a photo of an alien on Mars! Instead of a fridge, we stick it on a forum, on which we share the interpretation. Apart from the division of people who see nothing at all and those that do, there is a division within those that do: those that believe that the recognised stimuli (grey) is actually there, and those that do not. Both of those groups have the pattern recognition going for them, making the unconscious telling the conscious there is a face, a body, a limb, a cube, etc. We don't see an image for what it is - what we see is no more and no less than what our brain puts together. Those that put the same things together and believe it is more than just our interpretation are bound to share their enthusiasm, agreeing with each other that "there's something out there". Whether that means this group is right and the other two are wrong does not depend on how many people are in the group; conversely, how many people are in this group does not depend on whether they are right or not. It depends more strongly on how devoted the individual is to believing what he sees is really there.

I hope that answers the question how it could be just pareidolia. I have left some gaps in the explanation because I kept writing incredibly lengthy posts .. If Mob's ok with it, I'd gladly fill in those gaps when there is a need to.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by scraze]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I suppose it could be something more, but why even assume it's something else when we know for a fact that it is very common to find faces in natural rock formations.

Well if its very common... maybe it IS something else. It MAY be just a quirk of nature, but I would believe that more if it wasn't so common.

Because it is so common, and because of the extraordinary detail in these things, I feel it worthy to think about it.

Our ancestors believed in these spirits, but we are so much more advanced now and thus KNOW or ASSUME 'its just rocks'

Okay if it is just rocks, then no harm done nothing changes and we see some pretty pictures of unusual rocks.

But I for one have talked to natives and shaman and I believe there is more to it.

If you believe in God... would it be hard to accept that God likes doodling with nature to mess with us?

The thing about the one in Alberta from your post is that it looks like a native, and is locates at Medicine Hat, a native spiritual center (hence the name Medicine Hat)

The Ipod is a fluke but the facial characteristics are very accurate, like the other face on Mars... almost like a photograph...




If its 'nothing but rocks' then its a dead end... no more discussion, no more interesting threads, nothing and we all just go away... And what woukd the skeptics that see 'nothing but rocks' do then? Yet in every thread of this type, guaranteed like flies to s... errr honey, they all come in to state "nothing to see, only rocks'

Just a Rock... nothing to see here...
Entry to native lands Uyak Inlet, Kodiak Island, Alaska



Just a Rock... nothing to see here...
"The Great Stone Face," or "Stoneface" is located in Pennington Gap, Virginia. It is said to mark the entrance to Cherokee holy ground.



Just a Rock... nothing to see here...
And here is one in the underworld
Onyx Cave
Eureka Springs, AR



Now if you see only rocks, thanks for the evaluation, nothing to see move along now we got your opinion... Anything to elaborate on? No of course not its just a rock after all

Me I would rather speculate on what or who makes this happen...

and its good for business around here... ATS is not selling rocks



[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]

I can't see nothing that resembles an alien in the OP's pics, OP I think you're totally grasping at straws with this sorry.

Originally posted by marsorbust
How would I ever know for sure unless I lived there?

Well that is easy to answer... the images are on Mars...even a rock on Mars is beyond a doubt an ALIEN rock, so where is the problem everyone is having with semantics?

Now the really fun thing is that when we land on Mars are also ALIEN... WE would be the Aliens

Its all a matter of perspective

So a picture of a rock face on Mars would indeed be..

Alien face on Mars

Silly Lemmings... no critical thinking here

Originally posted by Picollo30
i see the picture outlined in red but i dont the aliens / sand maries. oh well maybe i need glasses

Maybe but then it was highlighted so that even Mr Magoo could see it

Originally posted by cripmeister
I can't see nothing that resembles an alien in the OP's pics, OP I think you're totally grasping at straws with this sorry.

Third straw post. How hard is it to see this? Plain as the nose on your face. The interpretation may vary, but surely you can see this?

Originally posted by rightuos
Super Mom & Bandit Baby?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37fd24d72310.jpg[/atsimg]

BTW rightuos... better than mine

reply to post by scraze


By all means, please do fill in the gaps, I'm here to learn.

Mob

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks for your thoughts Zorgan, fantastic images as well as your explanations.

I want to know more of these elementals you speak of, are these the "old ones" the natives spoke of?

I just gotta get me a ticket to AR

Mob

Originally posted by scraze
I'd gladly give a shot at explaining! However, first I'd like to make a note of how you are emotionally attached to recognizing 'special' things ("though those that see 'only rocks' will never have the joy. More is the pity"); I understand there is a lot of joy to be had. Like anything with an emotional reward, if I were to try to say that some of this joy has no ground, it will be seen as an attack instead of an explanation.

