Reminds me of this:
There are a few of these statues of Buddha carved from a mountain or stone outcropping. I think there are a few giant ones like this, too, though this
one is certain the most famous.
The thing is, with all the photos of rocks on mars and the moon and such, if you take billions of rocks and sediments and sand and non-living material
natural to a rocky planet, and toss them all onto a planet, then give it a good shake (for ex: earthquakes, wind, etc. over billions of years), there
will be a ton of interesting apparent forms in those rocks. A lot of the time, it will look very similar to a human or the skeletal structure of some
animal, or a statue, or pyramid.
On earth, you can look in ANY region of the globe and find natural formations which humans will necessarily relate to artificial/man-made structures.
This is just how our minds work! They relate everything they see to things seen in the past, to memories and experiences. When we humans look at a
rock outcropping, we will (without trying) associate various shapes into human figures, or animal figures. Our brains are so successful (successful?
well, that can be argued xD) because they are exceptional at finding patterns in things.
I'm sure most everybody is aware of this, but if not, just google for something like human brain and patterns. We are great at finding patterns in
ANYTHING, in fact, we will even find patterns where there is none. In areas of our visual field which have no texture and are uniform, our brains will
project textures and patterns onto that uniform surface. You can see this when you see "static" over a completely clear sky, or while in a very dark
And those patterns aren't all imaginary - our whole universe is built on repeating patterns! All of science and spirituality are based on patterns,
their description, deciphering, and exploitation (not necessarily in a bad way). So while things like this rock outcropping may seem very compelling -
indeed, there is marked similarity to known man-made objects - there is a very high probability that it is just a natural formation which appears to
I'm a huge skeptic, but I'm not a debunker. We need to look at this kinda thing objectively. When Project Blue Book first started, the guy who ran
the project was very objective and would kick a researcher off the team if they supported the ET hypothesis OR denied the ET hypothesis too strongly.
If they were too pro-ET or anti-ET, they wouldn't be allowed to continue. That is objectivity - a neutral perspective. Later on, PBB devolved into
basically a pure disinformation campaign when the original project director was nixed, the already-documented cases reclassified (meaning that a case
which was previous 'Possible Satellite' would now be 'Almost-certain Satellite', and 'Unidentified - No Known Explanation' would now be
'Possible Swamp Gas', thus reducing the # of unidentified cases without any change in the data, just the interpretation of the data), and the
objective of the project was changed to 'DEBUNK EVERYTHING'.
Anyways, photos like this really don't mean anything, unless there are many anomalies in the same area, and even then, for every anomaly found on
mars that looks artificial, you can find ten similar anomalies on earth. Unfortunately, while this photo might actually have artificial structures in
it, we just cannot tell from only a photo.
NASA doctors a lot of their images - image editing is part of what they do, to clean up photos. It's expected that images will be edited. I fear that
a lot of times, that editing isn't just to clean up blurriness or bad quality, it's to cover up something. We can't see what was covered up, but at
least that is evidence that we don't have the full truth. Similar to how FoIA (freedom of information act) requests regarding UFO/ET things might be
fulfilled and the document mailed out, thus confirming the existence of such a report, but it's nearly 100% blacked out w/ a marker. That is, at
least, acknowledgment of the event/object/whatever's existence.