posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:22 PM
I am new and just started following some threads. Great site! This one caught my eye. Good catch and it seems like they just keep coming on this
I tried to look at it with a photographer's eye and here are some thoughts. Right or wrong, I don't know, but all are possible.
1. Humanoid figures - You don't really know their size because you don't really know their distance from the camera. If NASA states it, can you
believe it, whatever the distrance? They are on a rim of some depression which size is unknown too, but appears huge. Even if the figures were only a
few meters away(as some one said), couple that with an obvious wide angle lens to create a panorama scene. Wide angle lenses always push items farther
away and that makes them appear smaller than their real size too. In reality, they would not be Tinkerbell size at all, unless they were extremely
close to the rover (like a couple of feet). On the other hand, regardless of size, does it matter? Who says that any ET has to be "our likeness"?
One only has to look at the diversified species of life on this planet to realize that. I do find it hard to be just a rock formation unless it was
carved that way and not that long ago. I say so because we are told of these "horrific" sand storms and high winds on Mars. Okay, how long would a
smaller "arm" projection last in those circumstances? You might say ok look how long the face, heck, the nose lasted on that mountain in NH? But,
consider this - there are more than one of these "figures" nearby. True one is real hard to distinguish - a head only. The second although not as
clear does at least appear to be of similar size and shape. Very unlike that both or all three ,if it is three, could have been made naturally. One,
okay its possible maybe, but more thanone?? So if that is true then they are either manmade (or should I say ETMade) or are alive beings. Neither of
which NASA would ever admit to.
2. Water on mountainside. Again think of it as a photo. How many times have you taken a shot that wound up slightly off-kilter? It happens. If the
rover which is the camera's platform was not perfectly level, it would make thinks appear sloped that in actuality may not be. Look at the photo as a
whole and you will see the illusion of a concave horizon. It would appear flat at least but with the expanse of area in photo would most likely be
convex and show the curvature of the planet, be it Mars or Earth where the photo (which again remember is a conglomeration of many photos) was taken.
So the "water" on a slope may be on flat ground after all. That greenish area on the hill/mountain looks more like vegetation that water to me. But
if the rippled area is water it can be flat. Looking at the photo as a whole like I said, and mentally flattening out the horizon, you'll see this
area is flat and in the bottom of this whole depressed basin like region.
3. Whitish item on the horizon. If you download the 24MB photo you can plainly see that is mountains in the distance.
4. Assorted anomalies - the broken column rocks is certainly noteworthy. They appear to be just that and they line up with no other simialr rocks
nearby. The "purse" rock, albeit not a purse, does show mulitple right angles that do not occur in nature. IMHO, other than the "rock formations"
noted above, the rest of the rocks are not clear enough to really say much except hmmmm??.. Yeah, they could be this or that but they are more
subjective to me, like the clouds. I may see a bear and you may see an elephant in the same cloud.
5. Sky color. I could see an argument either way here. Looking at the color wheel picture from Earth and then the same in the photo it has been
altered. It is clearly more than just red dust on it. What filters were on the camera? What changes were made in Photoshop? Does NASA use their own
image manipulation program? Who knows? Too many questions to have an answer to that one.
Anyway, thanks for the great site!