Well you won't get attacked by me... but maybe you should add to the equation that those that have a different approach to perception may not be wrong, and it MAY be the very thing that makes the difference in what we DO perceive

Furthermore, I've already indirectly pointed out that I'm not one of the people that experience joy by these images [pity

] (although some definitely spark my interest)

Really? which ones... or what's your 'best case' one? And what sparks your interest and why...

so as soon as my explanation is seen as an attack, I'll probably be accused of simply not being able to appreciate the details ("They would be wasted on the skeptics

").

Don't be so hard on yourself... who is attacking you? That is like saying "I don't want to go to the party because I won't have any fun"

I wanted to point those two things out, because I've seen quite some emotions fly around in this thread (although I've seen much worse) and I don't think those are necessary. An explanation can be analyzed objectively.

Point noted Spock but not all of us here at ATS are Vulcans or androids. If you cannot show passion in your beliefs what is the point?

First a little babble about odds: of course, if this is a rock, it is an anomaly of 1 in 100000000000. Rocks always look different, and you can only have so many different rocks before something is depicted, in a way. The chance of an upside-down alien may be astronomically small, but the amount of pictures/rocks Mob has scanned for these kind of anomalies must be astronomically large ;].

Best version I have ever heard to say 'its only rocks'

On to the case! We know from our forum-experience that a lot of images can divide us into two quite different 'groups' - those that believe something out of the ordinary is captured, and those that believe it is only our interpretation of the stimuli (graphical features in this case) that is out of the ordinary.
Who is on what side differs per image - but all too often the groups like to generalize the other group (implying the other to be either a 'skeptic' or 'fantast'). The interaction between those groups causes a lot of socio-emotional turbulence, while the image remains its innocent self.

Human nature. you find it in forums, you find it in the real world. Here with rock images it is tame, go visit the religious or political threads. As long as there are two humans together, you will have two sides of a fence.

So what is your solution to this common situation? Should we all be lifeless in our debates and beliefs?

Why are those groups so quickly defined?

Simple answer... because we all come to ATS with our beliefs and ideas already formed. We come here to present our ideas and seek like minded people who think like we do, and that applies to both side. And though we rarely admit it we like the debate with the opposite side...

Only a few here really have expectations of changing any ones mind, but we still try

Until an image is interpreted, it is nothing. Consider a drawing of a 2 year old - you need to hear what it is before you can say "nice horsey!". Maybe you can even see how the horse is depicted. But is the image itself really a depiction of a horse? It may look more like a complicated mathematical function than a horse. Does this mean you're not going to put it on the fridge and show it to the rest of the family as a horse?

Well any kid that has ever drawn an image and says its a horse, I have had no trouble seeing the horse, and have called it first. In fact I searched some images. just now...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a07686aa29e.jpg[/atsimg]

Now I sped through images to get this. I did not need the artists description "Trojan Horse" by Cheri Nelson to tell me that this is a styalised HORSEY

Of course it doesn't - our appreciation of the image depends on the intent instead of the content.

To you perhaps, but not everyone thinks the same way. Picasso saw some strange things as well and so did Dali

Whether that means this group is right and the other two are wrong does not depend on how many people are in the group; conversely, how many people are in this group does not depend on whether they are right or not. It depends more strongly on how devoted the individual is to believing what he sees is really there.

Well that is certainly true, especially since a strong belief is required to manifest something ;P

'Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one" Albert Einstein. Now throw Quantum Entanglement into the picture where mainstream science is slowly discovering what the mystics practiced centuries ago, that our universe at a quantum level is effected by the observer... and you arrive where I am sitting

You may be strongly in support of your paredolia belief, I lean strongly towards the human mind having the latent ability currently lost to us to manipulate out environment. Kids someties show this ability, until it is brow beat out of them... what a pity that is. Maybe we need another 2000 years to get with the program

I hope that answers the question how it could be just pareidolia.

Yes it does..as you say... explain how it COULD be paredolia

But it MIGHT be something else. I am here at ATS to seek the alternate possibilities



[edit on 11-6-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

Great pic.
Sorry for the late input but i see above the " thing" what looks to be a slite graded road leading as it turns into the hill side. Below the "thing" i see what looks to be a opening in the side of the hill with a rectangle shape just above the openning.
Maybe the "thing" in the hill is a visual marker for bouth the entrance and exsit in the side of the hill.

