Egyptian statue on mars?

page: 42
191
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
this is just too funny


its like listening to little kids whos convinced there is a monster in their closet, cos they see figures in the clothes when the lights are turned off




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   




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.



So, that'd make this supposed statue what like a couple feet tall? Them martians were tiny things... Reminds me of this:




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iammonkey
 


Interesting find...but in all honesty, I think you're just seeing what you want to see. We see examples like this on our own planet all the time, in rocks, trees, etc., where the right set of circumstances results in shapes we identify as something other than "natural". I remember seeing a tree trunk in a Ripley's museum that had a very well defined face, just as a natural growth.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Sometimes... its just your imagination.

www.goupstate.com...#



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube

Sometimes... its just your imagination.

www.goupstate.com...#


or is it.....


just had to add that



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I've seen that pic many times on youtube. Very impressive indeed !



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iammonkey
 


that is pretty cool, i amade a video about this kind of stuff on the moon and mars, im gathering clips for a second would it be ok if i used this



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by iammonkey
 


Well it is not exactly an egyptian statue on Mars, but it merely looks similar to one. Are we to suppose an ancient civilization went to Mars to end up building statues, pyramids, cities, and other megolithic structures? Well the megolithic stones here on earth indicate only an advanced technology could precision make them and transport them to use in construction. If the same is on Mars, then it stands to reason that same ancient civilization is the Martian builders. All past civilizations we know of do not fit the bill as qualifing to be this civilization. It is a lost civilization as far as we know. But if they did go to Mars, the colonized it because it was habitable at the time. All we have are some myths and legends of them, who are most popularly known as Atlantis.

These so called Atlanteans were men, they were not aliens from some far away galaxy. In other words, forget the ancient aliens theory. The truth is been freely available in a book that has been highly available for many centuries, the Bible. This so called "empire of Atlantis" was the worldwide empire in the days of Noah, and even before his time. It was destroyed in the flood sent by God, the deluge. God destroyed mankind on earth with a global flood so powerful, that it changed the nature of the solar system. The floodwaters of the great deep rocketed out of the ground from miles below with heat & pressures great enough for some debris to reach the escape velocity of Earth. This debris, (water, sediments, & rocks), bombarded other planets and moons in our solar system. This bombardment is what created similar cataclysms on Mars and effecively destroyed the colony of "Atlanteans" there.

I know it is a different take on this, a more of a creationist viewpoint. Billions of years are not needed, just roughly 6000 years. The explainations still fit, perhaps they fit even better and are in a way, more simple to understand.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I know this thread has been up a while, but I just stumbled upon it tonight and actually had a few things that came to mind.
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.

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.

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. I have read that the "pyramids" on Mars (located near the face) also have a specific link with astronomy.

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. 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)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

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.
As far as I know, most sculptors do that, as a cracked stone is not usable.


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.
That speculation was based on too much imagination and small photos, more recent photos with higher resolutions show nothing like that.


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.
Really? What researchers? Could you point some specific researchers? Thanks in advance.



I have read that the "pyramids" on Mars (located near the face) also have a specific link with astronomy.
They are on a planet.



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.
Why? We have many examples of things like that appearing without human intervention here on Earth.


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)
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.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iammonkey
 


When you view the huge original photo it's like being inside a warehouse where artifacts are kept. Besides the many figures one can make out there are openings of various shapes. I gotta study that photo a little closer.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
That actually does look like a egyptian statue... crafty lil fellers...



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I hope they find more like this up there. Would be interesting to see what comes up. Too bad we can't get a live feed though. Because IF they find something, it would probably be left out for us.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

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.


Armap,
Thanks for a sane statement in a sea of woo.

The "platform" is not really an unusual feature for layered (likely sedimentary) rock like we see here.

The slide, or quake, or whatever, that exposed this section of stone obviously broke up the stone. The flat area you refer to conforms with the layered morphology of the stone. If you look to the left and right of the flat surface, you can see the layer it broke out of.

Stone that is put down in layers breaks most easily along the boundaries of the layers. I know everybody here, regardless of the level of their chronic astonishment, already knows this. The flat area was formed when the stone broke away along that layer.

As for an "Egyptian statue," that's really reaching here, as was pointed out by an earlier poster. You can find "Egyptian statues" in any complex formation, if you stare at it long enough and look at the right scale.

Harte
edit on 9/19/2012 by Harte because: fat fingers



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It has been discussed already, I have given my statement already and it is - when all around is perfectly natural, when there are winds and sandstorms on Mars, when on Earth there are so manyh rocks looking like man made things, tell me...... where is your COMMON SENSE?

So close this thready already? It has been discussed a lot started by Arianna,,,



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I swear, I am not trolling.

I found a Dalek. I did a crappy circle draw, and put an arrow, and a pic of a dalek. My g/f says it looks like a Dalek.


W. T. ....



[img]
[/img]
edit on 20-9-2012 by wylekat because: Dont mess with HTML...



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 

I tiny Dalek but nevertheless a Dalek.
Where's my sonic? Where's Rose?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wylekat
 

I tiny Dalek but nevertheless a Dalek.
Where's my sonic? Where's Rose?


I gots mine! my g/f's actually has driver bits.


Serious question: I looked at the color image posted by someone- and it's a blurred mess. This Super resolution.... is it all it is cracked up to be?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

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".


More like "action figure".



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I think it is just a coincidence as many rocks and such look like faces on our own planet that have never been tampered with just eroded through time.

Nice find though.





new topics
top topics
 
191
<< 39  40  41    43 >>

log in

join