Alien Anomalies

Members Login
Post Info
TOPIC: Mars Reptilian with Small Wrist Shield/Plaque


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 308
Date:
RE: Mars Reptilian with Small Wrist Shield/Plaque
Permalink  
 


My apologies to the group for being a " Little prince" as Qmantoo put it.  I was offended at having my posts moved to what seemed an irrelivant area, but after talking with some friends I was reminded that adding color to any picture falls under the category of "Art" and that is not what this group is about.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 84
Date:
Permalink  
 

If one feels singled out then take that as progress in the ever twisting oddity called anomaly hunting. Dont be alarmed, its just the rusty gears of retro-spective thinking crunching into life. Its a muscle very rarely used, ive found. Onwards and upwards.



-- Edited by TheWatcher on Thursday 8th of November 2012 06:50:25 PM

__________________

arton56.jpg

HENRI BERGSON, Matter and Memory

One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them.



Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
Date:
Permalink  
 

Q, what you say if very true. Nothing posted on this site or on Skipper's or anywhere else can be claimed as definitive proof of the existance of said anomaly. We truly will not know until we can start on the surface of Mars and examine these objects with our own eyes and hands...even then I am afraid we may not agree.

Casualty, we all start somewhere. There is nothing wrong with your posts. I myself have just posted on that page. If the posts involve what the poster believes are human, animal or faces they will all be moved there. This includes posts right from the beginning of the forum that I am working back through which is the only thing giving me headaches at the moment.

Macten, you continue to take this personally ? Again, this is not aimed at you, it is a general discussion. The addition of colour to your images does not disturb me, it also does not help prove your point to me as I do not need the colour to see the anomaly. In fact the colour applications blurs the evidence to my eyes.

I state again, there is very little that would disturb me (or most other members in my experience) other than postings that are so blurred and pixellated you cannot see the original anomaly or images that have been changed or manipulated by applications that others cannot follow. If you doubt what I am saying look back at postings by Fuitnut or Elvis.

We are a small community with very differing ideas and theories about what we are finding, we debate and at times we have full blown arguments about it, but the essence of this site is a group of like-minded people looking for anomalies in images for fun. You can choose to be part of it, participate, accept criticism (and praise) for your work, argue your points with proof to support your theories, post and let others decide one way or another or....you can choose not to be part of it and miss out on the chance to be part of a team working to support Skipper and to highlight anomalies in the images from Mars.



__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Like employment, none of us are indispensible and I certainly believe that I will get replaced if I get run over by a bus. It should be very humbling, and there is always someone in the wings waiting to step into the lead singers shoes.

I live in a country full of little princes and princesses so I am used to them.
If any of you want to take whatever is said on this forum personally - there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Thats your choice. Life will always give you what you expect. Look for insults and they are always there to be found. Look for praise and that is there too. Being "offended" is a trick used to make others feel guilty and is a manipulative and controlling technique. No room for precious flowers here.

As I said - posting artistic images of statues, or faces is often going to be reduced to a matter of belief because it is down to one person trying to convince the others they are correct. In general, I reckon this is not what we want, because it is nearly as difficult as trying to prove the existence or not of God - it cannot be done. Tell me that this statement is not true then?

__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1850
Date:
Permalink  
 

Macten, Causality unfortunately we everywhere eremites.



-- Edited by goggog on Thursday 8th of November 2012 01:30:00 AM

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 26
Date:
Permalink  
 

As a new member and reading this thread I feel singled out. I noticed that all my post going in the new category that didn’t exist before I joined, Even the “Small Cranium post” witch in my opinion is just what you’re asking for went there. Ok maybe some of my posts aren’t that good, but if they suck so much that it gives you a headache I’m sorry.

 

//Causality



__________________

Causality



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1850
Date:
Permalink  
 

Macten, the more opinions, the closer to truth. Your method of disclosure unexpected and one of numerous" opinions".



