It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Egyptian statue on mars?

page: 26
198
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
They are not all PRETTY FACES.


They are not even faces, they're just rocks

Look, I could quite easily say that formation has the face of an Ithorian in it

Formation with Ithorian



Real (If you can call it real being sci-fi lol) Ithorian



Whilst I agree the original picture does indeed have what looks strangely like a statue complete with path down to it (The workers would need a way to reach it and it does look like a non-natural made path). These other rock formations you guys are picking out desparately trying to create into faces are just that, rocks and nothing more.

If you look at a picture long enough you'll be able to find any kind of shape you want in it, the human mind plays tricks and generally lets you see what you want to see after a while of staring.

[edit on 2/7/08 by Discotech]




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Lunica
 

Let's say you missed the part I and others have drummed into these forums for years....nasa masks/blurs/sanitizes/falsely colors etc the images to delete info about life and even fossils on Mars. That may not be so important to many people in their everyday lives.There are people paid to obscure/screw with data.They are hired to delete evidence,while we are trying to prove the opposite,that life exists on Mars.Let's say I tell you go to a specific image and the next day it disappears or gets blurred out,changed,reduced in size,masked out,evidence destroyed.I just made those paid goons job easier for them like a stooge working for them,playing along being a "nice guy scientific cooperative type",or let me just lay down and take it. It's a catch 22 between being believed,and corrupting even more good finds for future researchers. Think of it like dumping gravel over an ancient treasures excavation site to ruin it for the future.Deny future generations the finds that threaten your information control.Well sure I'll reveal my source image so they can destroy it. Ask nasa for it. They own it,right ?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Now go back and look at the frame under "BB" and look at extreme edge on your left hand side to see a face.That's NOT the only face.That's one of the faces.Most of you probably can't see the face ,even if I showed you where to look by circling it.Not so easy ,is it ? Nasa will never show you even ONE FACE because they black out faces. It's their agenda to deny life on Mars,even though they officially talk about water and ice. Are you getting a clearer image of what is going on?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Let's say I tell you go to a specific image and the next day it disappears or gets blurred out,changed,reduced in size,masked out,evidence destroyed.
That is the most lame excuse I have ever read for not providing the original source of your highly altered images!

If they have the originals that you supposedly "unmask" they can recognise the images while we are left wondering what image you did use.


It's a catch 22 between being believed,and corrupting even more good finds for future researchers.
It's not.

If you are really believed, people will go to the source to see the originals and you will have lots of witnesses of the changing of the images.

But posting this type of image without anything to back you up does not lend great credibility to your (already hard to believe) work, so, if you are right, the "paid goons" are the only people who know what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


With taxes supporting NASA they still do not comply

They can cover-up Mars photos and even tell you a lie

Mars has inhabitants animals humanoids of many a race

With all the masked photos life is still staring us in the face

What will NASA release to the public that many already know

Could it be they have a secret agenda to hide from friend or foe

Never give up searching the truth of what is on the surface of Mars

We humans know deep down within life exists in our galaxies of stars

Rik Riley


[edit on 11-7-2008 by rikriley]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
They are rocks imo, nothing more. I mean come on, we have rocks and cliffsides and trees that look like not only faces, but specific faces! Elvis, Jesus, Virgin Mary, Abraham Lincoln.. they are all there. And tons of natural formations that look like random faces.

To put it another way, it would be very odd if we did NOT see some formations that were not shaped sort of like faces, statues, skulls, etc.

NASA I'm sure, goes over their photos with great due diligence. They see this stuff. They pass them off as rocks. Because... they are. It's ironic that in some threads, people claim that NASA blurs out / edits photos, taking great care to hide things, and yet, they let obvious stuff like this pass by.

These imo are simply rock formations. The logic alone doesn't quite fit. Why would all accounts of aliens be a species that is similar, but still quite different from our own, and yet there are Egyptian figures on the moon and Mars? That civilization is quite young on a planetary scale of time. I couldn't help but chuckle, at the video that concluded with an image of a supposed carved Queen Nefertiti on the face of the Moon, laying sideways no less. Meaning it was supposedly put there in the last 2300 years or so.

I'm just going to continue to consider all these doorways, skulls, nuts and bolts and machine parts, faces, statues, pyramids, tiny statuettes, etc. et al, to be rock formations, until so much more solid proof comes along.

NASA doesn't hide these for a reason: they are not worth hiding, because nothing is there.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by fleabit]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by fleabit]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Most of you probably can't see the face ,even if I showed you where to look by circling it.Not so easy ,is it ?


