Is this a giant humanoid STATUE buried in Mars??

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

sigh - it is incumbent on you to furnish evidence that this structure is a satute

That's not a trial and I hate repeat myself but redundant denying doesn't prove I'm wrong.

Hello and welcome to ATS. No this is not a trial, but since you are NOT new to ATS let me give REMIND you of a very very helpful tip or two:

When you present something to everyone and demand they give you an answer and you do not like the answer they give 1. do not attack them for it and 2. you need to provide YOUR thoughts and why you have your thoughts. Basically you present an argument and you need to back up your argument with something. You as the presenter of said argument are responsible for providing something to back up your stance.

Have an enjoyable time here at ATS

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


way to go PHAGE(i'm sure some sculptors wanted to pay homage to JFK in the side of a volcanic formation)! Redundant AFFIRMING does not work either. by the way if there's no proof either way then how can you sit there on your high and mighty thrown of truth and ignorantly expect for everyone to just take your word for it.(when you're bashing everyone's opinion?) WHy even post if you don't want everyone's input? HOw does it go???[THE Absence of evidence is not the evidence of Absence?] Just because no one can prove it is not a statue(an ugly one at that)does Not mean it is. Please deny ignorance.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


you must've been typing this while i was....great minds....

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Believe it or not, he's actually been a member for just over a year.

I don't see what the OP is talking about, but I did see a different face. I'm sorry if someone already commented on it but after reading the bickering done on the first page I just decided to post a reply.




I'm sorry I am at work and can't edit the image to highlight what I'm talking about. In the image I re-posted, it would be straight to the left of the "hand".

I am not a fan of these threads about seeing statues or anomalies on mars. I can never figure out or see things the way the OP does. Thanks for sharing regardless.

Originally posted by RMFX1
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Believe it or not, he's actually been a member for just over a year.

thank you for the correction. Not sure why I read 2011 but I did post edited.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Come ON!!! This doesn't resemble ANYTHING. Please people lets do our due diligence to post quality Threads!

reply to post by InfoRobinHood


I agree with your reply. It seems like this thread was pointless because neither side can produce a shred of solid evidence one way or another (Nothing against the OP).

usually I say poo poo on these things, but this does look like a statue to me

I had no trouble seeing it,trouble is we don't have multiple views of it and it's on Mars

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Let's try to entertain the possibility, for a moment, that as gchrome offered near the top of page 2 that this may be an "ancient" deteriorated remnant of some structure of some sort, a'la the Statue of Liberty, in the end of original "Planet of the Apes".

Just for fun, to think about it.....and looking once again at the best possible enhancements of the image.

To your mind, OP.....is this "statue" vertical (erect), or reclining (not vertical)? Can you look and judge by the surrounding terrain to at least estimate this?

Secondly, by the title of the thread you indicate an opinion that this (if it were a statue) may be "buried", or partially buried.

Is this about correct?

So.....IF partially buried, then it not being erect anymore is feasible....IF it were a statue to begin with. However --- when looking at the surrounding terrain, can you make a guess at the nature of that terrain?

In other words.....think of geological processes that occur on Earth (and also the time frames involved) where obvious "man-made" object have been buried, then partially uncovered by natural erosive processes.

Just try to think about this logically, based on real-world (and Earth) experience that we are familiar with. Because, Mars may be an "alien" planet, but it is after all....just a "rocky" planet, not unlike Earth in that respect.

Finally....consider very carefully the timelines of Mars' history, as regards its climate and atmosphere and potential, as a result, of any "chance" of sentient life to have developed......let alone, complex multi-cellular lifeforms. It is a very scant possibility that this occurred. We cannot be sure of course, but again.....using OUR planet as a sort of "blue-print" for comparison, and we know quite well the progression of life's evolution here......then what we know can be applied to Mars. And, this comparison tells us much.....more study will provide even more information, in centuries to come. And, theories and concepts will be enhanced.


A wonderful and romantic thing to ponder is the "Science Fiction" aspect of either some "ancient Humanity" expedition to Mars, or even the notion of Mars as the "birthplace" of Humanity itself. But, unfortunately, the biological record here on Earth discounts that concept pretty clearly.

I have another idea, but would rather keep it to myself, because it might make a good film screenplay....

reply to post by jeenyus2008
yes I see it too.
I would be surprised if someone dosn't coin it a "Gray"
I also recognized the face another responder pointed out (character from a TV show, I think?)
To me this is evidence in the "seeing what you want to see" camp. I bet if we look closer we can all see other images pop out at us.
The human mind is a very imaginative machine.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


i dont see what you are trying to desperatly see. just someone grasping at straws

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Is a hi-def image of Hellas Montes region provided by NASA HiRISE website and zooming in a specific area, we see this (at least I see it):

I also see it, but I have a different interpretation: it's just a natural formation.

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

The "head" is, at most, only half of a head, as it has no right side, what looks like the right side is the ground behind it.

The "arm/elbow/hand" is part of the ground, if you change the luminosity of the image you can see that.

The "joint" and the "leg" can be almost anything, and why would any humanoid have such a joint in such a place?

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
The tricky part is that NASA cut the area where the statue should be in the image available to download:

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

That's not true, I downloaded the image and I am looking at the "statue".

Yes I see what your trying to say is a statue, However it must of been A drunk one eyed carver. No offense but its very poor evidence IMO. I do appreciate your on going research on photo's coming in from mars. Me personally, I Do not see NASA letting out a whopper anytime soon in a mars photo. Continue The search

reply to post by ArMaP


wait a minute thats...not...a...leg....

I have better examples right here on earth of large and small statues. BTW, the Statue of Liberty figure is 151 feet, and one inch tall, its on a 150 foot tall pedestal, some of my 'humanoid' rocks below look like figures too.

I don't have to be in the middle of the ocean to prove its wet, using the fact I haven't been to Mars to prove your statue is just rocks is deflection logic.














Belgium.


Mars

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


I have no trouble seeing what you are seeing, and although just be a play of light and shadow, it does look like a partially buried statue.
Don't let those who don't know how to respectfully disagree, get to you! As good a site as this is, ATS has no way of knowing the immaturity of some of its members. This includes some of the mods! I had a teacher in primary school who used to say "Empty vessels make the most noise!", although it wasn't until I was a little older that I understood what she meant. Cheers buddy!

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

The "Arm" part looks amazing-A very odd formation-maybe its made of a very tough mineral or something.
I would have thought that would have broken off,but maybe its due to the conditions on Mars that it remains.
I am going with erosion of natural landscapes,but it sort of looks like an arm or a snake..
Statue or not,its interesting IMO.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


The 'arm' could just be a ridge, casting an abrupt shadow with the light angle just right viewed from a particular angle. As a lot of the statues I presented above, they don't look like heads or figures from a different vantage point, I can assure you of that.