Human Skull on Mars

reply to post by ArMaP
Let me think hhhhhmmmmmmm, maybe all the plant life in nasa's own images.

reply to post by west aussie


OK, could you point me to some of those images, I do not remember seeing any plant or even signs of plant life in any Mars photo, from NASA or from any other space agency.

Thanks.

reply to post by west aussie


Alleged skull is not a skull. marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
We must analyze the image in its entire context.
What we see is not a skull but many wreckages of a spacecraft.
See the following web page:
anomaliasemmarte.no.sapo.pt...

José Garrido

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Interesting idea, but less likely than the skull.

Unless it was a spacecraft from the Flintstones.

PS: are you José Garrido? Images from José Garrido's site have been used before here on ATS.

reply to post by ArMaP
You only need to go to sites like Mars Anomalies, Mars news, or even U Tube and like up Mars bio life and bingo there it is in nasa's own images.

reply to post by west aussie


Well, I wanted you to show me some of those because, as I said, I have never seen anything that looked like plants on Mars and I thought that you had something new to show, all the things I have seen in Mars Anomalies are less proved than this "human skull".

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
As long as we foolishly entertain such rubbish as seeing shapes in clouds and claiming that is evidence of our desires it makes us no better than religious folks. And Ufology should not be a religion.

The OP was perhaps a bit amiss in the way he entitled his post and he has since admitted that, however he made no claim that this "skull-like" image was in any way evidence of UFOs or those who may have constructed them. Yes, this thread is in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum, but the discussion was centred on whether or not the object in question was a skull and nobody made any suggestion of a direct connection to UFOs until you raised the matter. Why do you assume that the subject under discussion need have any connection with UFOs? I certainly don't see that it does, so why do you state in some of your posts that discussions like this one are damaging to Ufology? If a (possible) skull is found here on earth, that does not in any way imply the existence or non-existence of "UFOs" -- and the same goes for such things found anywhere else. As far as I know we do not have any hard, irrefutable evidence that any UFOs definitively either came from Mars or have gone there; if this object is by some slim chance a skull it only shows that at some time there was a life-form on Mars that had hominid-like features -- and nothing more. Turning the discussion specifically towards Ufology simply detracts from the subject at hand.

Your use of the phrase "it makes us no better than religious folks" implies that you have placed such "folks" on a lower level than yourself and though you doubtless have the right to make such statements I have the right to find your attitude abhorrent and I do. In any case such statements with their implied judgmental attitudes add nothing of value to the discussion.

Now a point for anyone to consider: It would greatly simplify things if we could have some definitive information about the scale of the pictures that have been posted. In other words, what size is the "skull-like" object? Being able to determine this would at least allow us to consider it from a more objective perspective.


[edit on 25-5-2008 by JustMike]

reply to post by JustMike
Could not have said it better, cheers JustMike. I have been in touch with the Mars Anomolies web site and he has found up to 13 images of the skull like feature and he is going to do a report using the best of the images he has found, hopefully he can answer a few questions that we all have. Like I said before, if these skull like features keep popping up in the Mars images, wouldnt it be great.

reply to post by ArMaP
I said i believe there is evidence of plant life from what I have seen in the reports and images, obviously a cant prove it, it is just what i believe.

reply to post by west aussie

No worries mate and thanks for the positive input. I'm pretty open on the subject because the imagery we get makes it very hard to draw any firm conclusions, but on the other hand I agree they can't just be discarded out of hand. If nothing else that apparently skull-shaped object seems to be something of an oddity in relation to the surrounding terrain so it's worth a bit of investigation. If it is purely a natural formation it suggests either anomalous weathering effects or an object of different structure to those that predominate there. All of these things can be worth looking at.

Just for info, I lived in Australia for 30-odd years and spent a fair bit of time in the outback, where I saw quite a few unusual rock formations and so on. However, I never saw anything that looked so close as this object does to a hominid/human skull (and was the right size) but if I had I'd have stopped for a longer look if nothing else. I'm aware that we have a propensity to see certain shapes such as faces and human figures in all manner of natural formations, but like another member said some posts back, we also have the ability to reasonably discern, and recognize things that look too much like the real thing to be ignored. I reckon this is the case here -- with the rider that the imaging we are working from is reliable and giving us something close to a realistic image.

