It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Mars Humanoid Figure confirmed??

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by Johnbro

Except that is conclusive from the gitgo that it can't be a moving figure. Why?

The estimable Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society explains it all for you.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by disownedsky]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by disownedsky]

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
More updates have been added today. Come see the results of this continuing investigation.

It is getting interesting.


posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Genoa
reply to post by SKUNK2

This is not a " joke " and nothing of artifact

here other (edit always from original NASA image):


[edit on 24-1-2008 by Genoa]

please admit you're are joking right?? If not, and you really think that is a skull and you're amazed by the other pictures you posted, I hope your intelligence doesn't resemble that of other Italians.

Use your head, look:

[edit on 24-1-2008 by captainsmokie]

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:31 PM
Here we go again. A little bit of rock looks kind of like something, it goes through "analysis," and a surprising number of people simply accept that because it may happen to look like something (in this case, barely), then that's exactly what it is, and it's "proof" or "smoking gun" evidence of aliens, or whatever.

I think these kinds of threads should be politely placed in Skunk Works, where they can get all the enthusiasts spinning in a frenzy without clogging up this forum.

Why? Because there's no new information here. It's only the same "debate" over and over. "It's obviously a (figure, building, animal, plant), because it looks like it!" "It's just a funny shaped rock or a shadow. A simulacra!"

The people making the claim have exactly nothing additional to back it up. No one can add any more information to either side of the discussion, because all any of us have is the image. Is this denying ignorance, or encouraging it?

So it just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and blah de blah blah blah same thing same thing same thing yes no yes no pointless pointless pointless pointless pointless POINTLESS...

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by SKUNK2
There is nothing there!!!
It was us at ATS that first found this annomaly about 3-4 weeks ago.
Using common sense and logic we came to the conclusion that the "figure" is a rock that is no more than 5m away from the lander...

I'm glad someone understands...

I'm suprized no one's got the Joke Yet!!!

The Joke is that the humanoid picture is a yetty, "big foot"...

It's a joke of having caught a picture of big foot on mars.

Funny actually.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Nohup

While I’m not sure what it is, I’m still waiting for the people who claim it’s just a rock or shadow to back it up. You can’t, all you have is the image, just like everyone else.

Goes both ways.


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:22 PM
Such condescending blankets statements. But I have come to not be nearly as surprized at this on ATS anymore.

An actual 'Panorama' would result in an arched horizon. Setting 'photo panels' together in 'straight-line' sequence affects perception. There are so many variables in determining perspective accuracies in a photograph - 'large scenes' appear small - 'small scenes' appear large, etc. ( check this with your own camera - you will see what I am referring to. On my digital camera, a person would have to 12X zoom to get 'real life' relavent perspective.)

Also, one would have to know the exact height at where the lens was set / focal length and optic capabilities of camera / - people think the rock is 4 ft away... when it is actually 30... etc,. on and on.

'We have debunked this already' - merely means that negative skeptics accept their subjective opinions as being 'proven fact.' I don't want to start a new great debate here... but have you heard... that some radical new theorist - has publically stated... that the Earth is not the center of the Universe??

There was once a day when 'scientists' would physically attack another - for such a statement. I fear that we may have not progressed far from this mentality.

True inovation must endure... 'trial and error.' 100 years ago... the Wright Brothers were nearly laughed out of town. 60 years later... we landed at Tranquility Base. I say... let the dreamers dream.

The latest images of the '2 inch rock' - shows detail that greatly resembles 'facial features.'

I would appreciate if the egotist psuedo-intellectuals would stop attacking some that continue to strive - and seek - even if it is not within the rhelm of your biased sensibilities. You have no actual authority. This is not the 'Spanish Inquisition.' And we are allowed 'trial and error.'

I truly question the hardened skeptics true motives for coming to message threads like this. Well, actually - I know the answer to that as well.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:50 PM
You have to take NASA's word for things like this because they are the only people who get the photo's and even if something they didn't want people to see gets out all they have to do is edit the photo and say "look at this new photo that was taken without the shadows."

I am going on about an older photo of a face on mars, I still don't trust NASA.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:01 PM
Darn- I was about t make the comment that "it" looks a lot like the "bigfoot" (guy in a monkeysuit) from the Patterson video and someone beat me to it- saying its a Yeti-LOL. Is that a "will work for atmosphere" sign he is holding?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Johnbro
The latest images of the '2 inch rock' - shows detail that greatly resembles 'facial features.'
That "detail" is not really detail because it is created by the filters used to change the photo.

Do you want to see detail? Use the original NASA images, all three, from filters L2, L5 and L7 (approximately infrared, green and ultraviolet).

Here they are:

And I think that the "figure" is just part of the rocks, like all other strange shapes that can be seen on that panorama.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

I see the point you’re trying to make but its flaud, simply because those other rocks don’t look like anything specific. They are just like rocks, whereas the object in question actually looks like something with detail.

I’m still waiting for someone to debunk this, saying “it’s a rock and shadow” is not debunking it. Someone’s own opinion of it being a rock does not make it fact.

I don’t know what it is, but I really don’t think it’s just a normal rock with a shadow.


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:14 PM
the scale of it is all off, it'd be either waaaaaaaaay off in the distance or like 4" tall.
All this does is discredit the real evidence for past cilivisations on mars (the face) and make the community look like a bunch of whack jobs..

