Alien Being Walking on Mars? IMAGE

I think it's just another rock, like the other rocks that appear on that photo.

And as some people (sorry by not mentioning the names, I would have to re-read the thread for that) said, there is no way of knowing the height of the object just by knowing the length of its shadow.

As internos pointed out, the Sun was not high over the horizon, and if the ground is slanted in the same (or near the) direction of the light, the shadows will be longer, in the same way a shadow cast on the ground do not have the same size as a shadow cast on a wall for the same light source.

About its size, internos was right (if I am right ) ), at 27.5 cm/pixel, it would be around 2x2 metres. The shadows is around 6 metres long, and if my calculations are right, on an horizontal surface that would mean a 3.7 metres tall object. For it to be a more or less round (or cubic) object, the surface should be at an angle of 14 degrees to the horizontal plane, something like this.

I had to give up on trying to read all of the posts here to see if anyone has already mentioned this but . . . from another perspective.
Just WHY would an alien be walking around on Mars ?
Advanced - they would have cars or something.
Is he out looking for berries or something ?
Point of origin is what ? a space craft or hole in the ground ?
It's a cute pic and story, but only the tiniest bit of logic required to debunk this. Sorry

This is a photo from an orbiting satellite. You can't see footsteps from orbit, you can only just see the Mars rovers from orbit. At the highest resolution available, an object 12 inches long would appear as a single pixel. An object would need to be about 40 feet in diameter to make out any kind of detail.

reply to post by Wallachian


I think that the rock that made the second track made a turn to the right at the end of the more visible track, if you look carefully it looks like a faint track leads to another rock.

reply to post by ziggystar60

What refrences!just look at the length of the shadow

anyway...this is what keep me on my toes

i dont think this imprint or track is created by a rock constant weight of the rock would leave a solid continuous line there are areas of no contact. It cannot be blown around marsion dust covering parts of the imprint and exposing others because the whole imprint would be eroded or covered the same again clear areas throught the track of contact and no contact with the surface. Maybe it was picked by the wind while being blown how could this object be picked up that many times as would be repersented by the amount of areas there is no contact with the surface by the wind and come to rest and continue in the same track and direction. the biggest question is the angle of the terrain that effects everthing
Not a solid track
Object not lifted
Appearence of track not altered by wind erosion or sediment depositing
The contact the object makes with surface maintains direction
Object does not have continuous contact with surface



[edit on 26-7-2008 by twistingtree]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Wallachian

 

I think that the rock that made the second track made a turn to the right at the end of the more visible track, if you look carefully it looks like a faint track leads to another rock.

I agree....I looked attentively those pics...and I beleve are rocks made those tracks.

That's one huge being
and a rolling rock would not leave one imprint unless it was a perfect sphere.

why??
if a rolling rock is on sandyland or like this...it's possible!!

Originally posted by twistingtree
i dont think this imprint or track is created by a rock constant weight of the rock would leave a solid continuous line there are areas of no contact. It cannot be blown around marsion dust covering parts of the imprint and exposing others because the whole imprint would be eroded or covered the same again clear areas throught the track of contact and no contact with the surface. Maybe it was picked by the wind while being blown how could this object be picked up that many times as would be repersented by the amount of areas there is no contact with the surface by the wind and come to rest and continue in the same track and direction. the biggest question is the angle of the terrain that effects everthing
Not a solid track
Object not lifted
Appearence of track not altered by wind erosion or sediment depositing
The contact the object makes with surface maintains direction
Object does not have continuous contact with surface



[edit on 26-7-2008 by twistingtree]

Exactly,

If it was a rock there would be a continuous flow.

Also, the prints have raised wedges or mounds betwwen the foot and the heel of the prints just like you would find in a boot or foot print.

There's a print, then a raised wedge and then a print.

Again, if you saw these prints on any beach in Cali you would assume someone just walked across the beach.

Are they prints? I don't know but I have not heard a logical explanation that would explain them yet as to how this occured naturally or by a rock.

Yes rock and roll with no sex or drugs...
Is it just me or does anyone else find themselves waiting for Artmap and Internos to chime in on these kinds of threads before getting up and doing a little research themselves? These guys are spoiling me, and I greatly appreciate their expertise with the analytical stuff. Thanks guys.

I really like this photo, but if anyone out there really feels this is worth reviewing further, simply have the spot to be revisited and see where the "Grey" went? I would also look for a buried ship is nearby, sort of like how a mud fish buries itself in sand. For scale, can the submitter at least help us look at where this is located on the Martian surface?

Further study of any know "Grey" footprints and anatomy, the composition of the Martian surface at that spot, the geological and terriform of the location will help develop some stronger understanding of this image. All this should be able to reproduced without visiting.

In fair warning, I recently saw a Google Earth image of a "triangular saucer" so called photographed over a Brazilian river and nearby bridge. Most of you should have seen this image. I looked at the image, then did some research about that bridge itself. My findings turned out to show that the triangle is actually part of the bridge so when the bridge swings open, it has something to support an open bridge, when locked open ships can pass. I then compared the original image from Google earth and what was submitted; one has gotta love Adobe Photoshop.



I consider this as a serious site. Thanks for having it.

Well rocks don't need a hill to move, they can actually move on a perfectly flat surface

but they aint leavin patterns like that


epod.usra.edu...

[edit on 26-7-2008 by porschedrifter]

I didnt read through all the posts, so sorry if someone already said this...
Those pictures are taken by fly-by satiletes, so the angles of the shodows could be way off according to the time that it would be on Mars and where the Sun is sitting on the martian surface... so it could very well be a rock rolling down or a humanoid figure stumbing down a curvy slope

There are also colour versions of that area.

RGB (made with a synthetic green).


IRB (infrared, red and blue).


Only now did I noticed that above the track from the Opening Post is another track with larger marks that leads to a rock as large as the one from OP, just on the left edge of IRB image.

reply to post by ArMaP

This is quite amazing. But the only problem I have with the picture is the "foot prints" aren't of two "feet". There is just one imprint.

reply to post by ParaFreaky


Probably because they are not footprints.

The marks a rock will leave after bouncing or rolling down hill will depend on its shape and on the way it moved down hill.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yeah. I try not to be naive but I'd like to believe a lot of interesting stuff like this. Not that I'm calling anyone who believes this naive.

i think it's two lovelorn martians who hit a fork in the road.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by chetinglendalevillage]