Egyptian statue on mars?

reply to post by 12.21.12


Hi 12.21.12. Well its getting late here, but I did have a look. Here’s what I found so far. The crater known as Cape st Vincent (which is where the statue like figure is.) Is on the north side of cape Victoria. This is located in the meridian planum. 5.50 W 2.05 S
Here’s some links. If any one else can help to narrow it down it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
sparkleberrysprings.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Because I'm confused...

Originally posted by Parabol
I think this might also help support my earlier idea that the rocks simply broke off. Now I don't consider myself an expert on geology but there are some odd things going around the 'Egyptian statue'

Here is the reference pic



1. The uppermost portion of the ramp like feature.

2. The first cut, or direction change, the red lines highlight fractures that appear to be going in the direction of the ramp. I don't know if that would indicate a force coming from the direction of the 'ramp' could affect it but I figured I'd bring it up so someone who knows more can check it out.

3. The end of the ramp where we find the statue.

Thinking over it I don't see how boulders or the pieces that sheered off could have affected the much larger rock surface below but like I said earlier, I don't know much, but I know that looked kinda weird.

The fact that the odd ramp ends at the statue would seem to indicate that there is some relationship.

EDIT:

I made another picture highlighting more of the ramp idea.



To the left of the statue there appears to be a similar ramp (#1) that has not sheered yet. You can also see that it ends in a similar outcropping (#2) as the statue. Near the bottom of the pic I've tried to show where some of the debris may have fallen, which I think could be two chunks from each side of the statue. Let me know what you think.

EDIT 2:

Made another pic which shows breaks or patterns in the rock around the statue, which appear to be natural. It also shows how the piece of debris beneath the statue has a similar triangular shape.



Not trying to 'debunk' you iammonkey, just trying to look at the evidence we have.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Parabol]

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Parabol]

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Parabol]

I'm posting this again because I only received one response before (yes, boohoo, you imagine my shame :@@. Can someone refute the pictures or idea that this is only rocks? I honestly can't believe the discussion of the 'egyptian statue' has continued. While i was intrigued at first this is plainly a rock. There is no where near the resolution or detail needed to say that a rock with a head shaped rock on top of it is a statue. It boggles my mind that people are still attached to this, I'm not calling anyone stupid or ignorant, I just don't understand.

If my stance (it's only rocks) has somehow been disproved or is otherwise wrong then I'm all ears.

And what about this earlier post?

Originally posted by Lunica
Just to add an example of the size. I used more or less the measurements Internos posted on page one:

The cliff in this image from Opportunity's panoramic camera (Pancam) is informally named Cape St. Vincent. It is a promontory approximately 12 meters (39 feet) tall on the northern rim of Victoria crater, near the farthest point along the rover's traverse around the rim.

Well, of course I dont know how to measure the 12 meters correctly and the scale is not exactly right, but it gives an idea of that size.

So, what to make of it?

It's not that I think people are necessarily dumb for spending their time on this, it's that I believe there are better things to spend our time on. There are very intelligent people on this thread, who like myself, can become easily distracted or enveloped by an idea to the extent where you may miss some evidence.

I see more posts that attempt to confirm or further support what they believe as opposed to those which attempt to look at all the evidence, views, or possibilities. If you honestly disagree with the quotes above then fine, that's your belief, but at least try to take those views into account.

I'm really rambling on here, trying not to sound like an enormous jerk calling everyone out, but I honestly don't get it.

Originally posted by Parabol
Now I don't consider myself an expert on geology but there are some odd things going around the 'Egyptian statue'

Yes indeed a lot of 'odd' things and as you say you are not an expert

'

Thinking over it I don't see how boulders or the pieces that sheered off could have affected the much larger rock surface below but like I said earlier, I don't know much, but I know that looked kinda weird.

Yes one of the better finds so far

Not trying to 'debunk' you iammonkey, just trying to look at the evidence we have.

Only 'evidence' we have is this photo and what our eyes tell us... some see statue in rock' and some see 'rock that looks like statue'

I'm posting this again because I only received one response before (yes, boohoo, you imagine my shame

Crybaby but we got your point the first time... despite what you say you think we are crazy for wasting our time on this. Thanks but I will spend my time as I see fit..

One does wonder though why you feel it necessary to waste YOUR time telling us we are wasting OUR time.

I don't get it
:shk:

I'm really rambling on here, trying not to sound like an enormous jerk calling everyone out, but I honestly don't get it.

Your not succeeding What's not to get? People are interested in seeing things like this and speculating the possibilities...