[edit on 25-1-2008 by jainatorres]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by Mikey84

If you look at the links ArMaP posted you can clearly see that it is connected to the ground.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Mikey84

If you look at the links ArMaP posted you can clearly see that it is connected to the ground.

When did I say it wasn’t connected to the ground?

People are claiming it could be a sculpture, which could be attached to the ground.

People are debunking it because it might be too small – so are they saying they know what size every alien species is? I’m not saying it is an actual alien, but you can’t say “oh it’s to small to be an ET”, that’s just ignorant. People can’t rule something out because it’s too big or too small just to fit their own idea of an ET.

We already know that it’s in a stationary position as there is a NASA photo from the same spot taken 2 days earlier and it’s still there, so it doesn’t move. What’s interesting is that it was taken at a different time of day, which would have different shadow effects, yet the object looked the same.
The fact that it’s apparently attached to the ground doesn’t mean it’s just a rock.

My apartment building is attached to the ground, doesn’t mean it’s a rock does it?

All we know about this object so far is what’s in the pic, and that it’s a strange shape, no one has proven it’s a rock or shadow, just as no one has proven it’s something else. More investigation is needed.


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:21 PM
It's a ROCK!

Just a thought, I seem to remember a similar phenomenon taking the form of a face on Mars that was quickly shown to be nothing more than a rock when taking a higher resolution picture recently.

Point being, people see what they want to see, but its only when you can get more evidence can real conclusions be made. Its the Scientific Method, I hear its all the rage!

Don't make outlandish conclusions by just seeing one picture that maybe looks humanoid.

And another thing, why does everyone assume that other intelligent life would look anything like us. The chances that they would look anything like us are so remote. Also, It is wired in our brains to recognize human "like" shapes, it helps with our development as children to recognize others. So we are endowed with this ability to notice human form in anything we see, meaning we are more proned to see a humanoid than say another shape or animal.

Just some thoughts to think about.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:33 PM
Hey, Jain...

I don't see how this 'discredits' other 'information of past civilizations.'
What constitutes 'potential evidence' anyway?? No matter what we present - majority is going to come in and retort same rhetoric - what ever it is. Have been looking at all sorts of 'image oddities' - I will post that here as well... -- and I already know what you will say - 'It is Always the camera.... it is always shadows... it is always computer pixels..."

All I am saying - is that the 'resemblances' continue to be very unusual.
No one is say that it is irreputable.... just that it is WEIRD!! And repeatedly so.


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:51 PM
What is considered 'real evidence' is subjective - no matter what you say. 'Scientists' discredit and contradict each other on a daily basis. Not everyone you ask will agree that 'face on Mars' was proven to be wrong.
Richard Hoagland still presents counterpoint on that matter.

Because 'such & schmuck says so!!' ain't cuttin' the mustard. You can quote conventional science and academia till doomsday - and it is still and always will be their biased subjective opinion. 'Science' claims that UFOs don't exist... 'because of the logistics involved.' But if you've ever actually seen one - your opinion doesn't care what theirs is.

This will NEVER actually be a science. You're fighting fire with kindling. There will always be counterpoint. And if you think it is ALL NONsense... you really have to ask yourself... 'What am I doing here??'


I personally am not saying this is Alien. But... if you still think I am... I say it is because you look at the pictures... but don't read the text.

Your choice. Right now - people in Stevenson Texas think scientists can go #$^% up a rope. And now... they won't stop looking... no matter what any of you might say.

It is all subjective. Quote any person or almanac you wish - it remains opinion. No real PROOF will ever avail itself. For 'them' to know... and you to find out.

We continue to look... even if you tell us not to.


posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:12 AM

Originally posted by m3snow159
It's a ROCK!

Don't make outlandish conclusions by just seeing one picture that maybe looks humanoid.

That’s exactly the point with thinking it’s a rock, people shouldn’t jump to conclusions that it’s just a rock by just seeing 1 picture.


posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:53 PM
This is totally off-topic (and I have very little interest in the topic itself), but I do find it fascinating that, after seeing members who contributed genuinely interesting information banned, such a trigger-happy board is totally acceptant of this:

I hope your intelligence doesn't resemble that of other Italians.

(Strike "Italians" and insert "Jews", for example... see what happens.)

And yes, I certainly understand how other people's reasoning - or perceived lack of reason - might be irritating, to the point of being blood-boiling.

That is no excuse for this.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:03 PM
I like to throw in my two cents. I think it could be a rocked that was carved into the shape of a humaniod or whatever beings that lived on Mars thousand of years ago. Meaning it was a sculpture of something like we have weird sculptures here carved or our image.

There is a possibility that it's just a coincidence, but if you read Jim Hoglands book, he explains how NASA photos of Mars are not the correct color to make you believe life is impossible on Mars. They like to make the surface look red and dead. But from what I've read, it's really like Arizona and blue sky's.

But I won't rule out the possibility of other beings living on Mars. How does anyone really know at ATS? Have you flown to Mars and checked it out your self? Or are you just going by the FOO FOO evidence that NASA provides.

Do you honestly think they are being honest with you? If you do, then that is very Naive.

That's my two cents.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in