A Real Extraterrestrial?
Hey everyone, I am presenting for all of us something I found last year while doing research on Mars. I will try post enough information for all of us to develop some thought about what it is or what it isn't. I will relate the facts of what I see in viewing all of the photos in this post and links, and hopefully give enough information so that each of you can likewise come to some conclusion.
I see an ET! I discovered this Extraterrestrial in Mars photos on April 25, 2013.
The location of this discovery is in the Mars Victoria Crater, and ET is seen in the side of St Mary's Cape.
According to the NASA photo data, the photos which depict this ET were taken by Rover Opportunity on Mars Sol days 1212 and 1213.
ET is seen in the same position in 22 different Rover Opportunity Pancam photos, described by JPL as being "super-resolution images", that have allowed scientists to discern.........."!
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_p1212.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_p1213.html
Please note: Some of the Sol day images are of other parts of the Cape, and thus do not show the area where the ET sits.
PIA10211 - http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10211
PIA10211 is constructed from a mathematical combination of "32 different"
blue filter images. This photo is available up to a Full-Res TIFF @ 32MB.
In viewing the ET, we can see the camera angle is to ET's right rear. ET is sitting, with legs seemingly dangling from the knee down. ET's right fore-arm is bent across the leg/knee. We can see ET's right leg from the butt/hip as he sits, and we can see his back, shoulders, and right side-body. And all of that seems to be quite common humanoid features!! BUT from the neck up, wow, just out-of-sight!!!! We can see some sort of neck on top of the shoulders, but above the neck is totally different. Really, the only part above the neck we can see is a semi-triangular/maybe trapezoidal "shaped piece". This could be some boney part of ET's head, or possibly some sort of life-support system piece. There is another anomaly piece nearby that also seems to have a similar head-piece.
I will post an original distance photo, and a high magnification photo, along with links above that have all of the Rover detail Sol day images. In viewing the original distance pics, because of the distance, magnification will be necessary. A shadow cast to the rear of ET does partially interfere with the full visibility of ET in all of the images.
Now, I have explained what I see, now it is your turn!! :) I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
The original distance photo:
(http://s10.postimg.org/48fqw1dix/Very_Very_Long_Shot_w_Ring_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_a.jpg)
The Magnified photo:
(http://s27.postimg.org/r9p2r3ohv/Med_Mag_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_at_10_45_28_AM.jpg)
Sorry to be the first Rdunk, but I see a rock with shadows.
Happy hunting...
Quote from: Sinny on September 03, 2014, 10:12:53 AM
Sorry to be the first Rdunk, but I see a rock with shadows.
Happy hunting...
Thanks Sinny! No need to feel sorry, as you just see what you see. I appreciate your commenting. This is a tough one, simply because of it being taken with long camera shots. And that results in the closer looking magnified images being pixelated. But from the long shots to the mag shots, the ET image pretty much stays the same.
Just for everyone's ability to see this a little better, I had planned to post additional pics with higher mag, and I will do that with one in this reply - more pixelated, but at least the features are more seeable. :)) Again, thanks for your thoughts on this!!
Note: click on the posted pic for the highest mag! And, when one does that, then use the scroll bar at the bottom of the pic to see the ET image.
(http://s28.postimg.org/sr4qosiel/Very_High_Mag_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_at_10_41_30_A.jpg)
I don't think so, but you probably already expected that. ;)
As those are old photos they are already available on the Analyst's Notebook (https://an.rsl.wustl.edu/merb/merxbrowser/default.aspx), so I grabbed one radiometrically corrected image (1p235785390rad85mep2441l2c1) and, applying the default radiometric correction value (30, if I'm not mistaken) in IMG2PNG and resizing the result to 300% I got this.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/1p235785390rad85mep2441l2c1_1.png)
PS: I tried to make an animated GIF with two images from the left and right cameras, but the images I got didn't exaclty match, as if the rover or the arm had moved a little.
what rdunk sees as the backside of a sitting being looks more like a large face of a statue to me; looks especially noticeable in the last image Armap posted...
but that's just me...
seeker
If I have the time I will try to make a superresolution image of that area with the radiometrically corrected images. :)
Hi ArMaP! Sure, there are a several images of this location on St.Mary;s Cape that just show a jumble of rocks............for some reason?? But 22 of the pics, plus the PIA10211 shows something different, and not a jumble of rocks, the way I see it!
