It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mars picture showing a alien, footprints, manhole cover, tent and wall painting !?

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: peter vlar

viewing the link NASA PIC of original photo posted on the NASA site, it is obvious that the image is not several feet from the camera. Plus, the camera can only view objects atleast six feet away from the lense, so the rocks directly around the rover would be the six foot minimum range, as the rover is the size of a car, a camera on top of the car would see the ground about six feet aways from it's own housing. Follow a basic distance judgment up the terrain to a cliff and it is obvious that the structures pointed out in the OP are several hundred feet from the camera, as well as elevated higher, ptobably at least 30 geet above where the rover is. This is all judgment until I see the camera's true specs on a grid that NASA doesn't supply.


As YOU don't know the specs of the camera/optics what you said above is BS.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Good find OP, no idea what they are, keep up the good work!!






posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld
Good find OP, no idea what they are, keep up the good work!!





Rocks.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I went outside this morning and looked up!

I saw a goats head in the sky which then morphed into an elephant, then a cotton wool bud!

Oh wait ! It was a cloud

I'm sure glad I didn't start a thread about it, Doh!



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Really?? An alien showing cleavage? I see a bunch of rocks, that has been attacked by a vivid imagination.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: peter vlar

viewing the link NASA PIC of original photo posted on the NASA site, it is obvious that the image is not several feet from the camera. Plus, the camera can only view objects atleast six feet away from the lense, so the rocks directly around the rover would be the six foot minimum range, as the rover is the size of a car, a camera on top of the car would see the ground about six feet aways from it's own housing. Follow a basic distance judgment up the terrain to a cliff and it is obvious that the structures pointed out in the OP are several hundred feet from the camera, as well as elevated higher, ptobably at least 30 geet above where the rover is. This is all judgment until I see the camera's true specs on a grid that NASA doesn't supply.


So in other words, you have absolutely no basis for your indeterminate number of 100 yards. You're just making up something that sounds good to you because it works into your confirmation bias. If you have no perspective and no numbers from NASA, or anywhere else for that matter, you have absolutely no idea how far away the objects are. And the bit about refusing all specs from NASA is sweet! Whose specs will you take? The ESA's? Russia's? Maybe China has some specs for you? What would be an acceptable source for you? Gandalf or perhaps Saruman? Every piece of information you posted wouldn't even qualify as a rub n' tug. It's just a big word salad fluff n' buff of nothingness simply because you want to believe that a humanoid is wandering around exposing its breasts in an environment that would freeze every living earth creature and has nearly no atmospheric pressure. Think about the logistics of that for a minute.
edit on 15-6-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: iDope

A "basic distance judgement" would include the rocks that, as you put it, are a mere 6 feet away from the rover aren't very big. If the ones six feet away from the rover aren't very big, and the ones beyond that aren't very big, then 100 yards is entirely too far away for the other objects to be.

Your "basic distance judgement" is fatally flawed.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Huge 'Sigh'

And

Oh my God.... what the el are you on about?

I tried really hard to believe your imagination but no, it ain't happening.


(post by Mclaneinc removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Your opinion is just that my friend.



I also see a rock, yet I also see a transparent figure on top of it...

There is an anomaly on that rock whether you want to believe it or not!

It needs a closer inspection.


edit on 6-15-2015 by skyblueworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
Removed a quote of an actioned post.


Do these threads just bring out the worst in people or something? Do you have no respect for members on ATS when they bring forth something that interests a certain crowd and not others? And did you deliberately leave out the OP's original ?

Because all I see in the OP is a person ending their questions with a question mark!






I've stopped posting similar threads for this reason alone, it's not on.
edit on 6/15/2015 by seagull because: removed an actioned post that was quoted.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

"Alien with long hair, in a dress and showing cleavage ?"

Come on... really? Alien w/ cleavage? lol Come on.. I'm a firm believer that we have alien life throughout the universe, but what I don't think we have is a hoard of busty alien women hanging around on the red planet..

I'm more impressed this made it all the way to the top of the front page of ATS... lol
edit on 15-6-2015 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Yep. And my opinion is worth exactly the same as yours my friend.

Bupkis.

Is it an anomaly that merits looking in to? Sure.

Is it a woman in a flowing dress showing off her cleavage?

Doubt it.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
OMG!!(Thought just entered the brain)

I haven't read through every post, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologize.

The "Mars Ghost Girl" isn't a ghost at all. The photo is translucent because she is actually moving and caused the still shot to be blurred!! Slow shutter speeds causes any moving object to come out blurred. Anyone that has used a camera knows this!

So.. if it isn't a person.. sure looks like it though.. But if it is not.. it is something else that is moving causing the image to blur! That is a fact!
edit on 15-6-2015 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2015 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: carl6405

This is also why nothing else in the image is blurred, the Mars girl is the only object in this pic that is moving when the shot was captured!.
edit on 15-6-2015 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: carl6405
OMG!!(Thought just entered the brain)

I haven't read through every post, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologize.

The "Mars Ghost Girl" isn't a ghost at all. The photo is translucent because she is actually moving and caused the still shot to be blurred!! Slow shutter speeds causes any moving object to come out blurred. Anyone that has used a camera knows this!

So.. if it isn't a person.. sure looks like it though.. But if it is not.. it is something else that is moving causing the image to blur! That is a fact!

The left hand side of the "woman" has a sharp distinct edge as sharp as any other feature , in other words , it is not blurred due to motion. The main body "of the woman" is not actually blurred but a change in shade from one side to another. Anyone who has taken photos, developed them (the old way in a darkroom), in both black and white and colour. Manipulated and fixed tens of thousands of photos using Gimp, knows this....... Oh hang on that's me.

It's rocks on Mars. We used to have photos of rocks on Earth that looked other things and display them for fun. Yet when those very same rocks are on Mars they become real alien artifacts. DUH!



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

wow. Just wow...

Sorry dude. I dont see any of it. Looks like dirt and rocks to me but then I prefer to rule out the probable before grasping the incredible.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

there's a difference between maintaining an open mind, and purely wild speculation... which is what you're actually doing. Criticizing someone for not jumping on your crazy train is ridiculous. While in your wildest dreams these things might look like any number of other things, in reality they look EXACTLY like rocks.


(post by 8fl0z removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The figure could be an anomaly..but it looks like it is casting a shadow(?) it does look a lot like what we would consider a human female. Maybe it s actually a humanoid that is dimensional or something? Where you see cleavage, it could be part of the head for all we know, like that walrus looking spaceman from a cartoon forever ago-lol. (I can't remember the name of sorry guys).
I can 'see' a figure clad in a dress type garment, hair flowing to the right and holding what looks like a weapon in 'her' right hand. If she is casting a shadow, would that rule out the dimensional aspect?
Even if it's all rocks, thanks for bringing it to our attention. The 'figure' gives me an idea for a painting







 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join