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.

 

The Face of an Ancient God buried in Ariadnes Colles on Mars?

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Klassified
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Mars is covered with ancient ruins. What would they look like after thousands or millions of years? I've seen pictures that most certainly gave me pause, right here on ATS in some old threads. I guess what I'm saying is, don't give up. There are those of us who look at every one of these threads. Even if we don't say anything.


I think that it would be evident that a civilisation had inhabited the planet. Just image if it was earth. Again it would be evident.




posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Ohhh Yeahh ! I see what you mean ! You must reference to not-achieved Pascuan Statue, in fact we can see half a face ! But I don't think it's a face - on the contrary imagine all the Martian civilization turned about faces, all they have built must resembles a face (oh no, I do not want to believe that, I found 2 faces recently, oh no....)

Imagine the humans all turned on cosmetics, hairs, razors, etc.... with a social link named faceb... oh no.... impossible !

See that like mining...



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Boy, those vikings were really determined explorers.

We see what we know. Rock formations may seem like faces that were carved but most times aren't. Here on earth there are some big carved rock formations that were ignored as natural before and have been investigated to find that they have evidence of shaping by the hand of some hominoid. I do not see it likely that hominoids were living on Mars within the last million years. These things would probably be be covered or eroded by dust from the martian winds by now.

It is probably just a rock. I do see a resemblance but I think it is probably natural in this case. Anything is possible, but I have to look at probability. It sort of makes my life a little boring.
edit on 11-11-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I find very suspicious the simmetry of this "face"

edit on 11-11-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Aleister

Telos
There is no face there. Maybe the idea of the face but not a real one. The face in Cydonia was way more clear as a human face and still the controversy never ends to this day. Sorry dude but I don't see it.


This face is a pretty good one. It's just the head, laying almost but not quite horizontal to the picture, with the chin pointed towards your right. Once you get one of the features the rest should come easier. There is a prominent chin, an outline of the face, a mouth that's partly open, as if he's laying there dead or asleep, the eyes are quite prominent once seen, and there is a large nose between them. The thing even has a prominent left ear. The entire left side of the face is sloped just as a face would be, along what seems to be a hill. And then it's got a head of hair.

Maybe that will help. The lighting on the rocks likely assisted the image to pop out like it's doing - shadows usually help these things along.
edit on 11-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


I can't explain better!
Thanks aleister.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Telos
The face in Cydonia was way more clear as a human face and still the controversy never ends to this day. Sorry dude but I don't see it.


Hi there Telos.

About the Cydonia Face, we must change perspective about it, in my humble opinion.

It is not how it is presented from the beginning of its discovery....

It is not human at all...
edit on 11-11-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 

not as detailed as this one



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Aleister

Telos
There is no face there. Maybe the idea of the face but not a real one. The face in Cydonia was way more clear as a human face and still the controversy never ends to this day. Sorry dude but I don't see it.


This face is a pretty good one. It's just the head, laying almost but not quite horizontal to the picture, with the chin pointed towards your right. Once you get one of the features the rest should come easier. There is a prominent chin, an outline of the face, a mouth that's partly open, as if he's laying there dead or asleep, the eyes are quite prominent once seen, and there is a large nose between them. The thing even has a prominent left ear. The entire left side of the face is sloped just as a face would be, along what seems to be a hill. And then it's got a head of hair.

Maybe that will help. The lighting on the rocks likely assisted the image to pop out like it's doing - shadows usually help these things along.
edit on 11-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but I cannot see any human feature. Actually I cannot see any feature other than those natural ones whatsoever.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Arken

Telos
The face in Cydonia was way more clear as a human face and still the controversy never ends to this day. Sorry dude but I don't see it.


Hi there Telos.

About the Cydonia Face, we must change perspective about it, in my humble opinion.

It is not how it is presented from the beginning of its discovery....

It is not human at all...
edit on 11-11-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)


Hi Arken

My point was that Cydonia's face had way more human features and still the controversy continues to this days. The one presented here has no features at all.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I personally think that NASA edits all of these released, with just enough editing to give them deniability..

If true, then this picture has been edited so that it can still be claimed to be just a pile of random rocks like all the other photos they release.. Then there's the face that has been totally destroyed, and is not even there anymore..

A face like this partially buried is exactly like what would be expected, and also fits with many other images of possible relics on mars..

To believe this is really a relic of a face is not a stretch at all, based on all the other anomalies on mars that have been discovered..

Of course there is still that rather large crowd of folks that believe mars is just an old rock that never saw any living thing on it's surface before, but I'm not one of them..



SnF



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Do you know the size of the area?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Char-Lee
reply to post by Arken
 


Do you know the size of the area?


The "Face" is roughly 15 meters in lenght and 10 meters wide.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Arken

Telos
The face in Cydonia was way more clear as a human face and still the controversy never ends to this day. Sorry dude but I don't see it.


Hi there Telos.

About the Cydonia Face, we must change perspective about it, in my humble opinion.

It is not how it is presented from the beginning of its discovery....

It is not human at all...
edit on 11-11-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)


This is what I refer to...


like this...


It is a "Grey", an Alien Grey...



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
sorry arken,

i think you are stretching.

"the face on mars" tho, i think is bs, with the new HD whatever.

they smashed the side if the face with photoshop or cgi stuff.

i dig your threads, dude. this pic? not so much.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

RP2SticksOfDynamite

Klassified
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Mars is covered with ancient ruins. What would they look like after thousands or millions of years? I've seen pictures that most certainly gave me pause, right here on ATS in some old threads. I guess what I'm saying is, don't give up. There are those of us who look at every one of these threads. Even if we don't say anything.


I think that it would be evident that a civilisation had inhabited the planet. Just image if it was earth. Again it would be evident.


Are you sure that potential remains of our civilization would immediately be recognizable after some major cataclysm and a million or more years of erosion?

If Earth experienced some runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, for example, with mean surface temperatures of about 460°C and extensive volcanic activity, I think you'd have to dig very deep to find anything we ever built. Recognizable shapes could be a very rare exception ...




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join