I am not sure what why you are trying to do something different with the images, as those that are available seems to be pretty good to me. And as I noted in the OP, JPL describes these photos as being "super-resolution images, that have allowed scientists to discern.........." - another words, these photos are good enough for the scientific work they have done. So, for me, they should be good enough for use in anomaly search, and thus finding ET, if he is here, which for me he is, as I see it!! :))
Thanks for your comments!
Quote from: the seeker on September 03, 2014, 10:29:05 PM
what rdunk sees as the backside of a sitting being looks more like a large face of a statue to me; looks especially noticeable in the last image Armap posted...
but that's just me...
seeker
"but that is just me" - and that is what I would like from everyone!! seeker, thanks for the comment. With what I see, ArMaP has used one of the pics that does just show a jumble of rocks. I don't see the ET in his pic either. It is a little strange that some of the pics of the same area are so different?? But most of the images of the specific area on Sol day 1212 and 1213 show the ET image quote clearly (as I see it) - as clearly as clearly goes in these Mars Rover photos, with black shadows, and with pics taken at extreme distance! :))
None of the aliens I talked to are typically made up of sedimentary deposits so based on that I am going with rock formation. :P
I thought you already posted a thread on this rdunk? Or is it a similar rock formation... ahem, I mean alien?
Quote from: rdunk on September 03, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
Hi ArMaP! Sure, there are a several images of this location on St.Mary;s Cape that just show a jumble of rocks............for some reason??
Maybe that area has just a jumble of rocks? ;)
QuoteBut 22 of the pics, plus the PIA10211 shows something different, and not a jumble of rocks, the way I see it!
I downloaded the 22 photos and will post them as soon as I can. :)
QuoteI am not sure what why you are trying to do something different with the images, as those that are available seems to be pretty good to me.
But, to me, the radiometrically corrected images look much better, I have always said that, and I am not trying to do something different, I just used that image the way it was intended to be used.
QuoteAnd as I noted in the OP, JPL describes these photos as being "super-resolution images, that have allowed scientists to discern.........." - another words, these photos are good enough for the scientific work they have done.
First of all, let me finish that quote: ".....that the rocks at Victoria Crater once represented a large dune field that migrated across this region".
Now, for a question, if you don't mind: do you know what is superresolution?
QuoteSo, for me, they should be good enough for use in anomaly search, and thus finding ET, if he is here, which for me he is, as I see it!! :))
If the superresolution panorama was made to get a better idea of the whole area it wouldn't be good for looking at small details, if it was made to get a higher definition, higher quality image (although the original photos had too much noise for that), then yes, it's good for looking at small details.
QuoteThanks for your comments!
You're welcome. :)
Quote from: Pimander on September 03, 2014, 11:57:25 PM
I thought you already posted a thread on this rdunk? Or is it a similar rock formation... ahem, I mean alien?
It's not the same.
Quote from: Pimander on September 03, 2014, 11:57:25 PM
I thought you already posted a thread on this rdunk? Or is it a similar rock formation... ahem, I mean alien?
Pimander, just for fun, I was using this ET as my avatar several weeks ago. I did make a post of just my avatar pic, with no other info, because I wasn't ready to post the full detail. It was discussed just a little back then. :)
E113,
I am not aware of you talking with ETs,
Would be very interested to learn about your experiences ....
QuoteNone of the aliens I talked to are typically made up of sedimentary deposits so based on that I am going with rock formation.
ArMaP asked, "Now, for a question, if you don't mind: do you know what is super-resolution"?