What I don't get is why you care what we think? THAT is the big mystery here

Originally posted by zorgon

Crybaby

but we got your point the first time... despite what you say you think we are crazy for wasting our time on this. Thanks but I will spend my time as I see fit..

One does wonder though why you feel it necessary to waste YOUR time telling us we are wasting OUR time.

I don't get it

:shk:

It's like when your buddy is dating a horrible person who is just dragging their lives down (obviously not entirely the same as this). And you know they could be happier without that person, or with someone else, but they are currently unable to see it. I think a lot of us have been on both sides of that debacle.

So my previous lambasting (i'm not even sure if that word is right for the situation but it sounds pretty good ) was like the good friend who cares. I think there are a lot of great people here, yourself included Zorgon, and I want to see the best for all of us. I hate when I see us getting distracted by hoaxes or other wastes of time which make us look like a bunch of loonies chasing green men. We don't all agree as to which those are, but I see this as one of them. I don't think iammonkey is at fault or dumb for bringing this up, i think it's great that people are actively searching and analyzing things like this and I applaud his/her effort in bringing this to light. This is just one of those things I would have assumed would be passed over due to the overall lack of evidence and necessity for speculation.

I'm really rambling on here, trying not to sound like an enormous jerk calling everyone out, but I honestly don't get it.

Your not succeeding

What's not to get? People are interested in seeing things like this and speculating the possibilities...

What I don't get is why you care what we think? THAT is the big mystery here

I know I didn't succeed, but at least I tried. My explanation for why I care is pretty much above, it's not that I feel other people are wrong and it bothers me (like most of the internet), it's more based on the kind of love and care which can only be fostered on conspiracy internet forums. Seriously, I love this place and my post was more of a 'hey friend, I know she's pretty hot and all but look at how she treats you, maybe if you saw an outside perspective for a second you'd realize that looks aren't everything." Because that's what a lot of this is (not this topic, but in general), we get caught looking at the surface beauty and miss what may be obvious warning signs.

To reiterate, I have an enormous amount of respect for most of you and the post was just meant to bring up the other side of the debate again when it seemed like it had been overlooked. Will I get a lot of the "I'm fine worrying about myself, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing", yes, but that's what I expect. Sometimes when you speak to others you aren't talking to the person they are at the moment, but to a future version of themselves who may remember your previous words. Sorry, the psych degree is coming out, I'll end the rambling.

notice on this photo as well you can see the touch up from NASA in these three areas....what are they hiding?

reply to post by tcbtom


Read the previous post this has been explained a zillion times

found this critter on the recent "lander" photos






[edit on 26-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]

reply to post by Parabol


Parabol what you said has forced me. Yes FORCED me to crack open another bottle of baileys and start on a family size bar of chocolate. Hope you feel guilty.

Seriously though, you say its plainly a rock. I don’t doubt that. But to me it’s a carved rock. And I think that’s why the thread has continued. (with the help of your post. Thanks for the bump.) No one has proved, or disproved this is just a rock. Although Vanitas has given me food for thought as well as ArMaP. Therefore, I’m still open to other possibilities.
Now about lunica post. Showing the scale of things. As I said before, can we trust the information from NASA in regards to size? But for argument sake lets say there telling the truth. And it is very small. I don’t see that as a good reason to dismiss it out right. Look at the size of these.



As regards the amount of time spent. I really don’t have that much to spare. Some people play golf, read a book. I enjoy looking at mars pictures. People already see us conspiracist as loonies. If threads on this site solely depended on evidence, there wouldn’t be many threads.

en.wikipedia.org...
Many theories - including conspiracy theories - rely on the assumption of rational expectations. Under this assumption, events and decisions are explained by the rational responses of groups and individuals.

(I wasn’t going to add the next bit because I just know their talking about me.)

For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.

Paralol if you want to stay sane do not read any further. No hard feelings. All the best iammonkey.



[edit on 27/5/08 by iammonkey]

Originally posted by zarlaan
Zorgon, or anybody else really. Does anybody have any pictures of ancient Egyptian sculptures that are carved back into a recessed cliff, wall etc?

well done for pointing that out.

From just about every picture I've seen the rock around the sculpture is pushed/carved back to bring the sculpture 'out' of the canvas
But, what we see here in this Martian picture is a "sculpture" that appears to be just the opposite..

With the exception of Buddha

Hi Everyone,have been watching allot of threads and you guys taught me so much ,thanks for the op(great find:up and all the heavy geared members

i noticed this couple days ago so i decided to post it. i know already put myself in the seeing faces list

i suck with editing photos ,i tried to mark the places hope someone can do better job than this




i tried to sharpen it

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by mrRviewer

 

Hi, I have circled the area you showed us, and by the way, your way of doing it was just fine! I have also circled another feature that seems interesting.

