It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Life on Mars, Nasa cover-ups, Explain this...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:26 PM
Most of my info comes from J.P. Skipper, and all of his information can be verified at his site here.Remember that all visual evidence at this site is drawn from, verifiable in, and supported by the official science data. Links to the associated official science data is always provided to both encourage and facilitate verification. Absolutely no evidence alterations have been made except to enhance clarity. There is no need for a leap of faith. If ever in doubt, pursue the verification process and prove it to yourself.
There are a couple of other threads out there that have similar subjects but I do not think they cover the things I am about to get into.
Like I on guys tell me.
NASA and image tell me.
Mars moving evidence Report 163
May 24, 2009

In the above image with a 200% zoom factor, view of the "cricket" on the left and the tiny white spot in the right frame. Next to the upper left of the white spot is a few .jpeg compression artifacts. It appears to me that something likely has been removed from this spot and the empty pixels are a carelessly left behind manifestation of this intrusion.
You see the rover imaging, although the camera work was promoted before launch as some of the best resolution ever utilized, as released to us it is in the .jpeg format and severely compressed. That kind of severe compression results in smaller display image file size but also very poor image resolution quality. In other words, what ever was gained by sharp high definition camera work resolution in taking the pictures is lost and severely compromised in the public image release presentation. This obviously prevents effective zoom and closer examination of evidence like this. Now it's hard not to contemplate how convenient that is should secrecy be someone's goal.

Is that something....Bleeding or oozing?
Report #157 February 2, 2009 (updated 2/13/09)source

It demonstrates some kind of vegetation or lichen growth especially prominent on one of the rocks so that just enough detail of it can be seen and recognized. --This original dark blue false color of the evidence brings up a point. As most of you know the real true color of living objects frequently gives them away as far as the human eye being able to identify such evidence is concerned. For example, much of vegetative life is a green color for reasons most of you are familiar with. On the other hand, lichen life for example works on a little different symbiotic principle often demonstrating fairly strong yellows, browns, grays, and even reds. The official position would have us believe that the rover imaging is only in black and white and not in color and that they know what kind of false color to add to an image. If you really completely believe that, I have a large bridge that I would like to sell you at a bargain price.

The rest of these images come from various reports...source

Not so red after all....

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:29 PM
Here are the rest of the sources...
So what do you guys think about all this? I do understand that none of this is 100% proof that life exists on Mars....But...

There is some pretty eerie stuff out there. I do not believe we are being told the truth about everything...Heck, probably nothing for that matter. But that is my opinion of course.

So what is some of this stuff people???

P.s. I'm trying to show links for all my sources but it will only let me do 2 for some reason. I'll post more very soon.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by i_want_the_truth]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:52 PM
First the one picture was a wrench and now it is an eel?
I mean every single picture represented here you can look at and think "eh maybe it does look like something, maybe it doesn't." Those are the pictures that aren't anything. IF we find something, there will be no questions as to if it's a rock or if it's a humanoid skull, we will know when we see it. All of these pictures are of rock formations or rover tracks/pieces.

When we see a funny creature waving, that will be the day.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:57 PM
Wow the last set of pictures look like there is a skull or maybe a mask to the left. In the zoomed in pics it looks like a face! Then when you look around it, it looks as though it's buried.. IMO it kind of looks like a tomb of sorts. Sort of like what the Egyptians use. I am NOT saying this is Egyptian in origin just saying it looks like it. Very interesting pics. From some of the pics Ive seen. I truly believe there was a civilization on Mars at one time and something major happened and we have found proof of this but are being kept in the dark about it. I also believe there is still some form of life there maybe underground. Just my opinion. Thanks for the post! Great pics!

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM
It's hard to say what the objects are for sure, but their shapes looks biological, or something constructed.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:10 PM
There are many more images to show...but this one catches my eye the most.

The image demonstrates what appears to be some hard bone or rock material now laying on the ground. It is possible that this object was originally sticking upright and was knocked over broken on the ground by a portion of Viking 1 passing in the air over it. The hard object laying on the ground appears to contain within it a light color material that may be living matter. This protrudes from within the hard object and then appears to have been literally cut off as some portion of the Viking 1 plowed across the ground at this point forming a significant trench in the soil.

Just keep an open mind. Life on other planets can and probably is very different from life here on earth. What ever that thing is, it defiantly looks as though it was broken and something is oozing out of it. Does it not?