No, ArMaP, I don't. I simply assume that if JPL was bragging about it, it must be something better than standard resolution, which is good enough for me. :) And I just know what I see in the photos we have, and that too is good enough for me!! If you can find better photos, then that would be even better - but better certainly doesn't mean totally different in this case! :))
Chiming in... I too say: rocks.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on September 03, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
None of the aliens I talked to are typically made up of sedimentary deposits so based on that I am going with rock formation. :P
Hi Ellirium, thanks for your comment!! I don't have much other reply for you, except I don't know what "sedimentary deposits" you are referring to. I just see the little ET just sitting there, on a large rock, with his back to us. (I use the word "his", just for simplicity of comment)
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 12:36:24 AM
No, ArMaP, I don't. I simply assume that if JPL was bragging about it, it must be something better than standard resolution, which is good enough for me. :)
Superresolution is what they call using several photos from the same subject to make a higher definition photo, using the small differences between the original photos to try to "guess" extra detail. The problem is when that technique is used in photos with noise, as the fact that the noise is in different places in different photos messes the creation of the final image. That's why in that panorama we can see several places with some dots in strange places.
Thus far I do appreciate all of your comments. I am going to post the very high mag pic again for you, as I have added some identification to it, relative to the different body parts. There is maybe a slight possibility that this might help some of you see the ET image a little better. I do hope that it does!! :)
Click on the pic to see the full mag!!
(http://s28.postimg.org/igrkpskz1/Very_High_Mag_w_Locaters_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_at.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 04, 2014, 12:56:26 AM
Superresolution is what they call using several photos from the same subject to make a higher definition photo, using the small differences between the original photos to try to "guess" extra detail. The problem is when that technique is used in photos with noise, as the fact that the noise is in different places in different photos messes the creation of the final image. That's why in that panorama we can see several places with some dots in strange places.
That is good! Thanks ArMaP! For me, the panorama has pretty much the same detail as does the individual Sol day Rover pics, for the ET object - at least the way I see it! :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 12:28:06 AM
Pimander, just for fun, I was using this ET as my avatar several weeks ago. I did make a post of just my avatar pic, with no other info, because I wasn't ready to post the full detail. It was discussed just a little back then. :)
I was wrong, it was the same after all (as seen here (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=6754.0)), I didn't remember that image appearing before. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 04, 2014, 01:32:16 AM
I was wrong, it was the same after all (as seen here (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=6754.0)), I didn't remember that image appearing before. :)
I knew you would realise. Pimander being wrong? ::) :P
Quote from: Amaterasu on September 04, 2014, 12:36:29 AM
Chiming in... I too say: rocks.
Hi Amy! You are right, there are some rocks there in the pics! But the image I am referring to is separate from the "rocks", except ET is sitting on one - as I see it. Thanks for your comment!! :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 01:05:36 AM
Thus far I do appreciate all of your comments. I am going to post the very high mag pic again for you, as I have added some identification to it, relative to the different body parts. There is maybe a slight possibility that this might help some of you see the ET image a little better. I do hope that it does!! :)
Click on the pic to see the full mag!!
(http://s28.postimg.org/igrkpskz1/Very_High_Mag_w_Locaters_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_at.jpg)
Rdunk, it this last pic with your pointers added, looks even more like a face; almost looks like darth vader;s helmet lol
seeker
I just now looked at the first photos that were posted on this thread....and it looked real familiar...
Didn't we do a thread on that item and discussed this already?...
I'll have to look some more..but I could swear this was already talked about...
Just saying...
Rock...
Thanks again seeker. I am glad the additional pointer info in the pic is helping! As for the face, because of ET's position, that is hard to see. Seeing how the body is positioned, ET is looking away from the camera, but, because of way-out Darth feature on top of his head, we can't know whether that top piece is a part of his head, or his head is in it or attached to it??
It is interesting that the body of this thing seems so natural otherwise. However, either any outer wear is fitting very tightly, or there is no outer wear.
There is another piece nearby that I believe to be relative to this ET - maybe a "relative"!. It has the strange top piece, but no seeable body - it does seem to have possible outer wear. I will post that as a reply a little latter today for everyone to consider with this.
Sgt., that has been mentioned in prior comments, to which I also replied. Yes, I posted my avatar, with no info/no data several weeks ago, just for a little advance for whenever I was completely ready for the full post. So, your memory is still working. ArMaP posted in one of his reply's here a link to the prior limited discussion.
Just based upon my initial browse of your thread Rdunk and the pictures....