The item that is in the large circle appears to be a MAN.

If you look closely, it could be considered a man in a "blue suit". Such as what they use in movies and television.

i cant believe you people are still chasing shadows as it's only by virtue of the fact the image's B&W that you're seeing these artefacts.

move on..

Originally posted by Pandalism
Interesting. Very interesting. But you have to keep in mind the "face on Mars" incident. Back in the 80's and 90's, when the "face" that seemed to mirror that of the Sphinx was discovered there was a riot about it. But then we developed better technology and got a real good look at the thing and it turned out to be nothing more than a lumpy rock. Talk about lame.

I was thinking the same thing, incident wise. This indeed reminded me of the "Face on Mars" thing. However, this has much more than just one little face in it.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i cant believe you people are still chasing shadows as it's only by virtue of the fact the image's B&W that you're seeing these artefacts.

move on..

I can't believe we have to tolerate Anonymous posts like this
:shk:

At least the locals are up front

The statue looking formation is interesting...but I see nothing but rocks on all the posted photos with circles.

reply to post by iammonkey


I get what your saying, and I agree that if you take enjoyment from it, then great. I just don't see how you can say that the rock is carved. You would need to be very close to determine if any machining was done to the rock, especially with the surrounding jagged and straight edge breaks in the rock. It's like looking for an arrowhead, you'll find broken pieces of rock that might look like one, even relatively close, but the edge of the rock is completely different.

As far as trusting NASA, well... either you do or you don't. If you want to generally distrust them then how do you know the picture is of Mars? You could be looking at the Arizona desert for all we know. How can we trust them in one sense but not in another? Do you think they would edit something like that and then show us? Or do you think they missed it?

I'm not really arguing with you, I'm just presenting another side. I feel like these are the questions that took me to the side of the rocks, if they don't do the same for you, cool. Hell, if anything, I hope you're right. How awesome would that be, and honestly I love speculating on this type of stuff too, I just find this one hard to do. Anyways, best of luck and no hard feelings at all, I'm glad you found this and brought it to our attention, and please do so if you find other things in the future. Again, I'm really not trying to be "that guy" arguing in here, just the guy who presents the other side because it's always fun for me to adopt certain perspectives and then see what comes out. Have a great one

Hmmm, I don't even know what to think of it at this point. This is my third time looking at it, and it still gives me goosebumps....
Well, if it is, it would wrap up the whole "Aliens and Egypt" thing for me >.<

It really does look like it though....

Thanks!
---Jade---

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i cant believe you people are still chasing shadows as it's only by virtue of the fact the image's B&W that you're seeing these artefacts.

move on..

I can't believe we have to tolerate Anonymous posts like this
:shk:

At least the locals are up front

A M E N

I was about to post the exact same thing.. Instead of a community, it now feels like a gas station.

b

Originally posted by Bspiracy
A M E N

I was about to post the exact same thing.. Instead of a community, it now feels like a gas station.

So what kind of 'community' are you looking for? One that only agrees with your point of view? That would make ATS a pretty boring place with very little posts

:shk:

You read the sign on the door, yet chose to enter... Surely you knew what to expect?

Silly Lemming

Originally posted by Parabol
I just don't see how you can say that the rock is carved. You would need to be very close to determine if any machining was done to the rock, especially with the surrounding jagged and straight edge breaks in the rock.

Machining? Did someone claim that? You are of course aware of the high winds on Mars yes? And if this is not an Alien carving ala Egyptian style (who also did not use 'machining' but hand tools to carve, wind erosion is also described as 'carving'

Remember this one?

The image, which was captured by NASA's spacecraft Spirit last November, circulated the Internet this week.

After seeing the photo, some called the image the equivalent of Big Foot pictures and evidence of an alien presence on Mars.

A version of the image was even magnified to show the apparent creature walking with his head tilted to the side.

However, NASA said the creature is a feature of the atmosphere -- a rock 2 inches high and carved by the Martian winds, according to a CBS News report Thursday.

The image is available on NASA's Web site. Click here to see the original image (the figure is near the bottom left corner).

SOURCE


So NASA is telling us that the above figurine, which is certainly even more statue like, was CARVED by Martian winds...

Pretty amazing winds no doubt two recognizable small statues in the same general area


And to all those who think we are wasting our time...

Images like this are of interest even to main stream news.. and NASA itself ...

so GET OVER IT and move along



[edit on 29-5-2008 by zorgon]

There no anomaly on that images.
In Italy we have a great group called Lnar Explorer Italia, that show and tell the true about every anomaly