Pertaining to the first two pictures of the deep holes you can't see anything in, this is my theory...
If a meteor had hit, it would have a crater, but not a direct hole like that...unless it was hollow and it just pierced the crust and actually hit on the inner shell. However, this is what I think: maybe thousands/millions of years ago, there was life on Mars. They saw something that they knew would wipe out all life as they know it (meteor, disease, etc) so they dug a deep hole and hid in it, hoping the damage would only happen on the outside layer. However, they didn't survive, and now those holes are graves for many MANY people/creatures/animals.

I see more than rocks.I see live beings looking back straight at the rover. I see variety of species. Intelligent people,animals riding each other and skulls on the ground make me wonder why others don't get it.Some other Mars freaks see and understand way more that I'll ever know. Sometimes I wish I had the total nasa unmasking techno so I could see what I'm missing and what's witheld because it's deemed too dangerous for us mere mortals to know.Those are the pics NOT released.The few that we get are the dregs the censors missed.

Thanks for the post vze. Keep up the good work and bring more of this to the publics attention. You have to remember there are dis information agents out there so don't let it discourage what you are doing.

So let's say a young Frank Sinatra ,old BLUE EYES was singing "Mack the Knife" and giving that big broad Sinatra smile. It's sometimes easiest to isolate 1 face. If the face comes out in both positive and negative,then it's harder to deny the truth of Life on Mars.

ArMap if you tie a painter's hands behind his back and ask him to paint with his toes,and create a Mona Lisa quality work of art,what do you get? You think verbiage is more important because you are oriented that way and want everyone to be like you? Text is all too soon forgotten.Think of the Nazi Holocaust....does it spark IMAGES in your mind or TEXT? If I talk about faces on Mars that I know most people can't recognize,should I describe them in more minute detail and be called a QUACKING FOOL? Or should I just show them what I see in these images?For example,the "COIN" pic a few posts above this,if you'll look a few seconds. Below the "COIN" I see a face,very small but detailed enough. If I blow it up 3x size 2 or 3 people might see it and 20 other people zip right past with a glance.I have not wasted their time with text. I post mostly faces as I have pointed out before. Some folks will focus on what looks like a familiar object and say"COIN". I can't say it's a coin or not a coin.It's certainly interesting an unexpected inanimate object. I look for living things with faces. I can't always explain what I'm seeing and why I'm seeing it. If you'd kindly circle any faces you see,like the fuzzy one in the bottom right hand corner,then I'll know you are not blind.I designed these Mars rovers 1987 in their infant stage,with cameras as the main feature.I'm a visual guy. I see Life on Mars.

Originally posted by Fossilized
Have you ever heard of copyright infringement.

If you look at the majority of these images it clearly states at the top.

Source: NASA-JPL http:marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov

I see that some of the images have some markings on them but the actual images aren't copy protected since NASA is a government funded program. If you make markings on public property it doesn't automatically become yours.

I do agree that it would be a kind courtesy to note who's making notes on the images, but this wouldn't be copyright infringement IMHO.

"Malin "would help in your search for the owner of the original images.Malin contracts with Nasa using Malin cameras(that's my understanding),and so owns the photos. Again,I'm no expert.I just provided a framework for swept wing aerobraking using the solar panels like wings to decelerate gracefully bouncing off the upper atmosphere in dipping motions until optimal orbit was achieved.I don't design cameras though. Shuttlecock.

If anything I am giving Skipper some extra traffic to his site, sorry I made a mistake and did not provide the source in my original post....I clearly state my sources in all other posts....so go argue somewhere else.

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
ArMap if you tie a painter's hands behind his back and ask him to paint with his toes,and create a Mona Lisa quality work of art,what do you get?

It depends, if he was capable of doing a Mona Lisa quality work with his hands, although he can not work with his toes as he could with his hands, what makes a painter a real artist is his brain, not his hands. The way he sees and interprets what he sees and the way he shows it, regardless of the medium used, is what makes him an artist.

You think verbiage is more important because you are oriented that way and want everyone to be like you?

No, I don't think it's more important and neither I want everybody to be like me, what I think is that not all people are like you, and the amount of images you post, sometimes repeating the images, is the same as those that make posts saying "ROCKS, ROCKS, ROCKS, ROCKS, ROCKS, ROCKS", it becomes meaningless because it becomes banal.

Text is all too soon forgotten.Think of the Nazi Holocaust....does it spark IMAGES in your mind or TEXT?

It sparks thought, not images, not text, and the best way I see of transmitting my thoughts is by speaking them. As this is not possible on an Internet forum, I write them, and although I sometimes can not really express them correctly because I am not writing in my natural language, if I see that other people did not understood it I can always try to explain it better.

