It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
As far as I know, most sculptors do that, as a cracked stone is not usable.
Originally posted by kstallsworth
1. To me, the statue looks unfinished. Along with looking Egyptian, this makes a lot of sense, because the builders in ancient Egypt would abandon works in stone if the stone became cracked or otherwise damaged during the carving process. Completely abandon and not even try to salvage the piece, which looks like could easily have happened here.
That speculation was based on too much imagination and small photos, more recent photos with higher resolutions show nothing like that.
2. The fact that it does appear very similar to Egyptian works is also very interesting because of speculation that the original "Face on Mars" has characteristics of the Sphinx, even so much as appearing to be wearing a headdress with the same stripe patterns.
Really? What researchers? Could you point some specific researchers? Thanks in advance.
3. Researchers are beginning to seriously start looking into the correlation of different pyramid structures in various ancient civilizations, and coming up with some very interesting facts, particularly the association with astronomy.
They are on a planet.
I have read that the "pyramids" on Mars (located near the face) also have a specific link with astronomy.
Why? We have many examples of things like that appearing without human intervention here on Earth.
Now, I'm not saying that this is conclusive proof, but I also tend to think that the simplest answer is usually correct and honestly, to me personally, it's more a stretch to say that these things are random.
Once more, could you please provide some kind of evidence of those discoveries? People in ancient times had a great knowledge of the stars (better than most of today's people have), and saying that something was impossible to hide our ignorance about a subject is not the best way of discussing that subject.
Besides we just now discovering that these ancient structures on our own planet have ties to space and the stars, that would have been impossible to know about when they were built, or at least they would be with the technology that we believe they had. (or lack thereof)
Originally posted by ArMaP
This "statue" looks natural to me.
If you look around you will see that the "head" of the "statue" (the only thing that makes us think of a statue, the "body" is just a flat area) is a common feature on that photo, there are more rocks looking like that all over the place.
To me, the most interesting feature of that photo is the "platform", although I do not see anything that may show an artificial origin, I do not see how that could have been created.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wylekat
I tiny Dalek but nevertheless a Dalek.
Where's my sonic? Where's Rose?
Originally posted by ArMaP
As the image above is too big to put on the thread, here is a crop of the area with the "statue".