If there are or ever were higher life forms on Mars, sooner or later someone might find some evidence that is just too obvious to be reasonably argued with (note I said "reasonably" ), so I reckon it's worth the effort.

Mike

Edit: About your comments on possible plant life. If solid evidence of plant life can be found, that would certainly increase the motivation for a lot of researchers to look more closely for signs of possible animal life. Granted, we can't take the assumed development of life on our world as a blueprint for other planets but it makes a certain amount of sense that animal life would be more likely if there were plants...So we'll have to see what turns up

[edit on 25-5-2008 by JustMike]

What I notice is, none of the hot photos are here.

This guy has some www.youtube.com...

John Lear's site has some, same as Crows.

But I have no way to post photos anyway I just notice the same pictures over and over.

Interesting... but yeah, it's probably just a rock.

I see a face,but I doubt that others can see it. It looks female to me. It looks directly at the rover,facing the rover directly.I look for symetry. Rocks don't usually have symetry like faces. Once you see your first Mars face you start looking for them,expecting to see more.People,animals,fossils....Mars has them all.

reply to post by west aussie


Try picasa2 photo software, I posted this else were, good for real close-up viewing of pictures, just download pictures from nasa site to your photo file. Then open picasa2, remember all your pictures on your computer will open there too.

Dave Beamer works at making sense of the Martian picturescape.

www.youtube.com...

From the looks of things I would say somebody needs to ask why all NASA's pictures are in black-and-white and everything looks sort of gray.

The brand new photos of the Phoenix Project out today are all gray also. What are they hiding?

So many people assume that its common for recognizable shapes to be just rocks. Actually, mathematically its very improbable for something that so resembles something like, a human face, a skull, a dog, a bush or tree, water that has certain ripple formations around a rock that are immediately evident not only that water once was there, but still is. As well comes testimony of biologists, geologists and numerous, non-nasa scientists around the world examining photos such as the ones found on marsanamolyresearch.com. Nasa alone is responsible for spoon-feeding such nonsense to people. There is no logic in assuming a recognizable object is not in fact what is being seen (and indeed there is a mathematical that makes it very improbable that its not what it appears as well). Its not probable, and therefore not logical that the skull and dog are geological formations. Also, marsanamolyresearch depicts image tampering around the objects in question, especially the bottom of the skull and below it. This is interesting because if I were researching photos and found evidence of tampering, those particular spots would be the top priority for additional research. It seems that was the natural conclusion reached.

Originally posted by mystiq
So many people assume that its common for recognizable shapes to be just rocks. Actually, mathematically its very improbable for something that so resembles something like, a human face, a skull, a dog, a bush or tree, water that has certain ripple formations around a rock that are immediately evident not only that water once was there, but still is. ... if I were researching photos and found evidence of tampering, those particular spots would be the top priority for additional research. It seems that was the natural conclusion reached.

That's what I thought.

What's sad is how much energy gets put in fuzzifying and turning all the photos to gray that NASA works at. They want there to be nothing to see I think.

Scholars look for artifacts and structures but does anybody ever find people?

Just found this.

Anybody know where it's from?

reply to post by sarcastic


The fact that the images are monochromatic does not mean that they are hiding something.

Colour can be useful in some situations (and that is why they have several different filters) but having photos taken in a specific wave length is more useful.

Also, it is easy to join the images from the red, green and blue channels to create a colour photo, while it is more difficult to use a colour to photo to see what things look like in infrared, for example, so they use several filters (usually infrared, near infrared, red, green, blue and ultra-violet, sometimes also orange) for several reasons. MARCI, for example, uses orange because of the clouds, they are more visible in orange light.

reply to post by mystiq


The problem lies in the "resemble".

What makes something resemble other thing? Why some things resemble other things to some people and to other people? I doubt that there can be any mathematical way of expressing that probability based on something that is not measurable and subjective like resemblance.

Also, statistically, in a place with 100 rocks, for example, what is most probable object, a dog or a rock?

Mathematics and statistics are not good in subjects like these, when we do not have enough data to work with. That is also the reason for the debates, there is no way of really knowing what those things are.

MarsAnamolyResearch is worthless, they are incapable of (or, what is worse, that do not want to) distinguishing image artifacts from features on the terrains. Also, their inability to use new data that contradicts their "findings" does not help them getting my "blessing".