Something is definitely up. They DID take down those Mars Curiosity thumbnails. Proof:

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
It is all fake people. NASA is truly an ugly joke, and have succeeded in
sucking you all in, again. You think we would have learned by now.
As long as we keep believing, they will keep inventing fantasy missions
and scamming billions.

www.cluesforum.info...

They (NASA) purposesly court controversies (such as that contained within the OP),
which strongly indicate that some class of information uncovered from the
mission is being deliberately concealed.
This is done to indirectly validate the genuity of the endeavour, to excite blind
imaginations and to divert attentions and efforts away from the realisation and
exposure of the absolute fakery of it all.

And We Here are supposed to be the Awake Ones.

Jesus Wept!

Where are the pictures from then? until an Earthly location is proven, your assertion has no substance, and has to mean there are no deep space pictures of Earth, no close-ups of the Moon, and sod all else, pull the other leg, it's got bells on it.

I have no clue as to what's going on here..... But I like it



I should point out though that rocks that look like rocks far outnumber rocks that look like other ****,
like fingers


On a lighter note though, looks like curiosity traveled all the way to Mars to be fingered

I am amazed at all the small rocks and dust on the ground, s depicted in the first photo . It took a lot of weather over aeons to pulverize the basic rock into this.

What is the focus of the curiousity curiousity? Are we supposed to see faces?

I do. At the top left you can see the arrowhead shaped rock. Along its top line I can clearly see a rounded head with hollow eye sockets, like an alien. To the right of that is a green rock with eyes an a nose. Looking straight to the left from the "arrowhead" rock near the edge another rock with a face.

The second tread from the top of the photo, as refenence, look left and up about three rocks away and another greenish conehead rock with eyes and a nose can be seen.

These are all coincidences from the rock shapes and shadow falls and nothing showing past civilization or current aliens peering back at the camera. Like cloud watching for faces and shapes. The ragged clouds appear like familiar forms all the time.

But it was fun to a do a Where's Waldo type examination of this high resolution Mars photo. The high resolution is amazing. The detail of the crushed rock and dust is certainly similar to the aged residue on our planet.

Originally posted by swaps
I am amazed at all the small rocks and dust on the ground, s depicted in the first photo . It took a lot of weather over aeons to pulverize the basic rock into this.

What is the focus of the curiousity curiousity? Are we supposed to see faces?

current aliens peering back at the camera. Like cloud watching for faces and shapes. The ragged clouds appear like familiar forms all the time.

But it was fun to a do a Where's Waldo type examination of this high resolution Mars photo. The high resolution is amazing. The detail of the crushed rock and dust is certainly similar to the aged residue on our planet.

I was going to reply to the poster talking about the finger in the same vein. No need now you can certainly see tiny faces all over that picture, more so than the original face on Mars, quite amazing really. I do also see some stones that are pebble like, smooth and rounded, water erosion mainly? or just from sand and dust, that is certainly part of NASA's focus, one spokesman said so in regard to water erosion with groups of rounded pebbles gathered together, or streamed together, although he didn't mention an alternative, should there be one.

Originally posted by impaired
I put this in the Gray Area. Let's see if this makes it out.

So I was explaining in my last thread that I was being censored, yada yada yada.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I claimed that as I was downloading the images to the panorama I ended up making, the missing data (white spots of my image) were there in high resolution and then taken down right before my very eyes and put back into low resolution thumbnails. A claim that couldn't be proven.

Until now.

Well, I went to Wikipedia to check some things out:

en.wikipedia.org...



Notice the image right there:



(I downloaded it from Wikipedia in the 1200x1200 high resolution image and re-uploaded it here just in case)

Now go here to the NASA site and look for the file:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

If by the time you go there and the 1200x1200 just happened to "magically" appear, I even took a screen shot of it a few minutes ago

And the proof:



(Notice the time and date on my computer - scroll and look down to the right).

So Wikipedia has the full resolution image of that thumbnail, but when you try to click the direct link, the thumbnail comes up:



Knew I wasn't crazy.

And to those who are saying "I didn't think you were". Thanks. I do appreciate that, but I was saying that to myself for the most part. I. KNOW. WHAT. I. SAW.

edit on 8/15/2012 by impaired because: Added Wiki image

edit on 8/15/2012 by impaired because: This time to clarify the issue of the thumbnails.

Hi havnt posted on here for a while and havnt had many posts i am new to this although always reading the threads.. BUT i was thinking mars had an iron oxide surface giving it its red appearence.. So then i thought the rocks looked like limestone which is made from dead marine life etc... or sandstone, which might be pointing to mars having petroleum reserviors ... thats all i see on the pic, maybe a fossilised shell but the 'FINGER' may just be coincidence

Originally posted by johnosal
In all seriousness, I really think that something fishy is going on with the censorship the images. Maybe they looked a little "too much like earth." Personally, its my opinion that we did not land on mars, yet. Probably just a studio somewhere in the middle of the desert. We will never really know.