The initial ones you posted... I don't think that I would have been able to spot what you have pointed out to suggest it may be an ET....I would have just seen various rocks unless I had some real reason to believe something was in the picture...So did that stand out to you, or did you decide to attempt to do a detailed study of the Martian photos to see if you could detect something.
When you later show the image and label it... it was not the thing that I had initially thought that you had been referring to... I was looking at a rock or something to the lower left of the object that you indicate thinking it MAY have been a ET head looking towards us in the photo with its body hidden behind some terrain.... Unless there are two close together...
But with rock formations, it is so easy for us to compare them to certain things, shapes etc...and if the mind starts to believe... then the thing can become more and more realistic to us...
The image you point out...I can see and maybe comprehend some things you suggest, but I may also see it in another way as well...like which is the front or back of its head and what direction is it looking..
But at the moment, equally I could also just see it as a rock....
Unless there is some other strong reason to think it is not a rock....I would not easily be convinced that I am not just seeing background terrain...
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 03:21:56 AM
Sgt., that has been mentioned in prior comments, to which I also replied. Yes, I posted my avatar, with no info/no data several weeks ago, just for a little advance for whenever I was completely ready for the full post. So, your memory is still working. ArMaP posted in one of his reply's here a link to the prior limited discussion.
Sorry didn't read the entire thread,,,my bad...
Quote from: astr0144 on September 04, 2014, 03:32:41 AM
Just based upon my initial browse of your thread Rdunk and the pictures....
The initial ones you posted... I don't think that I would have been able to spot what you have pointed out to suggest it may be an ET....I would have just seen various rocks unless I had some real reason to believe something was in the picture...So did that stand out to you, or did you decide to attempt to do a detailed study of the Martian photos to see if you could detect something.
When you later show the image and label it... it was not the thing that I had initially thought that you had been referring to... I was looking at a rock or something to the lower left of the object that you indicate thinking it MAY have been a ET head looking towards us in the photo with its body hidden behind some terrain.... Unless there are two close together...
But with rock formations, it is so easy for us to compare them to certain things, shapes etc...and if the mind starts to believe... then the thing can become more and more realistic to us...
The image you point out...I can see and maybe comprehend some things you suggest, but I may also see it in another way as well...like which is the front or back of its head and what direction is it looking..
But at the moment, equally I could also just see it as a rock....
Unless there is some other strong reason to think it is not a rock....I would not easily be convinced that I am not just seeing background terrain...
Astro, you have made a great response!! Going over in detail your differing thoughts is a highlight of the replies in this thread so far. ET is looking away from us, because of the positioning of his body and arms and legs.
What you are going through is often what we anomaly hunters experience during our research. I would say that very often as we are closely searching an area, there is often much we do not see the first time - or second time. And then bang, something materializes into view. Often, that is the way it is.
In this case, I have searched much on St Mary's Cape, and I have found numerous anomalies, which I have not yet posted. I do not know how many times I might have passed over this ET, but one day last year, while doing my normal search, I JUST SAW THIS. And when I first saw it, I knew exactly what it was (for what I see) - a really strange-looking humanoid! The only reason I have held off posting it here is, I think this is fairly close proof-positive relative to extraterrestrials. which should be of some importance to the world.
Yes, I wish we could see the face in these pics!! And yes, I wish we had a better (closer) actual pic - and maybe if ET was smiling that would be even better. :)
As I said in an earlier reply, I do have a correlating piece to post, that may add a bit more of reality to what I am seeing and posting for everyone. It is just what I see.
Thanks again for your comments!
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on September 04, 2014, 03:34:16 AM
Sorry didn't read the entire thread,,,my bad...
No No! Don't be bothered by that! Sometimes difficult to read every word of every post in a thread. No big deal! I appreciate your sharing with us, as always!
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 04:03:07 AM
No No! Don't be bothered by that! Sometimes difficult to read every word of every post in a thread. No big deal! I appreciate your sharing with us, as always!
Now that I'm thinking about this, it wasn't a week ago but at least a year ago I looked at this photo for someone. Could have been 1WWatcher or maybe Deuem. Now I'm curious. Have to wait till tomorrow though, night.
