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

This needs to be said only once.....

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics


Community Announcement re: Decorum

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: carl6405

Never mind.

Hahaha. Gotta give you a 10/10 with your creativity. Didn't even need to try with that tent/obviously square rock.

I've found some other startling evidence...

No. 1 looks like some kind of mirror. A defensive measure perhaps?

No. 2 appears to be mechanical in nature.

No. 3 could be a food source, is this creature grazing or gorging?

No. 4 must be some evidence of an atmosphere.

I'm sorry OP-you have left yourself wide open. If I see a cloud that looks like a rabbit, it doesn't make it a rabbit. Sadly for us this is just another case of pareidolia- we all wish that was a hatch on mars but wishes aren't truths and the truth is that it's just a rock.

originally posted by: Signals
It looks like to me the picture was taken from about 50 feet away...According to this, and my guesstimates, I reckon "her" to be less than a foot tall. That's some small boobies.

I am not a rocket scientist, however. I do enjoy these Mars pics threads, it would be helpful if dimensions were included.

This dude says the object is less than a foot tall and escapes hostility.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Spacespider

From taking a closer look at the photo and readjusting the contrast, gamma, and brightness; It seems to me that the woman looking creature is of the most substantiated anomaly in this photo. True all the extraneous features of the tent, manhole, and footprints do stand out a little but the woman figure doesn't seem to be a rock as I can tell. Rock formations don't have a bipedal-with arms-black to white type of gradient to them and this picture clearly shows what rocks don't. A rock of that size and gradient wouldn't support itself, or even form that way as judging by the surrounding rocks. It is out of place and no other rock in that area seems to correlate to the figure's stance, vertical and very humanoid looking.

Two pages later this dude uses the same data (none) as the first guy to assess a size. This guy gets railroaded!!

Some of you are a disgrace.

Why a woman? Why not a man in drag...or a Scot?

I do agree with some posters, if there is life on Mars, it will most likely be underground, or microbes at the poles in the ice.

As for intelligent life? Doubtful, I would be more inclined to believe that humans once lived on Mars then moved here after something rendered the planet inhospitable. But then I don't believe that either, it's cool to think about though.

Pretty clearly rocks imo. I actually thought the original post was a joke.. so I apologize for that. But what you are saying you see takes a great deal of imagination and vast stretching of logic to see the same thing.

Once someone did post a picture that was so dang wrench-like, I showed it to a geologist of many years at my job. I didn't tell him it was a Mars picture.. just showed him a print and said "What does that look like to you?" He paused perhaps one second and said "That's a rock." And that was a shape so well defined you could easily have believed it was a tool of some sort.

But these posts here.. they are vague shapes. They are rock colored. They are.. rocks and normal terrain features.

OP, for the stuff you post, take a moment to -really- study what you are circling. For stuff that would have symmetry, etc.. see if it actually does. "kind of like a box" in shape isn't a box. People just gloss over.. if it's generally the shape of something they are familiar with, they post it.

Anyone remember that post in the past of the "base" on Mars? It has some fairly straight lines, and shapes.. and the OP was certain it was a Mars base. Until they produced pictures of the same structure from another angle. And then it was clear.. it was simply a rock formation. It's easy to get tricked from basically a 2D image of something.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
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.

Yep, I would like to know what that is

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Spacespider

From taking a closer look at the photo and readjusting the contrast, gamma, and brightness; It seems to me that the woman looking creature is of the most substantiated anomaly in this photo. True all the extraneous features of the tent, manhole, and footprints do stand out a little but the woman figure doesn't seem to be a rock as I can tell. Rock formations don't have a bipedal-with arms-black to white type of gradient to them and this picture clearly shows what rocks don't. A rock of that size and gradient wouldn't support itself, or even form that way as judging by the surrounding rocks. It is out of place and no other rock in that area seems to correlate to the figure's stance, vertical and very humanoid looking.

The tent and manhole are a but of a stretch but I see where you could get that idea. The foot prints do seem to lead to one another, however if you look at the surrounding area, similar marks can be seen, just not directly around the alleged footprint marks. Also there is no detectable footprints behind where the humanoid would have walked to view the rover. Yet, it could be that the humanoid saw the rover so made an attempt to get to the nearest cliff to view it, so it would be only her footprints and undetectable to see as it's likely sandy. If the other marks are footprints, it must be a highly walked area, and It's hard to tell the distance and relative size of the objects from this picture, but I would have to look for specs on the camera in order to judge distance, size, etc.

A thank you bump.

Could it be a crevasse?

I also notice it has at its feet , if it has feet, something that looks like a snake.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Yep, I would like to know what that is

Caitlyn Jenner...

No it's a rock unless someone can prove otherwise.

a reply to: skyblueworld

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

Only recently was the question mark added.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Yes!

May we offer for discussion is that what we are seeing is actually a crevasse gouged out by the falling part of the rocky cornice above… perhaps merely a landslide?

All a matter of perspective, we guess, but, even blown up in the above photo, one can see what appears to be a ghostly apparition of a woman…good call, OP, whatever it is.

The truth is out there.

a reply to: thorfourwinds

i agree it is different

a reply to: peter vlar

This is all I have to go off of at the moment, straight from NASA Rover Distance Example which will explain abit about the camera used.

This is a picture from Earth during testing to show the capabilities of known distances.

This is another testing image taken obviously from Earth with the exact same camera used to show known distances away from the camera.
So to say the images in the OP are merely 50 feet away, well that is flawed based on sizes of objects and distances shown during testing.