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

Chandre, I could see you moving the posts you did to the new area but clearly, the rover runs over creature belongs in the biological evidence where it came from. I think it is just my use of color to point out objects that disturb you.  If this is how you are going to treat members that you dont agree with then fine. I will find another forum to post to or I will not post anything.  This hobby is for my satisfaction, I am not trying to prove anything to anybody.  I thought it might be nice to share finds and ideas with like minded individuals but if I am restricted to certain areas then forget it.

Please feel free to delete any of my posts that are not up to your standards. I will not burden you with any more.



__________________


Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
Date:
Permalink  
 

Macten, these comments are not aimed at you, they are a general discussion on an issue we have debated for the past few years. Your posts do not make me uncomfortable, I have seen far stranger over the years.

The issue is the quality of the images, what is apparant to you may not be to others. Hits on this site have grown substantially over the past two years. The site was inspired by the work of J P Skipper and like-minded individuals gathered here to discuss and support his work and eventually to start posting finds of their own. It has grown to stand in its own right since then due to the quality of posts and finds of the members.

We have debated the viability of faces/humanoid/animal statues/anomalies/rocks on numerous occassions. The problem is that each of us sees things differently and there has only been one occassion, immortalised in the Best Of page, where we all agreed that what we were seeing WAS created by 'intelligence' rather than natural processes.

You should comment if an image is too blurred or distorted for others to see, that is part of challenging the poster to up their game and make it clearer or find other images to support their finds.

That's the basis if what we are saying, present better, clearer images that really are something clearly alien to the landscape and if challenged then defend your stand politely and with more evidence. Don't take it personally or feel insulted, challenges make us all work harder to perfect what we are presenting.

There is a new 'Faces, Human, Animal Anomalies' page where anything of that nature is being put. Members are free to post what they want and others are free to agree or disagree as they see fit.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

I would agree with both of you but not entirely. I have found so many of these type of sculptures that it is impossible for me to ignore them. I only point out the really obvious ones or I would have hundreds of posts by now. I do not employ smoothing. I do however use the layering technique in photoshop that actually sharpens images for the final details to come out. It is a forensic technique used by investigative agencys worldwide.

If my posts make you uncomfortable then maybe you arent as open minded as you should be. If there were humans or humanoid types living here whats to say they did not have imaginations just like we do? Who knows whether the sculptures I am finding are works of art or actual representations of living beings and animals that used to live here. You may make suggestions all you want but if all you want is "serious" and "scientific" findings then this post would never have been allowed into the forum in the first place.  I try not to be too critical of some of the more "out of focus" posts that I have seen from some members of this forum and  I don't suggest they stop posting them.

If you could not see eye, nose, ear, & teeth in this photo then I would not have posted it.  They are all unmistakeable and the color or shade of the stone is different than the background stones also.  This formation like a million others in these photos is not "igneous rock" as Nasa and JPL have proposed. The chances of nature making this in these proportions is a billion to one.

So where is this new "speculative images" page?  I would suggest that allmost every post from now on will fall into this category as EVERY post here is speculative.



__________________


Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well said Q ! There are so many anomalies that are clear in the latest Curiosity images we do not need to be speculating about 'maybe' images and needing to use our imagination. When we started years ago, all we had to work with were the 'degraded' images and we did the best we could with them and a lot of speculating. However, I think we have now moved way beyond that and can really start showcasing things that are not results of weathering or natural formations. These would include mechanical and angular shapes and holes in rocks but are not limited to that. Goggog has done an impeccable job showcasing just these types of finds. I think his threads have the best collection of anomalies on the net, Goggog you are a star ! We have now created a seperate page for the images that look like faces, people, animals etc as most of these are speculative and require the viewer to use their imagination. I will move any posts that fall within this description to that page in future



__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

This may open up the argument once again, however, I think I agree with The Watcher, we really need to be more critical of ourselves and raise the bar. You should not need others like him and me to tell you, but you should be striving for the best and most obvious examples possible. The public need to see these without any stretch of their imagination. At the moment, even my imagination is being stretched at some of these things. These anomalies need to be in-your-face obvious.