Looking again at the image...I am not sure if any of the image experts on PRC can do anything more with it, but when you show the close up, there is so much distortion around it and in other parts of the photo that I just find it too hard to make any real further assessment on it...
But it would be great if you prove right...and if you can show us some further evidence..
I seems to also recall seeing something similar to this, but at that time I think that it was being suggested that the other part that I initially thought you were referring to may have been an Aliens head peeping above the terrain....I just seem to recognise that part of the photo for some reason...
QuoteIn this case, I have searched much on St Mary's Cape, and I have found numerous anomalies, which I have not yet posted. I do not know how many times I might have passed over this ET, but one day last year, while doing my normal search, I JUST SAW THIS. And when I first saw it, I knew exactly what it was (for what I see) - a really strange-looking humanoid! The only reason I have held off posting it here is, I think this is fairly close proof-positive relative to extraterrestrials. which should be of some importance to the world.
Yes, I wish we could see the face in these pics!! And yes, I wish we had a better (closer) actual pic - and maybe if ET was smiling that would be even better.
The more I think about it, the more I would entertain the idea that it may be the remnants of a statue or construction.. Some of the geometry in that section of the image is different and more 'clean cut' than it's surroundings, however, with the quality of images that we have, we cannot determine it's original nature.
In instances like this, I move on and seek to find something I can determine..
Thanks Sinny for your comments! You likely know this, but much of the "image bad" is the pixelation of the black shadow that interferes with what we see when looking at ET's back/rear. Sadly, the image is what it is. The perfect images are too far away to see any detail, and the significantly magnified image has pixelation. But even with the pixelation. the target image remains fairly seeable, the way I see it!
So many of the best anomalies I have found in photos leave much to be desired in photo quality, for lots of different reasons. Probably the most common "bad" is that someone always forgets to tell the "anomaly" to "look at the camera", as is the case with this one! :)) We always have to make the best we can with the "evidence we have", and I see the evidence with this one as being quite good though pixelated!
All of the ET's "seeable" body parts are in the right place, including neck, shoulders, upper right arm, bent elbow, back, upper right leg in the sitting position, etc.! To me the most striking part of this ET is the shaped piece that we would consider as being on top of its head, or a part of its head.
Yes Sinny, we can always consider the thought of this being a statue, and I have good examples of anomaly statues. But in this case..........since this ET seems to be sitting on a rock, with his legs dangling off, and with his right forearm folded over his leg/knee, I thought that to be a bit too unusual for a statue position, for this to be a statue. Of course, anything is possible with the totally unknown!! I do say ET is "sitting on a rock" because there is a big rock there. But, where he is actually sitting is totally black shadowed, so there could be som kind of cushion between his butt and the rock! :) :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Yes Sinny, we can always consider the thought of this being a statue, and I have good examples of anomaly statues. But in this case..........since this ET seems to be sitting on a rock, with his legs dangling off, and with his right forearm folded over his leg/knee, I thought that to be a bit too unusual for a statue position, for this to be a statue.
Don't you think that sitting for
24 hours 25 hours, 51 minutes and 53 seconds in the exact some position a bit unusual too? :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 04, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
Don't you think that sitting for 24 hours in the exact some position a bit unusual too? :)
Yes, I have thought about that too, but............I read somewhere two or three years ago, that Rover pics of different sol days may have been taken on the same day, with processing on different sol days because of equipment constraints.. So, I am not too bothered by this showing up on two different sol days.
What I really wonder about is why this location on a few pics does show up as a jumble of rocks - significantly different from those with the ET?? :o
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 09:33:18 PM
Yes, I have thought about that too, but............I read somewhere two or three years ago, that Rover pics of different sol days may have been taken on the same day, with processing on different sol days because of equipment constraints.. So, I am not too bothered by this showing up on two different sol days.
From what I read, the file name is created on the rover, when the image is created. After being processed the images get new suffixes, but the original name remains the same.
QuoteWhat I really wonder about is why this location on a few pics does show up as a jumble of rocks - significantly different from those with the ET?? :o
I will try to make an animated GIF with the 22 images of that area. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 04, 2014, 11:28:43 PM
I will try to make an animated GIF with the 22 images of that area. :)
That might be good! I have all of the 22 images on my computer, but I didn't see a need to post them all - which is why I posted the Sol day links.
