It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Additional humanoid shapes in the Mars "statue" photo?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
If my edit failed here it is
I used the 3d image which Nasa did not destroy the facial features but just darkened them,so I UNMASKED by contrasting,brightening,highlighting,as could anyone else as motivated(a year ago). 3D,3D,3D panorama....that's the difference between blind faith and perseverence.




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Up until now you thought of most mouths as horizontally oriented on the face.Verticle mouths are not so common on Earth. The "statue" will forever be called the statue to show the blindness of initial /first impressions misleading us.
Faces with more verticl mouth orientation seem more narrow-chinned so far.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Up until now you thought of most mouths as horizontally oriented on the face.Verticle mouths are not so common on Earth. The "statue" will forever be called the statue to show the blindness of initial /first impressions misleading us.
Faces with more verticl mouth orientation seem more narrow-chinned so far.



Send me some of what you drink/smoke if you see faces in that picture because I could make a fortune selling it!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Ok, stuff I found in that 100+ mb image.


I had a good 5 minitue look at the image and these are the images I found

1) Strange rock with dragon/snake features

2) A rock that looks like a sofa/couch

3) "the Jokers" face

4) a small otter creature










Ok, that's hardcore proof.... what more evidence do you want!!?? I welcome anyone that can debunk these images!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


The 3D image is made with the same images you say were "destroyed" by NASA, and you can make one of those if you want, there are some free programs to do it.

And you seem to (continue to) ignore that when you look at two images superimposed one over the other, with some transparency, you are going to see the darker elements of one image through the lighter elements of the other, that is why you see unexisting "facial features".

Yes, keep on persevering, but do not be a blind follower of your first thoughts, read what other people say and try for yourself to see if you find that they may have some truth on what they say, both can be right, but both can be wrong, you should never discard the possibility of being wrong, the first thing I look for is my own errors.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Surely I'm not the only one to notice this. It's very obvious at any or no magnification. It actually appears to be self-luminous.




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
I went the extra mile 20 minutes of time to clarify for you. My time is usually worth $40 an hour,but for you...the price of looking again and seeing nothing twice.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
I went the extra mile 20 minutes of time to clarify for you. My time is usually worth $40 an hour,but for you...the price of looking again and seeing nothing twice.




Well you anit worth $40 dollars mate just BECAUSE you WANT to see a FACE dont mean that it is.Its BULLCOOKIES and you know it .

PS free of charge!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
Surely I'm not the only one to notice this. It's very obvious at any or no magnification. It actually appears to be self-luminous.



I'm confused. I see what looks like it might be one tiny, little point of light, but nothing in that image which looks at all human-like. Am I missing something?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Anyway, back to my original question:

Has anybody been able to find any additional human-like forms in this picture, other than the "statue," which, as previously stated, is already old news?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
It's not at all old news if life is found.
And here is a set of 4 pics from 5 posts above with the single point of red light from nowhere.There's also life there too if you are not close minded and lazy enough to search for more than a few seconds. Why trivialize what others discover? Even if they don't understand what they are seeing at first ,dont call it an abortion or waste of time.....or are you the people they pay called disinfo agents?
When someone else is focused with their attention on a picture looking for answers and unmasking to figure it out,some patience is required but also allowances for NON-perfect pictures.It's not going to be pretty and serene and candy apple clear for you for masking and overlap problems alone.It takes skill to see these things and pull the details out of the pixelated "noise". The alive "statue" above is an example of FLAT EARTH wrongness for the world population who saw it presented falsely,so for me to correct the FLAT HEADS it takes guts,not apathy and a weak chin.Black face or symetry face? Which is real? Why did Nasa cover up? //Oh yeah Yeufo,I remembered why that dot is red.I designed it that way,,,yes,that is a reflection of the focusing laser from the rover itself probably.RED DOT-FOCUS laser,problem solved.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by vze2xjjk]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


Man you are so desperate and DELUDED

i9.photobucket.com...

SO if you can make a collection of out of focus dots look like a face its a face what age are you!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
It takes skill to see these things and pull the details out of the pixelated "noise".


No, sorry buddy, there is nothing there...

It does not take skill to see patterns or shapes in the noise, only imagination.

I work with digital imaging since OS2.

There is no plug-in, effect nor filter in the world which does not degrade image any further, never was and never will be... you cannot ever, never, get more detail then what you start with.

But, of course, as a pro, you already know this



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
It takes skill to see these things and pull the details out of the pixelated "noise".

No, only imagination, you do not "pull" any detail from the original (well, not really original, as you ignore the originals and insist on using the more altered images as if they were originals), and you can not unmask things from a JPEG image, unless you have the mask.


The alive "statue" above is an example of FLAT EARTH wrongness for the world population who saw it presented falsely,so for me to correct the FLAT HEADS it takes guts,not apathy and a weak chin.
The "alive statue" that did not moved a millimetre in two days (if I remember it well) is an example of how you use the worst images possible, I have told you where you can get the best images, but you keep on using an anaglyph made with two mosaics as if it was an original image.