If I talk about faces on Mars that I know most people can't recognize,should I describe them in more minute detail and be called a QUACKING FOOL?

Well, posting the images that you have posted has also made some people call you many things.

Or should I just show them what I see in these images?

That is the real problem, you cannot show what you see, when you post an image for us to see you may be posting what you see but you have no way of making us see what you see, the images are even more susceptible to interpretation than text.

For example,the "COIN" pic a few posts above this,if you'll look a few seconds. Below the "COIN" I see a face,very small but detailed enough. If I blow it up 3x size 2 or 3 people might see it and 20 other people zip right past with a glance.I have not wasted their time with text.

No, you have posted images that they will interpret in their own way, that is why you post images with faces (according to your interpretation) and most people still not see them (according to their own interpretation).

I post mostly faces as I have pointed out before.

Some folks will focus on what looks like a familiar object and say"COIN". I can't say it's a coin or not a coin.It's certainly interesting an unexpected inanimate object. I look for living things with faces. I can't always explain what I'm seeing and why I'm seeing it. If you'd kindly circle any faces you see,like the fuzzy one in the bottom right hand corner,then I'll know you are not blind.

I am obviously not blind, if I was I could not know that you post colourful and pixelated images, but the fact that you consider myself blind just because my brain does not work in the same as yours shows who wants everyone to be like him.

I designed these Mars rovers 1987 in their infant stage,with cameras as the main feature.I'm a visual guy. I see Life on Mars.

You know that you should not make statements like these if you can not prove them.

The fact that you may have designed something like the Mars rovers does not mean that you was the one responsible for the design used to make the NASA rovers.

And yes, I understand that you are a "visual guy", I understood it with your first posts, but what worries me is that it looks like you think that your interpretation is the correct one and all people that not think like you are wrong and you not admit the possibility of being wrong yourself, you always state your opinions as facts.

I know what a dog looks like when I see one. Why waste typing about it if others have weak eyes and will never get it without a billboard?

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
I know what a dog looks like when I see one.

Maybe you do, but can you distinguish between what looks like a dog and a real dog, especially when not seeing it but just a photo? And do you think that this "dog" is alive? If yes, what makes you think that? And how do you know its diet, to call it "predator"? Do you think that this "dog" is exactly as an Earth dog? Why? And if it is a predator, what does it predate on? (Is this last sentence correct? I have some doubts about the "predate on" part, but I think this is my best bet)

Why waste typing about it if others have weak eyes and will never get it without a billboard?

I see that you are the one not getting it, and you even write in a way that implies that those that don't see it have some kind of problem.

It's not a case of "having weak eyes" (or a weak brain, the real responsible for the interpretation of the signals sent from the eyes) but a case of flooding the threads with repeated images.

Do you think that people need to see the image eight times to understand it? One image clearly showing what you mean would have been enough, and in my case I see it better on the original image.
(or maybe two images, one the original and other with what you see marked in some way, maybe like this, I suppose the area in green is the "dog")


As I said in one of my posts, that is the same as posting "it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock, it's a rock". What would you think if I had made a post with just that to answer you own post with the eight images of that rock?

I don't have a problem with your ideas (we all have our own ideas, I hope), just with the way you bombard the threads with (mostly) noise and very little real data, and as people who work with data processing say, "garbage in, garbage out", there is no way of having real conclusions when using faulty or not enough data.

For those who ignore what I write,and why I lose my desire to write more,please look at the dog face closely.One of the most reliable indications of a LIVE animal is the face and body orientation toward the ROVERS. Many Times over years I've reported accurately that the LIVE ones LOOK at the rovers,and have given many illustrations of this wonderful observation. Look from the animal's point of view,staring at a rover.I was raised around various breeds of dogs.I see this one looks bored but alert enough to be watching from a distance.He's resting,but probably his master/owner is out of the frame. Dogs are carnivores and therefor predators.On Earth we bred them from wolves supposedly and tamed them.It's one of the greatest symbiotic relationships between species in history. Why would you see eyes in the negative pic? Are they oriented toward the rovers? Was I accurate? Why do you think they stare at the rovers? I designed them to look like an animal.Do animals like dogs defend their turf from competitors and strangers? Do Mars dogs bark at the Mars rovers? Oh some muslims may be offended by pictures.Agenda driven censorship in the electronic age is dead to me. Larger animals over the word unretouched.Eye over the letters "et".

Excellent! I enjoyed these very much. Vegetation on Mars, water on Mars, artifacts on Mars, where are the users of these finds? That I bleieve is next. Great Thread, Great Pictures, loved it!