Most can't see the face because there isn't a face there, you're making faces in grainy distorted pixelated pictures of rocks where there aren't any faces lol And no it's not so easy for a rational thinking person to clutch at straws and in desparation make faces where there aren't faces. I already proved this point with my making an Ithorian face out of your rock formations and Ithorians don't even exist unless the Martians are secret Star Wars fans and they were paying homage to Lucas



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If you are really believed, people will go to the source to see the originals and you will have lots of witnesses of the changing of the images.


vze2xjjk... I am going to have to go with ArMaP on this one...

It is hard enough to show people anomalies as it is. I like a lot of Hoagland's work but I have the same problem with his stuff... he hardly ever shows you the source to the original stuff...

Take for example Data's Head.... shown here..
www.enterprisemission.com...

The only image number given on the page is this caption...

"Another shattered mechanical housing from the interior of Shorty Crater ( NASA Frame AS17-132-21000)"

Now I could give the fact that it was a typo... but there IS NO IMAGE AS17-132-21000

The actual number is AS17-137-2100 and there is a whole series taken in this crater...AS17-137-20993 through AS17-137-21006HR

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Now I wrote Enterprise Mission and pointed this out... my email was ignored and the 'error' remains...

So the point is in my opinion without providing the original source.. doctored or not... there is nothing to be gained by looking at images. If the results cannot be duplicated it is next to worthless

[edit on 11-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

I agree: the original image may give us informations like coordinates, may enable us to find more images of the same area, we could find out that it is part of a series of shots, and maybe we can find more shots of the same formation from different angles : basically, to share the number of the image may streghten the value of a find. If one thinks to have spotted something of unusual, i don't see why he/she has to hide the source, it does not make sense.
And about the enhancements: i see a good enhancement every thousands ones i see here: filters applied in a wild way can just enhance image artifacting: to apply random filders prove just that one owns photoshop or some other software.


[edit on 11/7/2008 by internos]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos If one thinks to have spotted something of unusual, i don't see why he/she has to hide the source, it does not make sense.


Well it makes sense in Hoagland's case... He is selling the info.. and also claims that his pictures are from sources like Ken Johnston... so giving us a NASA image number will not help us as the NASA version is different than his version

Also I have found that many anomaly hunters are extremely jealous of their finds... even though there are many cases where people just looking through NASA images have made independent finds of the same obvious features... its not like there is a database that has the anomalies listed with a "First found by So and So" and no amount of adding your name to a public domain image will make it yours..

Sure the clips and enhancements are yours... but anyone can pull up the images and do their own clips.

I personally do not see this "I found it first" attitude as constructive even though 'credit were due" is always good policy. I had this issue with Keith Laney hehe but we acknowledged "independant verification" though I did change my page to show he found it first



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


If most of us can't even see your so called "faces",then why bother posting them?

You obviously put a great deal of time and effort into whatever these images are supposed to be,and seem to be very passionate in your beliefs,(i am also a believer by the way),however,i find your work to be a complete turn off which is a shame because every half decent and interesting thread that you decide to contribute your images too,suddenly finds itself struggling to survive and remain active.

I also find it a bit strange that out of probably the whole membership of ATS,only rikriley and yourself can actually claim to make any sense of the images you post.

If you want the average ATS member to subscribe too your beliefs then i am sorry,you are going to have too try harder than that!



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Oh, i know very well your way to approach the matter:
but you are interested in the truth, you share knowledge and documentation, you put efforts, you add to research: this is not a business, for you.
BUT in Hoagland's case.... well, the story is long, i wouldn't put a cent on his work, too many times his claims turned out to be claims and nothing more. I prefer to take a look at some unknown researcher's find, who believes to have spotted something unusual. We have a huge paradox here: the same people blaming nasa and other agencies to "airbrush" images, is often the same people claiming to have spotted something anomalous in nasa images.
Lol, yesterday i was reading some of the papers that you share on Pegasus: i wonder how many people are aware that they are available there, for free



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
please spare us.. these imagined faces.. skulls.. artifacts.. I get a headache trying to focus in on a rock.. and trying to bend it to your liking... no matter how much I try.. it still looks like a rock,,, kind of dissapointing to have to travel all that way to mars.. to get a picture of something that looks like nevada..