A bunch of people who believe the same thing tend to group together and I feel that statues and this kind of thing cannot be really taken seriously. This is because any old rock can be 'seen' as something and then it becomes a matter of convincing others that your 'view' or belief of the rock is correct. Rather like faces in the clouds which I think most people would understand as our mind making images out of shapes.

I feel that what we need are definite shapes which are not 'natural' and which most people would question if the wind or water erosion had produced them. These are easier to explain as un-natural and are easier to convince Joe Public that there is something there which has not been produced by wind and rain. In case there is any doubt, I would say these things are more likely to be angular, square-ish or round-ish or having a machined-look or maybe even the more recent white 'plastic' pieces found in some of the Curiosity images. We HAVE found these kind of things and these are the kinds of things which can be easily identified as odd or strange - given that NASA and planetry scientists keep telling us that there is no life on Mars.

There have been some in the past who were convinced that everything was manafactured in these images. Yes, well, if they are, there is nothing we can do about it, we are just amusing ourselves by finding anomalies in computer generated images. However, if they are really from Mars, then we need to take the relaxed attitude of this forum and work within it, not push the boundaries even further out into la-la land.

As I said before, turn off the smoothing in your image software (and if you dont have any, then you should get some free image software and be more serious about anomaly hunting). This will show the pixels and if there is not enough detail for in-your-face identification of the anomaly, then DONT POST IT. This is a good rule of thumb to work with.



__________________


 



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

I am happy that everyone is getting along again.  Creature or statue? I believe statue. I have another find in the panorama, actually there are many but this one is clearer than others.

B2010_nereus_full6.jpg

B2010_nereus_full7.jpg

B2010_nereus_full8.jpg

B2010_nereus_full9.jpg

B2010_nereus_full10.jpg

 



Attachments
__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

thanks gmantoo, for showing me the way of the peaceful warrior. I will take this with me through life and be ever grateful  -M



__________________


Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
Date:
Permalink  
 

Morbius, I have the dictatorial power to delete your 'last' post, but you will find that is not how we do things around here.

The only newbie in this equation is you, members that have been with us for many years will know that we are probably the most open-minded and tolerant anomaly hunters site on the net. We do not target members as you are implying, we explain clearly the boundaries we require for membership and postings on our site. There are more truths in this universe than dreamt of in the philosopies of man (apologies to whomever made that quote famous for the slight change Who are you to define for every seeker what the truth is or to imply that views that do not agree with yours are somehow wrong. We are in no position to draw conclusions on what we theorise, we put forward what we think and believe we see as our personal opinions and then we need to accept that others may not see the same thing. We need to defend our theories in a polite and professional manner and be open to constructive criticism where necessary. In the end, on this site we often just agree to disagree or to wait until we have better images to work with one day.

As you have envisioned, you have not been deleted or banned from this site, you have been asked to adapt your postings, up your game when challenged and be open to criticism and opposing viewpoints to your personal opinions.



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

To: All AA members, et al . To my many friends at AA, thanks for putting up with me. I still think we had lots of fun and viewing together. Is it so much as technique, etc., that has made them uneasy, or that my ' views ' are getting to close to the truth? These are the new dictatorial powers to contend with, and you might well be apprehensive now, as to just who is next on their list. As they envisioned, this is my last post. Thanks much ..     -Morbius



__________________


Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nice to see you back with us TW (The Watcher) your experience with imaging is always welcome.

TW is making a point members, it is all very well to show images that have been enlarged to the point of pixellation that you claim to see images in but are not clearly visible to other members.

This is a shot across the bows on this point to all of you, and it has been debated and battled before on this forum.