Also notice that after the viking 1 made the gouge in the ground the "ooz" spills on "TOP" of the freshly disturbed soil.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:19 PM
That's really weird.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by i_want_the_truth

On the first photo, I think that its something on the lens, not on the ground, and the fact that it's not there on the second photo (that Skipper "forgot" to say was taken at the same time as the first one, but from the right camera instead of the left one) makes me think that was the case.

The white dot is a "hot pixel", and as anyone that is really interested in image analysis will tell you, JPEG works in 16x16 pixel blocks, so something like a white pixel on a dark background will create JPEG artifacts on that block, but only on that block.

You can see that "hot pixel" on the other photos from the right camera, and it's exactly on the same place, with similar artifacts surrounding it.

The Viking photo is much more interesting (and the reason why I never dismiss threads about things seen on Mars or the Moon, most things may be common things, but some may be interesting, even if not proof of anything special), and I will say something about after my diner.

I will be back in two hours.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by i_want_the_truth

Looks kind of like the "white blood" that comes out of some plants when they are pulled apart. I have never seen that before, nice pic.

I know it would be easy to believe that the grreatest day would be when we find, or are given, a picture with an alien waving. The only problem with tht is the fact that aliens in that enviroment may not be capable of waving.

They may be completely different from anything we've ever seen or imagined, so the only way yot find one is to search, and search some more.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

I agree, I thought the same at first glance. I have been wrong a lot, like most everyone has, especially when judging distance.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

So, just to be clear, you are saying one of the cameras has something on it; and the other camera has a bad pixel in it. Would this be a correct assumption from your post?

Can you also post an image with arrows on the "hot pixel" that you are referring to so we may have some evidence to examine.

Thank you

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:02 PM
Whilst there are a great many strange looking objects to be found in such pictures that could be seen as something more than just a bizarre looking rock, I can`t help but think that if NASA or `The Man` really wanted to cover up the fact that there is more to these pictures than just rocks, they wouldn`t have released them to the public: NASA isn`t exactly made up of the stupidest people on the planet who would accidentally release photos of life on Mars.

If they really are holding back photographic proof then I can`t help thinking those are the pictures we haven`t seen yet.

I`m sure there has to be life elsewhere - other than on Earth, but I don`t think it`s in these pictures


posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:30 PM

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:09 PM
The Viking picture is striking!! from the point of view that whatever is oozing or chopped off is now on newly ploughed ground and if it is ooze,is coming from the large rock beside it,either from inside or from the top.
or perhaps some guy,(far right top) has just lost his feet.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:21 PM
Interesting. I enjoyed the photos. If I can go a little off-topic for a minute though...

I am kind of perplexed as to exactly how the rover was able to gouge so deeply. Does that picture strike an odd chord with anyone else?

If it rolled over this "thing" that oozed, then where are the track marks leading to the position that it snapped the photo from? If I remember correctly (apologies for rover ignorance) this thing does have a "scoop-like" device. It would take some considerable strength and balance to dig that deeply with a mechanical ice cream scooper.

Is it the size that's throwing me off? I can't get a good feel for the scale of this picture.

How did that little machine manage to make that deep and fairly wide gash? Even stranger, how did it accomplish this without disturbing the sand around the gash? Does this thing have an extendo-scoop device, taking this sample from 10 feet away? A little inspector gadget, go go soil sample?

Simply: Where are the tracks?

I'd love to hear from anyone that can enlighten me on this subject. I know I am most likely over analyzing, and will slap my forehead in realization when it hits me.

Thank you in advance.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by i_want_the_truth
The required arrows are already there,it's just that the photo investigator has given a different slant to Armap's why the white pixel is there.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by smurfy

ArMaP stated that the" hot pixel " should be visible on other images to collaborate his theory. I am referring to posting other images with the same camera that should generate the same "hot pixel" in the same block of jpeg as Armap stated. This would confirm his statement.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Mr Mota

Good question.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by Mr Mota

Mr Mota, I agree with you totally. More information needs to come forward as to how this little trench got there and also, more specks on, if any, what kind of digging device was equipped.

I will also try to provide more details as to the scale of the image.

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by i_want_the_truth
Hi,Armap does say "the other photos" but there are only the original and the blowup, on this thread.That,I think is what he may be referring to although there are bound to be more short time pictures available at NASA and of which Armap may already have,why not have a look yourself.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by smurfy]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in