Agreed. See link in my previous post to discover what we do know.
CGI/movie effects cut mustard these days, no?

sorry if someone has already mentioned this, i only got upto page 4 and thought about the surface so had to comment before i forgot

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
It is all fake people. NASA is truly an ugly joke, and have succeeded in
sucking you all in, again. You think we would have learned by now.
As long as we keep believing, they will keep inventing fantasy missions
and scamming billions.

www.cluesforum.info...

They (NASA) purposesly court controversies (such as that contained within the OP),
which strongly indicate that some class of information uncovered from the
mission is being deliberately concealed.
This is done to indirectly validate the genuity of the endeavour, to excite blind
imaginations and to divert attentions and efforts away from the realisation and
exposure of the absolute fakery of it all.

And We Here are supposed to be the Awake Ones.

Jesus Wept!

Where are the pictures from then? until an Earthly location is proven, your assertion has no substance, and has to mean there are no deep space pictures of Earth, no close-ups of the Moon, and sod all else, pull the other leg, it's got bells on it.

Challange yourself and delve into possible ways this could have been faked.
If you get stuck, bear in mind that it sometimes takes a thief to catch a thief.
And NASA is one helluva thief.

It is not a finger.
It is a Penis (as seen from the under-side).



I am telling you that this is all a big joke! (on us!).

Hi Impaired,

Thanks for the OP but without sounding critical, I really don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

Perhaps my lack of technical know-how is to blame.

Could you please explain to me in simple language (or perhaps another user can?) what the point of this thread is?

Is there something wrong with the images? Is the Wikipedia image more detailed than the official image from the direct link?

Hope I don't sound flippant, but I really don't understand this thread.


I must admit, when I saw the Wikipedia image, my first reaction was "that's Earth, not Mars".

Originally posted by OutonaLimb


It is not a finger.
It is a Penis (as seen from the under-side).

I am telling you that this is all a big joke! (on us!).

edit on 16-8-2012 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)

i have never seen one from the under side (and hopefully never will) so i am gonna go with finger

reply to post by 2012king



haha since i am new to this could you please tell me how to post a picture? was wondering if one of the mars pictures have been posted with what looks to be a blurred pyramid in the background! also, i keep looking for mars images and quite a few have blackouts through them, wonder what they hiding from us!

Originally posted by 2012king

Originally posted by OutonaLimb


It is not a finger.
It is a Penis (as seen from the under-side).

I am telling you that this is all a big joke! (on us!).

edit on 16-8-2012 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)

i have never seen one from the under side (and hopefully never will) so i am gonna go with finger

Yes I agree, finger.

However, would there be fingers on Mars? Would there be dismembered fingers in a desert on Earth?

Why is this here, in the image?

The image links work again. As expected.

Maybe they have a server that will only accept a certain resolution compression for the web site. If everyone all over the world uploaded high-res photos to NASA's servers, they would run out of useful space pretty quick. Maybe it automatically downgrades the resolution for server space reasons. Certainly they are not trying to hide a track and some dirt and rocks...hardly a conspiracy there, except for those who don't believe that dirt exists,...only the "water people" would fall into that category. Just a thought.

A few things:

1. Firstly, the image does look very Earth-like. However, that does not necessarily mean that we are not looking at Mars here. If Mars was once covered with water, then we would expect sandstone (and, possibly, limestone, if marine life evolved) and other sedimentary rock to be present

2. Just a new thought: has anyone considered that the finger/penis could actually be a shell? If you look at the way it widens at the top, it does look similar to some of the sea-shells we have here on Earth.

Any thoughts?





The penis/finger also seems to have a striated/rippled appearance, as one would expect on a sea-shell.

reply to post by chemistry


It's not a finger penis in the desert of mars!!! Damn, no wonder everyone thinks we are conspiracy nuts. ( a finger penis in the desert...."we don't have those in earth deserts" he says...sheesh! ) It is just a curiously shaped rock and your filthy eyes decided to see a penis because you may secretly be in love with your mother....hey MOD, it's from Sigmund Freud...not me, he channeled through me to say that....I tried to stop him but he was stronger than I.

reply to post by theclutch


could easily be mechanical erosion from wind, grains of sand blown over the rock surface over time have a similar smoothing effect to water

One more thing I've just noticed: the 'finger' seems to be pointing to a star-shaped rock. Can anyone else see tis?

Perhaps this picture is one big piss-take, and maybe the goons at NASA are laughing at us, or maybe some rogue elements want us to know it is fake.

reply to post by chemistry



I totally agree one of the rocks does look almost like a shell, i zoomed right in on it.. The penis/finger looks similar to a penis/finger if you have deformed digits :') .. I am still unsure if that is really mars though, probably off spending far too much time reading threads on this site! I am studying geology, although i think my following conspiracy theories may stop me from delving further into my degree :/