Follow the evidence, paste links to your images so that others can follow in your footsteps and draw their own conclusions, do not paste second hand images or discoveries that others have made without crediting them and please try not to bring work from other forums to this forum. We are trying to highlight our own discoveries here and to support Skippers work where we are able to, we are not wanting to highlight work being done on other forums unless it is relevant to something one of our members has found. Present the work as clearly as you can, do not over enlarge, contrast etc the image so that it becomes a mass of pixels that could be anything from a reptilian skeleton to a concrete spaceship. Do not use image-enhancing methods that cannot be followed by other members. Do not enter into derogatory conversations with each other or become personal or abusive in any way., I WILL delete your posts if I see this happening. You are welcome to theorise on what you are seeing and to try to argue your theory, you will find that we are a very tolerant and open-minded bunch....but we are really not interested in long-winded explanations, we prefer the visual proof to back up what you are saying. Imagine you are presenting your work to a tolerant scientific community that are willing to listen to a layman's ideas on their field of expertise, present it as you would have your science finals and then add your own thoughts. Up your games to be as professional as you can be, many are watching us silently, not taking part in the discussion but watching all the same, cater to that invisible audience out there and be as convincing and professional as you can be both visually and with your interpretations of what you believe you are seeing.

Chandre - Founding Member of Alien Anomalies, Fellow Seeker and Moderator



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 84
Date:
Permalink  
 

@Morbius ...
I respect the more primeval , protective nature over your Theories. Im glad I hit the mark. My observations were chiefly aimed at you. Its nice to challenge such 'definite' conclusions with a dose of retrospective thinking. There are hundreds of strong anomalies discovered within this site. The good hard work of some hasn't gone unnoticed and a level of visual and documentary evidence should be mandatory.... today. Dont you think? The public are looking in. some investigators are acutely aware of this. The ability to put the words 'possible', 'possibly' or 'like' before conclusive, earthly, descriptive forms gives latitude for others to consider (where possible) your ideas. When this is lacking, rod and own back come to mind. Again, not wanting to bruise you further, theres a few home truths that we have to accept. Every image is open to interpretation. For this very reason , images need to be as strong and clear as possible. Some kind of structural integrity that challenges standard, known Geological ideas, findings etc is important. I do agree that there are signs of debris (non geological) strewn all over mars. The cause, Unknown.

You see Morbius, your post started with great promise and then fatally drifted into realms you cant ever hope to know or begin to understand. Theories are all well and good. They are important but not when they completely distract the imaging point in question. So it should be challenged. Your defense hasn't been noted yet as of course, you took to heart my crit and tried to drag everyone else under the bus with you ;) No need to. Just look upon your images with some kind of detachment. Ive given, where possible, constructive crit. I judged from an independent view of your submissions, that ur a little set in your ways. I thought it prudent to shake u awake and Im pretty sure a seed of a kind is now embedded in your mind. What you do with it is up to you. Also take note that I haven't said youre totally wrong.. Just be aware that at some point someone is going to challenge what your posting and sometimes they dont step forward to win a popularity contest. This is a very serious subject, warranting some very serious questions from some very serious people. I wouldn't come in and comment on your post if I thought you and your ideas were a complete waste of my time. Just ask yourself a few honest questions... Why are you doing this and whom is your target viewer? Dont take readers for granted. Many in this field of study do. Consider myself and others, their worst nightmare.  The public deserves the truth no matter how bitter its going taste for some  investigators!






-- Edited by TheWatcher on Wednesday 17th of October 2012 12:19:50 PM

__________________

arton56.jpg

HENRI BERGSON, Matter and Memory

One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them.



Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hello rdunk, thank you for a fair, balanced, and unbiased reply .. appreciate that. I suppose if one of my ' spacecraft ' crashed on you, it would be considered ' concrete proof ' ( for a brief moment anyways ). I was going over a recent submission by Polluks/ Curiosity Update, in which he considers some kind of head, but ( so far ) appears a small house or cave entrance and doors. Anyways, I noted a Minoan ' bull-horns ' symbol over the doorway, but, to the left of this, over the other doorway, was what appears a duplicate of your shield and the same symbol emblazoned upon it. Thought this might intrigue you in further clarifying the lizard-man subject. See what you think in the attached then .. and keep on searching too!   -Morbius



Attachments
__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

To: The Watcher . Your authoratative and patronizing critique of us all is nothing short of ... amazing! Nice try anyways .... /   -Morbius



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hello Morbius, thanks for your comments. While we all sometimes see different things in these anomalies, sometime we each can expand our "deductions" to being more than what is actually in the photos. For instance, I sometimes refer to these disrupted areas as possibly being places of burial. And, I do that on the basis of anomaly evidence I have seen, in the photos.

