Alien Being Walking on Mars? IMAGE

Teasing details out isn't always so easy or fruitful for the efforts spent. It's hit or miss ,especially if there's more than one object you want to highlight.Some of the objects are almost static lookinh hash,while others fare better.Patience and resilience is what it takes to yield maybe one in 10 or 20 worthwhile pics.Then the negative people can critique because they don't really care to see or believe what they don't alredy "know". I look for eyes.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


You look for eyes, I look for answers, so could you please explain what detail did you gained with you "unmasking" of the NASA image?

Thanks.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov... here are pictures within pictures to give you an idea of the overlap in the positive and negative,plus the size differences.The little statue on Mars is hidden within this shot but it's the same exact area I'm using in the leftmost side of the big 3d panorama.I'm giving away some secrets for the greater good. Don't let the overlap of eyes in the overlapping faces trick you,because as I have said all along these are multi-exposure images,so you get that kind of overlap that seems like 3 distorted faces on top of each other,instead of one PRISTINE"clean" face.Most people can't deal with such imperfection and think it's hallucinations,boogie mans or witchcraft,a cruel joke,a misguided mind,a hoppalong hoaxter. Go back to my 2004-5-6-7-8 posts and realize the consistency,even if you disregard all the pics I posted.

Actually if the rock is shaped odd then when it rolls it could easily wobble to the left or right depending on what side it lands on as it rolls. I believe this to be the case. A quick for instance, imagine rolling a cone down a hill, the large end will dominate and force the roll in an opposite direction. Same physics apply if a rock or boulder is longer with different sized flat sides and maybe round sides too, this would cause the pattern in your picture.

Nice find though.

~Anathema

reply to post by ArMaP
Most of the details I look for are faces,and unmasking them.People seem to focus on faces most universally. Some Mars faces are like ours,and some very different,even repulsive.You can't even get some people to look at pics of life on Mars easily since they have been taught that there could only be primitive bacteria there....and the worst line from common people I hear..."oh yeah,they found WATER on Mars !" That line always kills me. Most people don't know or care,and don't want to know. A fanged Martian fossil peeking out a hole isn't their idea of a good time or a night of watching TV.They'd even rather read a BOOK ! No,really,I'm not kidding,a BOOK!

Why do people dismiss this because of size.... they say “it’s too small” or “it’s too big” to be another being.

How do you know what size another life form might be? Why do you assume that it will be the same height as people? Think outside the box, just because it’s “too small” is a ridiculous argument.

So what if it’s 6 inches tall, what if that’s the size of some alien species? So what about the scale, because it’s too small or too big cannot rule out that it might be another life form. Like I said, think outside the box.

Star and flag for the OP.

Mikey

reply to post by anathema777
Very good illustration,and at high velocity the shape will matter less as it veers a little but tends toward a straight line until it loses forward momentum like a tir going flat and starts to wobble more dramatically as the weight and imperfections away from WHEEL-shaped cause the digging in and wobbling to become more pronounced until it tends to roll a more curly Q towards the end of the roll with lost energy and momentum. It could be a drunk alien,but I've seen so many craters on Mars,I'm leaning towards a fallen rock from the sky. Don't get me wrong ! The live beings (and dead ones) come in many shapes and sizes from inches high(humanoids I'm talking about) to our size,and I'm told some are much larger,though I only have seen in the 5-6 foot range and below.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


First of all, I don't understand why you use a photo that is made to be seen with red-green glasses to create a 3D effect as if it was a common photo. Don't you see that you are working with something that is not the real data? Don't you see that working this way, even if you are right (which I seriously doubt), you are making your work look bad because it looks like you choose the worst possible images from NASA because those are the ones that work the best with your "techniques".

Use this one, for example.
(click for full 1024x1024 image)

Second, the fact that you said that the photos are multi-exposures does not make it the truth, that is just your theory, it could be right but it could be wrong (and almost certainly is, as I have tried to explain to you at least three times before), so you cannot assume that they are multi-exposures, you should work using the two possibilities and see the different results, compare them and try to reach a conclusion.

Although I can not go to your "2004-5-6-7-8 posts", seeing that you joined ATS on December 2007 (unless you were a member before, with a different name), I have seen the consistency in your work, but that does not mean that you are right, it just means that you do the same things to images that have similarities and you interpret them the same way, something that would be expected from someone that is doing a work with an idea of reaching a predetermined conclusion.

And although I have no reason to consider your opinions the result of hallucination, a misguided mind or a hoax, I think you should think about why only you see those things and if it could not be some kind of visual agnosia, like the man who mistook his wife for his hat. One of the things that man did was to stop and talk to fire hydrants and parking meters because he could not really interpret what he saw correctly and those things looked like people to him.

I think I will stop this discussion here, it's off-topic in this thread.