Thanks ArMaP
P. S. - You do have a pretty good eye - I expect that you can probably see what I see in this anomaly, doncha?? :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 04, 2014, 11:48:56 PM
P. S. - You do have a pretty good eye - I expect that you can probably see what I see in this anomaly, doncha?? :)
I do, I just have a different interpretation. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on September 05, 2014, 12:33:02 AM
I do, I just have a different interpretation. :)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/thumbup.gif)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/thumbup.gif)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/thumbup.gif)!!
(http://www.echoesofenoch.com/clipart_scifi_spaceships_005.gif)
This took longer than expected, but here is an animation made with the 22 images that show that area. I used the radiometrically corrected images, but without applying the correction, resized them to 300% and applied auto levels (in GIMP) to each image, as they were too dark. I may make another animation with the radiometrically correct images with the correction applied (no need for auto levels). :)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/dd540900e2.gif)
ArMaP, don't you think it interesting that all of the camera shots showing ET are basically the same, even with three of them supposedly on Sol 1212, and the others on 1213 - maybe a little shadow difference on a few??
Quote from: rdunk on September 05, 2014, 11:28:03 PM
ArMaP, don't you think it interesting that all of the camera shots showing ET are basically the same, even with three of them supposedly on Sol 1212, and the others on 1213 - maybe a little shadow difference on a few??
There are many differences in the shadows, I think only two photos appear to show the same shadows, all other photos show differences. ???
ArMaP, coincidentally I just noticed on the current JPL Rover Opportunity "raw images" page a statement that confirms what I said about delayed photos.
Sol 3775 raw images have arrived!
Opportunity began performing activities requested by the science team during Sol 3776. Those images and other data are currently being sent back to Earth for posting on Sol 3777. Any data not transmitted on Sol 3777 will be stored onboard the rover and sent on subsequent days during the next possible communications opportunities. (Black spaces typically mean partial data has arrived, but Opportunity will fill in the rest of the data as soon as possible). Stay tuned!
According to this statement, the photos May actually get posted on the Sol day the photos are transmitted, if I am reading it correctly. There are daily MB transmission limitations because the data has to go up to one of the orbiters to be transmitted.
I wonder if we have a way to find out whether these Sol day 1212 and 1213 photos were really all actually taken on the same day??
That may explain the differences I saw once between the photos on the rovers page and the photos on the Analyst's Notebook site, as some photos appeared as being from the previous (or next, I don't remember) Sol.
Now I have to investigate. :)
This Mars ET is the first absolute photo proof I have seen anywhere of the reality of alien humanoid life. Yes we have seen a lot of anomalies proving the existence intelligent design and the existence of life, but no real photo proof of actual humanoids until now, with this ET.
Without a doubt, if this ET simply had a normal (to us) looking head showing, then most everyone, except the hardline skeptics, would be doing backflips about the reality of alien humanoid life. That is because from the neck down we can see the presence of humanoid body features - just can't see what looks like an actual head. What we see on top of this humanoid body is what looks like a shaped bony-looking structure, and from the photos, we cannot know whether that is real growth, or some sort of addition for environment life support, etc.
For some of us, we are here because we have similar anomalous interests. And in that regard, this Mars ET, for what I see, is like one of the "holy grails" that we have been searching for. I do hope that at least some of you are seeing this for what it is. Seeing no real excitement here thus far about this ET, I am wondering if some are not seeing it, or simply not believing what you are seeing is actual reaity??
Of course, if an advanced civilization, any humanoid type body we see in a photo could be robotic, and photos would not discern the difference! :)
Just thinking out loud, but I am very interested in your thoughts too!!!
Quote from: ArMaP on September 07, 2014, 07:58:22 PM
That may explain the differences I saw once between the photos on the rovers page and the photos on the Analyst's Notebook site, as some photos appeared as being from the previous (or next, I don't remember) Sol.
Now I have to investigate. :)
ArMaP, do you have any results on your "investigation" of photos yet??
