A Real Extraterrestrial on Mars?

[ArMaP]

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.

[rdunk]

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!!!

[rdunk]

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"!!

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, do you have any results on your "investigation" of photos yet??

I do not, and I confess I forgot about it. 

[Toltec]

In my opinion it is a parehidolia This does not mean that there is no life on Mars.
a greeting

[rdunk]

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!!!

[Pimander]

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. 

[Toltec]

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

[ArMaP]

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.

[rdunk]

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. 

[rdunk]

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.

[zorgon]

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....



or this dancing Ent...



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?



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



Some people can spot it right away, some will never see it. Perhaps they are not meant to 



But THIS one gave the photographer a first prize

[zorgon]

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?

[rdunk]

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!  

[ArMaP]

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.