Kitos

reply to post by marsorbust


I've probably left out more than I can remember but I guess the most important gaps are in the description of social processes; how people share beliefs and are influenced by them. There are a lot of strange 'by-products' in the realm of mental mechanisms, like confirmation bias and attitude polarisation. Those can influence both the unconscious and conscious processing/interpretation of an image.
For example: someone who never saw an image (nor movie) of a grey will not spot a grey in the OP's image, although they might see the face. It just doesn't register as a grey - maybe just a deformed head. If we compare this interpretation process to that of someone who actively searches for evidence to the existence of aliens, it's obvious how someone's personal experiences and/or belief influences the interpretation of possibly ambiguous stimuli. The experiences themselves may be completely justified; but we can't say whether it should exert influence over our interpretation of the subject at hand. When our perceptions are partially shaped (influenced) by our belief, it's called confirmation bias. As you most probably understand, this can result in a spiral - what we believe influences our perceptions to the point that it confirms and strengthens our belief.
While those effects affect individuals, there are also a lot of social-dynamic effects. For instance, when you label yourself belonging to one or the other group and assign those labels to others as well, you create an in-group and out-group mentality; those that agree with you and vice-versa are in-group, etc. - thus creating an in-group bias. This in itself has a lot of effects, I'll describe one: let's say a friend tells you all Corinthians lie, while you have never met them. If you believe him and subsequently meet a Corinthian who tells you "I don't lie! Trust me!", your friend might convince you that this is exactly what he means - "See how devious they are, luring you into trusting them!". Actually this is a rather bad example, but the point is that if you have an attitude (opinion) towards Corinthians, it gets reinforced - while if you don't have an attitude, nothing happens. This is known as attitude polarisation.
Of course in reality things are never as absolute as this, but these effects do exist, and it works a little bit in and between all of us. Naturally we are way too objective to be hindered by such flaws ;].
I'm not sure this is what you wanted to hear - but it was one of the big gaps I left :]

reply to post by zorgon


I guess we agree then, if my post adequately explains how it could be just pareidolia, that's great :] and indeed I don't mean to say that it is. I only wanted to show how&why it's possible. Btw, I guess the part about the horse wasn't written too well, but this is the kind of drawing I mean (and I don't mean to imply anything about the OP's image with it! )


Thanks both for all the kindness, I have been a bit too defensive I guess/I hope. And for what it's worth, I do like most of the images - even though I do believe they are just incredible anomalies .. that's good enough for me. Amazing nonetheless!

reply to post by scraze


Thanks Scraze that was a very good explanation. I still have some misgivings, but none the less I find your explanation to be quite good.

My problem with it is its too all encompassing, there is no middle of the road. I used to do lots of microscope work and examine creatures which I had never dreamed of along with other things on the slides which could be found in marshy water, etc. If I take the plunge that the things on the slide might just be non real faces, then I'm in real trouble trying to do any science such as looking for creatures which were not catalogued and unknown to me. If it applies to the macro world hence it should apply to the micro world as well. Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards

Mob

reply to post by imd12c4funn



I can see a rodent, but at first I saw a head similar to the head in the OP's post. It has the same jutting cheekbones and brow and also that ridge thing on it's head. They make me think of The Creature From the Black Lagoon.

reply to post by scraze


The artifacts may be just rocks, but those tubes are either the results of technology of sources known or unkown, or some natural coincidence, but cpme on.

Rationalising any notion other than a constucted device of an intelligent being of some sort seems more illogical than aknowledging the existence of evidence of extraterrestrial life.

This glassy tube isn't O.J.'s glove. It is compelling, seemingly not naturally forming evidence.

reply to post by scraze


That technical jargun just adds layers of confusion beyond visual perception that we all have. \\

As optical illusions may result in difference of interpretation, etc...,

the crappy resolution imagery released, for the most part, seems illogical, unless there is imagery to hide. Hmmm??

In fact, the smudging and airbrushing certain areas of some images prior to public release is another smoking gun that is evidence of secrecy and nondisclosure.

What other reason would altering imagery, it's color and resolution and other manipulation of original parameters?

A reason given that would have me concur is highly unlikely.

The face is the most wide spread figure seen through out the earth and moon and Mars. The face is popular for obvious reasons. Indentity. In these present days, they are seen by the vast majority on this site and others as just natural formations that can be picked out of clouds. This stance is quite simply because of a lack of trust of what your own eyes are showing you or just a complete lack of shape recognition. In the days after disclosure on the other hand, people like the vast mojority will then have to eat humble pie. People like this will only believe what comes from the main stream. Yes thats right, the main stream. These same people today say they dislike the mainstream and that they don't trust them. But when it comes down to it. They are no different from the average sheeple. If you can see these images for what they are and are not afraid to trust your eyes. You ARE truely a free thinker.
Through history,If we all trusted the tripe we were all fed from main stream philosophy, we would all still believe the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe. It is the free thinkers who have unbreakable independant thought, who challenged the stupid thinking of the time to make us aware of true reality. This subject of ancient sculptures upon the surface of the earth, moon and mars are a reflection of the Transition of flat earth to spherical earth. Its all crazy today, but tomorrow will be the norm.
Food for thought.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Exoviewer]