Most of the photo evidence we have shows this Mars ET to be real - and the available photos are all that we have to work with. How can 22 different official NASA released photos showing what looks like a humanoid life-form (as I see it) not be given some credibility as factual?? Yes, the head of this Mars ET is not humanoidal-looking "FOR US", but all of the other body parts we can see in the photos are - whether flesh or robotic is not discernible.
For comparison, I am including another photo of ET for comparison to a close-to-identical-position rear photo of a clothed human sitting on a similar earth rock. Maybe this might help some here see this "as I see it"!! :))
(http://s7.postimg.org/ktjshr1aj/Med_High_Mag_w_Ring_Screen_shot_2013_04_27_at_10.jpg)
(http://s18.postimg.org/8x64obp6x/Human_Sitting_on_Rock.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
ArMaP, do you have any results on your "investigation" of photos yet??
I do not, and I confess I forgot about it. :-[
In my opinion it is a parehidolia This does not mean that there is no life on Mars.
a greeting :)
Quote from: Toltec on September 26, 2014, 09:08:13 PM
In my opinion it is a parehidolia This does not mean that there is no life on Mars.
a greeting :)
Hi Toltec! Yes that is a word that is frequently used by skeptics to off-handedly deny the existence of reality in the clouds! :) But, are you saying you "cannot see" the features of the ET I have pointed out, and described in the OP and several replies? Or, you can see it, but don't accept that it is actually there??
As I have said, I am just relating what I see in the photos we have - no clouds on Mars though, or.....are there?? :)
Thanks for your comment!!!
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
How can 22 different official NASA released photos showing what looks like a humanoid life-form (as I see it) not be given some credibility as factual??
If the pictures were taken of the same rock they will show the same thing so if it looks like a humanoid to you then you will still see that. If pictures were taken at a later date then the object is not a humanoid as they would not still be in the same position surely.
Does that make sense to anybody else reading this or am I going completely bonkers. :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 10:07:00 PM
Hi Toltec! Yes that is a word that is frequently used by skeptics to off-handedly deny the existence of reality in the clouds! :) But, are you saying you "cannot see" the features of the ET I have pointed out, and described in the OP and several replies? Or, you can see it, but don't accept that it is actually there??
As I have said, I am just relating what I see in the photos we have - no clouds on Mars though, or.....are there?? :)
Thanks for your comment!!!
Hello, there are probably many things in this universe, even on Mars, but our perception system as predators looking to fix the world and see or rather interpret what they see.
Certainly what you point out in the picture looks like a humanoid, but is frowned upon a rock., It is my opinion
a greeting
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 10:07:00 PM
As I have said, I am just relating what I see in the photos we have - no clouds on Mars though, or.....are there?? :)
Yes, there are clouds on Mars, high altitude clouds.
Quote from: ArMaP on September 26, 2014, 11:16:43 PM
Yes, there are clouds on Mars, high altitude clouds.
Yes, that was my point! Most people know the difference between pareidolia of seeing things in clouds and elsewhere. :)
Quote from: Pimander on September 26, 2014, 10:26:38 PM
If the pictures were taken of the same rock they will show the same thing so if it looks like a humanoid to you then you will still see that. If pictures were taken at a later date then the object is not a humanoid as they would not still be in the same position surely.
Does that make sense to anybody else reading this or am I going completely bonkers. :)
Hey Pi, there are other pics which do not show the ET to be there! The pics that do not show ET to be there just show other rocks in most cases. It is possible that the pics showing ET on 2 different Sol days could have been taken on the same Sol day. That is what ArMaP is checking on, as Rover data uploads for transmission of photo data to the Mars orbiters are file size limited by Orbiter capability.. If they do not all transmit on 1 Sol day, then apparently the remaining photos become a part of the following Sol day transmissions. It will be interesting to learn what ArMaP is able to determine. :)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 11:39:48 PM
Yes, that was my point! Most people know the difference between pareidolia of seeing things in clouds and elsewhere. :)
"pareidolia" is a funny bird.
Do we think we see something or are we seeing something that is there...
For example this sad tree....
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Tree_Faces/Tree_004.jpg)
or this dancing Ent...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Tree_Faces/girl-tree.jpg)
What if we see what we think we see because it is really there? Our ancestors and native people sure saw Spirits in everything
Are they wrong? Is it all pareidolia?