And no, it does not take any guts to ignore other people's opinions, what would take guts (and not that much) was for you to actively try to see if you are wrong, instead of repeating the same type of work again and again.


I designed it that way,,,yes,that is a reflection of the focusing laser from the rover itself probably.RED DOT-FOCUS laser,problem solved.

I am still waiting for some evidence that you designed the rovers, as you probably know, posting knowingly false things on ATS is forbidden.

And if that red dot is from a hypothetical focusing laser (for a camera with fixed focus), why does it only appear on this photo?

PS: sorry if I sound a little harsher than usual, but the way you present things is becoming somewhat annoying after 1 1/2 years and 679 posts.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
It takes skill to see these things and pull the details out of the pixelated "noise".


No, sorry buddy, there is nothing there...

It does not take skill to see patterns or shapes in the noise, only imagination.

I work with digital imaging since OS2.

There is no plug-in, effect nor filter in the world which does not degrade image any further, never was and never will be... you cannot ever, never, get more detail then what you start with.

But, of course, as a pro, you already know this



He can he uses same software as CSI



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
I've been so bewildered by various ATS posters interpretations of Mars and Moon images that I looked for other explanations...

If the primary visual cortex was damaged in some way or had infant developmental issues it might explain some interpretations. A lot of these 'misunderstandings' are self-deception and wishful thinking, but perhaps some are an outcome of brain development. The pattern recognition 'processor' may be incompatible with the stimulus



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Something like "The man that mistook his wife for a hat"?

In that case the man (Dr. P.) was not only unable to recognise people's faces, he saw faces in things that did not had any face.


For not only did Dr. P. increasingly fail to see faces, but he saw faces when there were no faces to see: genially, Magoo-like, when in the street he might pat the heads of water hydrants and parking meters, taking these to be the heads of children; he would amiably address carved knobs on the furniture and be astounded when they did not reply.
Source (PDF file)

It's a possibility, but the only person that can know it for sure is the one that sees things that are not there (or that thinks that what looks like something must be that something), we can only point to him/her what we see as wrong in his/her behaviour.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
How can you be so proud of your blindness if you can't see that the head moved and that Nasa blacked out the face on 99% of the pics you findin a google search for Mars Statue ?
If you can't see that the head moved from bowed down to upright and staring at the rover,then I have no faith in your words.I just plain see it and you either don't or can't.If those heads are not IDENTICAL in all aspects then she moved her head.The pet in her lap is all but invisible and masked out in her lap in the 99% of google images where I have shown the detail I teased out and unmasked showing a second symetrical head you all missed completely. The negativity here is so funny to me.Not only has Nasa cowed you,but you also defend how you've been duped.Maybe you have the SWINE FLU.I designed the Mars rovers 1987.I designed the JPL logo on the Mars rovers. I made sure the cameras showed many angles at different magnifications and with filters and motion detectors to capture live approaching entities.It carries plutonium to help keep the batteries warm in the harsh winters so not to die of cold battery death. I designed the rovers to look like an animal to attract animals.The rovers have collectively survived 3 of 3 airbag landings and run for over 10 years(combined) on the hostile surface of Mars.The images are overlapping to save upload time and energy(compacting them) and computer space.Image Stacking...so you get to see the rocks and I get to see the live stuff because I look for irregularities,what you perceive a "noise".



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
PS: sorry if I sound a little harsher than usual, but the way you present things is becoming somewhat annoying after 1 1/2 years and 679 posts.


***BIG CRASHING NOISE IN BACKGROUND***

That was the sound of Zorgon falling off his chair... to discover that ArMaP has a limit



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Sigh... the sand marie guy returns once again.

My friend, it is now obvious that you are severely deluded. Before I used to wonder if you even took yourself seriously and if this was all a big joke, but after a few years of reading your nonsensical rantings posted on ATS and many other forums about your sand maries and other various martian fantasies I can tell you really do believe yourself.

There has been some pretty out there stuff on ATS and elsewhere when it comes to coloring and circling martian rocks, but I can think of only one other person then yourself that comes off as needing more help than ATS can offer. Perhaps you know him, hes the one that takes various pictures of pretty much anything, pixelates the heck out of them using his "special" filtering method and then circles random areas where the reptilians are apparently manifesting their faces for only him to see.

My point here is(making as gentle as possible), when you have shown your many pictures of sand maries,etc that you have cut out/colored/circled to most likely thousands of people over the course of at least a couple years and your the only person out of all of them that can see (and understand)what your talking about...well perhaps it's time to long within yourself and put two and two together.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just trying to point out that you've taken something interesting to many of us and have turned it into an obviously unhealthy obsession. You've even came up with names for for these "creatures' you see in every single martian photograph and talk as if it is fact that they exist and that is what they are called.

I'm sorry, I just thought someone needed to say the obvious...

[edit on 5/7/2009 by PlausibleDeniability]




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join