Is this a giant humanoid STATUE buried in Mars??, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 12:44 AM by renegade1179

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

I'm never excited about these pictures. With all of the shadows and rocks on Mars, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw a rock shaped like a skinnier version of my mother in-law with her mouth closed.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 01:29 AM by Violence

Now don't get me wrong with the way I've responded to posts in this thread, I would love nothing more than for someone to post some pictures of some ACTUAL bones, life, et cetera.. I would be over the moon. It's just a real drainer multiple times a week seeing these threads posted when the only person who can see the supposed object is the person posting the thread.

We ALL want there to be something in the photo's, it's just a killer when the only person who can see it is the poster. I appreciate that people spend hours and hours of their personal time checking over these photo's, looking for anything which may point at the possibility of current or previous life on the Moon or Mars.. but if it were me looking over these photo's, I would be sending them to other people on the forums, and friend and family to see if what I am seeing, is even plausible before putting them online and being ridiculed to the point of not wanting to come back.

And on that note I just noticed this has been finally moved to the Skunk Works, funny that

edit on 25-12-2011 by Violence because: update

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 01:33 AM by kawika

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

Obvious to the most casual observer that NASA has not been truthful about any of this judging by their refusal to re-investigate the face for so long. I think they spend too much time photo-shopping and airbrushing things out of the photos they release. All that stuff should come to us live and un-retouched.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 01:54 AM by Violence

reply to post by kawika

At least the face looked like a face.

Trueeee?

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:48 AM by ArMaP

Originally posted by kawika
Obvious to the most casual observer that NASA has not been truthful about any of this judging by their refusal to re-investigate the face for so long.

The "face" was photographed by all (known) missions since it was first "seen" by Viking 1. The last (and higher definition) photo is here.

I think they spend too much time photo-shopping and airbrushing things out of the photos they release. All that stuff should come to us live and un-retouched.

I haven't seen one photo from a science-related page that shows any signs of tampering, although I have seen several from the public-oriented pages. And if they released things un-retouched nobody would be able to see them, as the photos are not taken in any common format, they have always to be converted and processed in some way.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 11:39 AM by arianna

Personally, I don't think it is a statue, but it could be a head (circled in yellow).

As a matter of interest I have circled some of the other features that are typical representations in the landscape and the rock formations of martian artwork. These representations are very similar to the features that can be observed in many locations on the Moon.

Whoops! I could be giving away some vital anthropological clues here.

Direct link. i985.photobucket.com...

edit on 25-12-2011 by arianna because: text

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 01:36 PM by Violence

Martian artwork?

Really? Come on...

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:05 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by miniatus
Probably not .. almost certainly not actually ..

It's the eyes making patterns from random features on the surface, especially when you throw in the mix of light and shadow .. I don't even really see it, but it's much like seeing faces in the clouds.

Just because you are in denying, it doesn't mean it's not there. Unless you can PROVE that's not a statue, the "face in the clouds" explanation is just YOUR opinion.

Ah, the old "you have to prove it isn't there" argument - ther is a reason this type of argument is called argument from ignorance...I think they named it after its usage on ATS!!