Clues of a Giant Alien buried in Hellas Basin on Mars

Kind of fun but I truly hope you're not too serious about this.

Here's some better examples of this phenomenon right here on earth:
webecoist.momtastic.com...

reply to post by Arken


Explanation: S&F!

I can clearly see everything you pointed out and to me the GIANT [12m ? ] alien sorta looks like a vorlon.



And I can see that the humanoid figure 'appears' to be the right shape and size [I have yet to assess that deeply with anything bar my own eyesights accuracy ].

Personal Disclosure: I will take some time to further investigate what you have supplied and I thank you very much for bringing this to mine and ATS's attention.

Is this a joke post? It's.. not?

This is beyond reaching. I'm fairly certain you could find 10,000 aliens if you use the baselines in your "research." And why would anyone use Google as a source for any photo research baffles me. It's terrible.

I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.
I cannot confirm what I see as being what you explain but it is as reasonable as any so far.
I wish I had the wherewithall to do what you do. Star for you.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

and more than plenty of DELUDED thread posters

A 60m alien skeleton?????......c'mon man!!

Originally posted by Hellhound604
Still using Google Mars I see, thought you would have learnt by now that Google Mars is full of compression and other artifacts. Why don't you start using the real Mars imagery, as was pointed to you by so many others in your other threads. A good place to start is here :

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

DOH ! he did use a HIRISE image it's on the Google Mars site, here is a link to a picture I posted on other thread he started that didn't use the HIRISE link.

As you can see in this image




The problem is he has zooooooommmmed in to far on the HIRISE link like he has done in every thread he has posted

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

From what I understand the debunkers here are paid employees of the goverment. Aka disinformation agents. The people in control don't want us to know about the space giants and for good reason. Good find. I just hope this one is dormant and stays that way.

All I saw was the car Homer Simpson designed for his brother's car company and a choo-choo train.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

From what I understand the debunkers here are paid employees of the goverment.

If you believe that can I interest you in a big Red Bridge in San Francisco

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

From what I understand the debunkers here are paid employees of the goverment.

If you believe that can I interest you in a big Red Bridge in San Francisco

OK. maybe not ALL of them work for the government...and the ones that do don't make that much.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

From what I understand the debunkers here are paid employees of the goverment.

If you believe that can I interest you in a big Red Bridge in San Francisco

OK. maybe not ALL of them work for the government...and the ones that do don't make that much.

Underlined how would you know

Oh dear; a 60m long buried giant or not? It would be a non-qualified guess based on very weak, circumstantial evidence.

Why do we chase after non-substantial evidence when there's semi to substantial evidence that there are at least geological processes on Mars that we don't understand, and perhaps traces of construction of some sorts?

There are pictures that show formations that are either freaks of nature, or something very different.

Here we go:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f90b19c0ac9.jpg[/atsimg]

Source link:

www.msss.com...

No known geological processes on either Earth or elsewhere can explain a semi-buried tubular structure that shoots out of the ground and spurts some kind of liquid or gas (target 1a). It is 'unknown'.

And here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a7235bb72c33.jpg[/atsimg]

Source link:

ida.wr.usgs.gov...

Squares do not form like this out of natural processes.

To be investigated.

reply to post by Heliocentric




Target 1a isn't a spouting anything it's lighter soil going down a slope!

Re your squares have a look at this link posted by mrsoul2009

webecoist.momtastic.com...

Nature can create spheres,hexagons,squares,rectangles as shown above.

As for 1 c a hill.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I can see there are plenty of amateur debunkers here but your observations are pretty good.

From what I understand the debunkers here are paid employees of the goverment.

If you believe that can I interest you in a big Red Bridge in San Francisco

OK. maybe not ALL of them work for the government...and the ones that do don't make that much.

Underlined how would you know

OK, OK, I guess I really don't know...but maybe, just maybe there are one or two government debunkers here that do it part time for minimum wage or just volentarily.
...and the ones debunking the Space Giant on Mars don't have anything to do with the government but do it just for fun? Yeah Right!!!!
(i am going to have to start puting disclaimers in my posts)

Classic case of seeing what you want to see in the shadows.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Target 1a isn't a spouting anything it's lighter soil going down a slope!

Re your squares have a look at this link posted by mrsoul2009

webecoist.momtastic.com...

Nature can create spheres,hexagons,squares,rectangles as shown above.

As for 1 c a hill.

Thank you for your contribution, but no.

Target 1a is not lighter soil going down a slope. The picture has been around for more than ten years, detailed studies have been done that merit some consideration. The spray shoots out in a solid sheet of liquid that then begins to rapidly break up into individual droplets and dissipate, typical of heavy bodied liquid sprays. Note that the dense sheet part of the spray and the solid nozzle barrel combine to form a narrow shadow, faint but still clearly seen on the ground immediately under the barrel. Use a blow-up of the original and this should be clear to you.

Thank you for the link posted. To tell you the truth, none of the pictures of natural formations look artificial to me. The square I posted is a perfect square (you can verify this by measuring the hypotenuse). This do not happen in nature and I dare you to find one single 'natural' example of this - on Earth or elsewhere.

All in all, this does not mean that these two posted Mars formations are evidence of artificial constructions, but they show that we have not fully understand the nature of some Martian formations, which is quite okay since we have not even understood 5% of the Universe.

reply to post by Heliocentric


It's NOT a perfect square! Mark the edges and prove it

This is an excellent example of "Reification"

Reification is the constructive or generative aspect of perception, by which the experienced percept contains more explicit spatial information than the sensory stimulus on which it is based.

For instance, a triangle will be perceived in picture A, although no triangle has actually been drawn. In pictures B and D the eye will recognize disparate shapes as "belonging" to a single shape, in C a complete three-dimensional shape is seen, where in actuality no such thing is drawn.

Reification can be explained by progress in the study of illusory contours, which are treated by the visual system as "real" contours.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

This is simply retarded.