Egyptian statue on mars?

page: 43
195
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join


posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kstallsworth


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)


NEVER assume what nature is capable of.

Rocks with Faces
edit on 10-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Did anyone else see thie one? Looks like a side view of a face. Just me?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I never quite bought into the face of mars picture, but this definitely caught my attention. I do believe you have stumbled across some sort of overlooked piece of intelligent intervention on the Mars landscape. What else I find striking in the pic is how the rock face looks uniformly cut into a striped pattern. Does anyone else find this particularly odd, or is it something completely natural I do not understand?
edit on 12-1-2013 by lunaboy08 because: improper word use



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lunaboy08
 

You mean like this?
whiteblaze.net...
www.freenaturepictures.com...
cdn.c.photoshelter.com...
cdn.c.photoshelter.com...

The geological term is stratification.
edit on 1/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


People like Richard C. Hoagland see stratification as money in the bank. Also Mesas (like the Face on Mars) are long term investments. Its a pot of gold that planet Mars!
edit on 12-1-2013 by RUFFREADY because: also moons lots of them like slot machines that pay off!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Isn't that picture actually taken like,,,25 feet from the rock? Sorry if I;m wrong but yah, if that "statue" is 500 feet away then cool, but if it's 25 feet away then it's a foot tall. ...



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by marsrocks
Just an observation, but if you take a look at the landscape immediately surrounding the "Egyptian statue," although the site looks very naturally created, it looks like a typical Egyptian pharaoh's head which incorporates the orginally observed statue.

Coincidence?

I illustrate my observation in this video (using a Tut image as the comparison):





That would be the pharaoh with the elongated head, Akhenaten. Akhenaten was said to have come down from the stars and his children were depicted looking like aliens. The question is how large really was his head and why, the statue may be broken because powers want to keep the brilliant secret away from humanity.












posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Can someone link the one that discusses ET statue on mars?



thanks..



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The human brain is wired to see faces where none exist. This is normal weathering. Egyptian statue? Don't be preposterous!



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: iammonkey

While looking at pictures of mars. There was something on the picture that grabbed my attention. Here’s the link to the original.


Just one thing, just look at the whole rock face there. It is in a total state of disintegration, cracked and dry, just like a mud pie in the Sun. So how do you suppose someone would come along and make a feature on that rock surface, and why and when? It's not exactly Mount Rushmore is it? Had it been a structure that looked like a statue, but in itself full of cracks and division, yes I could speculate, but it's not. Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrRviewer
also to look at the original scroll all the way down and see the rock bed that the robot is standing on and that rock looks like its covered in some kind of moss/fungus or barnacle like substance or dare i say... life. this picture is filled with oddities. and it looks like some spots were tampered with and smudged a bit. wonder if there was even better stuff on this thing then we have seen?


Here are four new gigapans produced from the available JPL images of this site, called Cape St. Vincent, on the edge of Victoria Crater, explored by the Opportunity rover in 2007:

www.gigapan.com...


edited to add a correction
edit on 3-2-2016 by Constance because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anonymous ATS
i dont want to break your fun guys but this image was taken by the mars exploration rover, this is so small....

this is just a matter of erosion by wind and maybe water
the statue you seems to look at is about 30cm...


No, it's a satellite image.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: vze2xjjk

vze2xjjk wrote: "A rock or unmoving fossil gets more clarity because the overlapping frames reinforce still objects and subtract clarity from "movers and shakers".

Thanks. That makes a world of sense of what I've been seeing in two months' of studying Mars images and gigapans. I too see the faces of humanoids and animals and some greys (but they're white on Mars), and especially the animals, both the carved effigies and the living ones. The living ones are always blurrier, in part, I now see, accounted for by the layering of multiple camera takes to produce a kind of 'common denominator' of what has been photographed,explained by armap.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrPenny
Mars is inhabited by dis-embodied heads? Cool....what do you suppose their method of locomotion may be, if any?


I found it uncanny too. Thought it was a trick by JPL tricksters. But I recognize that they're there, deeply embedded images that show up in closer focused analysis by the comuter image analysts. I have no idea what their ontological status is. I sometimes think that Mars is an exceptional zone, a place receiving interdimensional attention, and in a way hooked into the quantum hologram. I think the faces deeply embedded in the images are kind of placemarkers for the connection of many post-mortem consciousnesses that have connected with the surviving Martians.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


"... Also, the panoramic cameras on the rovers (the cameras that take most of the photos we see) do not change focus, they have a fixed focus from 1.5 metres to infinity, as explained here.
"

Maybe you can explain to me why the rovers are not equipped with more capable cameras. This is hard to understand at a time when the optics available to NASA/JPL are so incredibly powerful.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
No, because it was a symbol of their civil and religious power, like crowns.

And I think that those represented with those "funny hats" are never represented as having a head shaped like that.


Have you ever wondered why it was desireable for many ancient people on earth to shape their childrens' heads to elongate them by compression of the developing skull? Who were they trying to identify themselves with?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Constance
No, it's a satellite image.

The image from the opening post? It's from Opportunity, not a satellite.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Constance
The living ones are always blurrier, in part, I now see, accounted for by the layering of multiple camera takes to produce a kind of 'common denominator' of what has been photographed,explained by armap.

That layering only applies to the so-called "super resolution" images.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Constance
Maybe you can explain to me why the rovers are not equipped with more capable cameras. This is hard to understand at a time when the optics available to NASA/JPL are so incredibly powerful.

Not being part of the people that choose the type of cameras to use, I cannot really explain why they chose those specific cameras. And I don't see any problem with the optics.

The reasons I see for choosing those specific cameras are:
1 - Fixed focus cameras have less components than variable focus cameras, so they are much less likely to have problems;
2 - The field of view of the cameras is chosen according to the work the cameras are supposed to do, that's why the Navcams have a 45º field of view, the Hazcams a 124º FOV and the Pancam a 16º FOV;
3 - It's better to use older but trustier hardware than newer but less known;
4 - As the photos taken are supposed to be transmitted back to Earth, bandwidth limitations must be included when choosing the type of camera, it's no use to have a high definition camera that will take photos that are too big to be sent during the transmission time window that can be used.

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of.

edit on 6/2/2016 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Constance
Have you ever wondered why it was desireable for many ancient people on earth to shape their childrens' heads to elongate them by compression of the developing skull? Who were they trying to identify themselves with?

As far as I know, there weren't "many", only a few, and the reasons people have for making stupid things are a mystery.

For example, why do some people pierce parts of their bodies? Who are they trying to identify themselves with?

Edited to add a better example, foot binding.

edit on 6/2/2016 by ArMaP because: see above.




top topics



 
195
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join