Well then why are the Rock Guardians found a t most entrances to canyons?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Rock_Faces/facerock.jpg)
Just coincidence? or are their other forces at work here?
I have summoned the dragons, so have others... even my uber skeptic wife came out once when my daughter and I were taking a photo of one. She looked up and exclaimed..."Oh my god it IS a dragon..."
This one was summoned in Florida by Diverdown on another forum, the same night we spoke of it
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Diverdown_2ikb19y.jpg)
Some people can spot it right away, some will never see it. Perhaps they are not meant to 8)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/Diverdown_2ikb19y_02.jpg)
But THIS one gave the photographer a first prize
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Eyes/MonumentRocks_KSa.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on September 26, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
ArMaP, do you have any results on your "investigation" of photos yet??
Most of the photo evidence we have shows this Mars ET to be real - and the available photos are all that we have to work with. How can 22 different official NASA released photos showing what looks like a humanoid life-form (as I see it) not be given some credibility as factual?? Yes, the head of this Mars ET is not humanoidal-looking "FOR US", but all of the other body parts we can see in the photos are - whether flesh or robotic is not discernible.
Well to me it looks like 'it' is wearing a Chinese pointed hat
Has anyone done a SCALE on this image yet?
Quote from: zorgon on September 27, 2014, 03:19:36 AM
Well to me it looks like 'it' is wearing a Chinese pointed hat
Has anyone done a SCALE on this image yet?
Z, size on these anomaly shots are often preeeety guessy!! About the only thing I know for sure (ha) is that NASA states that St. Mary's cape is about 15 meters tall - measured probably at the point of prominence. Another iffy relative to object sizes with these Rover shots is, "how far away from the cliff/object was the photo(s) taken? In this instance, the Rover is quite a distance away and on top of the crater wall.
For this Mars ET, at the maximum distance, one can still see it (barely) as pretty small in an unmagnified photo (1st photo in the OP). With enough data, a math whiz might be able to calculate ET'S size.
Size is of interest, but simply for that. Human adults have ranged from about 21 inches tall to 9 ft tall, and that mostly means some people need ladders for reaching heights before other do! :))
Now that I have thought about it, there's really no need to know in which sol the photos were taken, as the image name tells us the time at which the photo was taken, so if we see some photo with just some seconds before or after some other photo that means that both photos were taken on the same sol.
Now I have to look at the photos that show the "ET" again to see the time differences. :)
After looking at the list of the images used to create that superresolution image, I could see that the first two are from one sol and all the others from the next sol, as there's a difference of more than 22 hours between the second and the third photos.
Below is the list of the images (the ".IMG" at the end is because I used the IMG files from the Analyst's Notebook) and the time between each photo and the one before.
1p235785390rad85mep2441l2c1.IMG 00:00:00
1p235785446rad85mep2441r2c1.IMG 00:00:56
1p235867156rad85myp2442l2c1.IMG 22:41:50
1p235872046rad85myp2442l2c1.IMG 01:21:30
1p235874328rad85myp2443l2c1.IMG 00:38:02
1p235874361rad85myp2443l5c1.IMG 00:00:33
1p235874374rad85myp2443r2c1.IMG 00:00:13
1p235874564rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:03:10
1p235874636rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:12
1p235874665rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:00:29
1p235874694rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:00:29
1p235874722rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:00:28
1p235874817rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:35
1p235874996rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:02:59
1p235875079rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:23
1p235875185rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:46
1p235875291rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:46
1p235875372rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:21
1p235875471rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:39
1p235875557rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:26
1p235875641rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:24
1p235875728rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:27
1p235875804rad85myp2444l6c1.IMG 00:01:16
1p235878503rad85myp2442l2c1.IMG 00:44:59
Thanks much ArMaP! But, this information is pretty much what we have to begin with in the details of the Rover photos. So, for what we can see in the pics, this really doesn't change anything.
Here is a small pic that I have brightened just a little - maybe some can see this ET even a little better.
(http://s27.postimg.org/y0cth89yr/What_Do_You_See_Lighter.jpg)