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
A few thousand years from now there may be people debating similarly over an image captured by a probe sent to a dead planet. They'll argue matrixing, they look sorta like faces but.. and anyway why put them way up there on the side of a cliff with nothing around .. etc. etc. ..

and here's the image they may be looking at:





posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Offhand I'd say it looks like a skull,not an android head,but a skull. I found the story of the android head amusing and imaginative.He didn't bore me,and had the effect of making me want to know more.Hoagland couldn't possibly answer all my questions,but he made me QUESTION.+ I give credit to Hoagland for pissing me off with so many burning questions unanswered and his assinine tease method that the news media loves so dearly to STAY TUNED.I just hate that. I have to love Hoagland for throwing caution to the wind to hype his latest theories. I value him for his failures as much as his triumphs,and the fact that he keeps plugging away.I never get a response from Enterprisemission....ever.It's a joke.Or Zubrin ,for that matter.Does it stop me from hanging on their announcements....NO.I'm jealous of them for their brains and their discoveries.They do what I can't,and I find things they won't even acknowledge,or they'd appear to have lost all crediblity in their respective communities. I get a little chuckle when I find their errors,yet I'm really behind the main thrust of their work and our basic sameness of purposeful goals toward Mars. They can't see what I see,and I can't know what they know.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
We have a huge paradox here: the same people blaming nasa and other agencies to "airbrush" images, is often the same people claiming to have spotted something anomalous in nasa images.


Yup because they might have missed something.


But John and I were talking about this the other day...

IF they are all 'altered' then they have zero value and we waste time...

IF they started altering them in later missions... then we need early copies like LO and Surveyor to study...

Well the Copernicus image IS an earlier version and so are the 20 odd images found at an auction in Ohio that have notation on the back 16x20 original photos that we have now confirmed are an ORIGINAL set and only a few of those were handed out..

Here is a pic of the back of one
as a teaser..




Now the problem is that the Surveyor images are NOT AVAILABLE I wanted to use them to compare... but I cannot

IF They never landed on the Moon... then any surface images are irrelevant... so you cannot argue "see the anomalies" if you don't believe they went

Now there is a new Kid on the block... he has shown us some really cool anomalies in pictures we have not even looked at yet but he too is selling a book... I will post all that in a moon thread next few days but I compared some of his images with the best ones I could find... and his are sharper... so I need to find where he got them...

The Orbiter set we have about have of them scanned in 600 DPI (not PPI) and they are over 300 megs.

So it looks like we will be very busy the next few weeks (ermmm months... YEARS) just catching up. We are looking right now for permission to post some of the book authors finds so I will keep you posted. I have no intention of scooping his work yet though we will pull some of the original image numbers (His are all Apollo)

The LO series I am working only now... only a few are useful (as in close up) but just having them is a blast..

And for those tired of seeing moon and mars pic anomalies... may I suggest you seek in other threads? The sign on the door says what you will find here


And we are just getting started


[edit on 11-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by scobro
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


If most of us can't even see your so called "faces",then why bother posting them?

I also find it a bit strange that out of probably the whole membership of ATS,only rikriley and yourself can actually claim to make any sense of the images you post.

If you want the average ATS member to subscribe too your beliefs then i am sorry,you are going to have too try harder than that!


I totally concur. He feels the need to bombard every thread with this spam


vze2xjjk... you are ignored.

Up to the rest of you to do as you see fit.

Mungo



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Now go back and look at the frame under "BB" and look at extreme edge on your left hand side to see a face.That's NOT the only face.That's one of the faces.Most of you probably can't see the face ,even if I showed you where to look by circling it.Not so easy ,is it ? Nasa will never show you even ONE FACE because they black out faces. It's their agenda to deny life on Mars,even though they officially talk about water and ice. Are you getting a clearer image of what is going on?


vze, your 2 heads BB 2nd photo shows what I call stacked totem faces. The reason most can not see the double set of faces is because it is in the yellow color spectrum. Far left in your Hostess Cupcake red highlighted design of 2nd photo is a stacked pair of unusual faces and your 2nd pair of stacked or overlapping faces is at the bottom center of your cupcake design red highlight in yellow. It is a male humanoid face overlapping a distinct humanoid female face. Female has 2 eyes, nose and mouth with shapely lips.

To see the overlapping faces at the bottom center of 2nd photo left turn your contrast and brightness down and cup your hand like a telescope leaving a small opening at the end of your cupped fingers pointed toward faces. This will help you see better and prevents the excess light coming back into the eye that tends to blind you from seeing anomalies. You are right most will never see what you have pointed out or highlighted. Rik Riley



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Good grief.

This is the first time Ive shaken the iggy stick, and in the same post.


See how its come to a screaming halt?

See you Rik..ur gone too.

Mungo



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mungodave
Good grief.

This is the first time Ive shaken the iggy stick, and in the same post.


See how its come to a screaming halt?

See you Rik..ur gone too.

Mungo


What took you so long to use the iggy stick was it to much for your brain to take in at once. Good your gone Too LOL. Rik Riley



new topics

top topics



 
198
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join