So, if you think you see the possibility of "concrete spacecraft", then fine. I can't make that connection with what I can see, but, you have worked on this pretty hard.

I do happen to believe this is possibly a burial site, as there are several other indications of that which support the statement. For anyone who has "eyes to see", the Reptilian feature is quite obvious, even though mostly covered. That is because the few seeable body parts are so specific - fingers, arm, shoulder, head, and the very rough scaley appearance of the outer skin. Then the little shield/plaque on the Reptillian's wrist could not be any more obvious, except for a little more clear pic. And, as I have said prior, there is no way to seriously think that this little shield/plaque is atached to a simple "rock". This little shield really "confirms" the whole deal!! And besides all of that, I really believe that the Reptillian's foot is also exposed in the pic, but then that piece is a little different too!  

Just like much of the "real-stuff" we find in the Rover photos, photo quality is always a question, particularly for skeptical thought. It is not like we can tell the Reptillian to "smile for the camera"!! We always have to take the photos like they are, obviscation and all. 

I will continue to look for more pics on this, but thus far no success!!



-- Edited by rdunk on Tuesday 16th of October 2012 09:47:59 PM

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 84
Date:
Permalink  
 

@Morbius...
I have bumped heads with Hoagland many a time over his ludicrous theories that have no strong imaging or documentary sources.  Its easy to wonder off the task in hand and deliver a breath taking stream of thoughts. That's all they are to be frank. There is very little imaging evidence 'on your part' to back up up your statements.  I don't want to take up bandwidth on picking apart your strange, Hoaglanesk ideas but just to say one thing. Put the meat on the very fragile bones  of your monologue.

Some of you may know whom I am and many more are most probably wondering where does a noob get the balls to come in a and say this. Lets just say I've been at this a long time. I was in this 'group' a few years ago and made a few waves ;).   I expect to be kicked 'again' very soon. That's not a problem ... I felt moved and a little disappointed at the downward spiral of AA. The imaging quality and subsequent theorems around 'certain' finds has been anything short of ridiculous. Being of the Old guard of the alien question, I've felt it my duty to step in and point out a few fatal problems going on here.  I'm not saying any of you are completely wrong. I've just been watching an appalling level of investigation and conclusion based monologues derived, chiefly around my old somewhat deluded friend Hoagland!
Maybe its time to take those rose tinted specs off and state what you see and not what you want to see.  
No offence. 
If I didnt say this I guess no one else will!



-- Edited by TheWatcher on Tuesday 16th of October 2012 12:57:25 PM

__________________

arton56.jpg

HENRI BERGSON, Matter and Memory

One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them.



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 84
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hi... Sorry to say that the images in here bear no relation to some of the more questionable ideas. Rather shocked at the lack of objective thinking on certain formations that need graphical interference to cement a non compliant structural relationship to some theorems. There needs to be a little emotional detachment from the subjects being viewed. Amazed!



-- Edited by TheWatcher on Tuesday 16th of October 2012 12:23:41 PM

__________________

arton56.jpg

HENRI BERGSON, Matter and Memory

One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them.



Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sory for the delay, but let's get started. I said I would not mention it , but feel compelled to make one last note on the blurring-process used on this ( or any ) pic. From the horizon down note the light blue tint, as this is a major tell-tale sign and special NASA ' signature ', as well, the major crater is totally devoid of any detail, and at that close a distance there should be plenty to see. Having gotten that pet peev off my mind, let's start here with the large stone-covering of the now legendary lizard-man. As the attached will show, it is a perfect fit to the large stone to the left and slightly behind the piece mantioned. Both have a bell-tapered configuration with an attendant flange-edge to it. The main piece has a projecting bump which should fit into the other piece where there appears a large ' chip ' in that stone. These are stone pieces, all of them in fact, which at one time did not belong there, yet fit together, and have gouged huge craters in the sands of Mars. These rocks, the scattered pieces, are part of the larger picture here, and there is one strange yet possible connection. All of these parts of the puzzle , are easily covered here by one simple view. My ' opinion ' is to suggest these ' pieces ' were once part/s of a flying craft or spaceship if you will. How so? Firstly, from the mathematical spacing, machined-parts and geometry of many of the pieces, it would be quite plausible to consider these craft were giant warships made of ... cement. Now don't hang up, or phone the funny-farm on me, let's take a look at this initially puzzling offering. In an anti-gravidic field device or ship, there is no inertia or mass ( weight ). To therefore construct a giant battleship, of any size, merely requires the detailed planning, construction techniques, and will .. to produce these craft. Look at the ceramic heat-plates on our Shuttles, thousands .. all of precise curves and configurations, fitting together precisely. Our aircraft-carriers are put together in giant ' slices ' with a crane moving them along side each other one at a time, and the workmen toiling with incredible precision to make shure it all fits and works. Again, what would be the advantage of cement? For one, it can be poured into exact mould-pieces, along with thousands of others, then connected together in space or otherwise. The casing-stones of the Great Pyramid are cemented together to thousandths of an inch tolerances, and the bond is actually stronger than the stone itself. Yes cement, starting to find it a possibility now? Let's take our missile silos, those huge tubes which house those ICBM death-machines by the hundreds. These silos are made with a specially formulated and terribly expensive cement. A custom cement made with titanium powder and other ' ingredients ' for super-strength. Fact is, these are 2-3 ft. thick walls, and can withstand 240,000 lbs. pressure (psi )! It would take an almost direct nuclear hit to shatter this material. And what kind of cement would a space-faring race a 100,000 years ahead of us produce? Yes, I have seen these smashed pieces in other locations, and believe they were part of a great armada that were shot-down or otherwise made to crash on the surface of Mars, and elsewhere too. The battleship Missouri has an 18" thick steel-hull. Quite a formidable ship in its day.. Yet to bring down a sky battleship with a 2-3 ft.  cement-alloy hull defense would require or take some science equal to the task. This sounds like Hoagland's torsion physics and Scalar Weaponry, which I don't quite understand, but anyways these are the buzz-words in those circles nowadays. It may be that after thousands of years of advances even these terrifying weapons will be considered antiquated Micky-Mouse stuff too.

I believe major pieces of these crashed craft are still there, lying on the surface of Mars, and that their impact created these huge craters and shattered these hulls over many acres if not miles of debris .. a regular Roswell revisited. As for rdunk's lizard-man, it need be noted that all major cultures of early history, report it was these serpent-lords who brought them all their science and culture, usually after a great flood. And these were their sky-gods of old. So, there is a high probability that these great ships were piloted and manned or crewed by some such entities who were identified with the reptile personification or insignia. One seeming contradiction however, is the thickness of the stone to the left-rear, as it is 2-3 ft in thickness, thus the lizard-mans rock should be of the same thickness? Then again, there is the outline , and the ' shield' to contend with in the equasion. I cannot ' prove ' this either way, but I tend to believe there is indeed ' something ' human-shaped as present in the picture as rdunk contends. I hope this has been an interesting and fair evaluation of this strange phenomena for now, perchance a future deduction or find will make it all the more clearer to us.      -Morbius



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

Morbius wrote:

will be submitting a detailed report on this in a few days                 -Morbius


Hey Morbius, we will be looking forward to seeing it! 

Thanks for your help and input on this!! smile



-- Edited by rdunk on Friday 12th of October 2012 06:06:05 AM

__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 289
Date:
Permalink  
 

will be submitting a detailed report on this in a few days                 -Morbius



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

Macten said, "I have clarified to the best of my ability, your shield. If it is some kind of stylized shield then it must be for decoration only because it is much too small to be used against any type of sword or knife.  And sorry Q but I have to agree that the thousands of carvings in this destroyed complex do not seem to have been made by the tiny people that used to live on Mars.  It would have taken a million years for 2mm people to make all this". 

********************************************************************************************************************************

Hey Macten! Thanks for working on this for us. Yes, that little shield/plaque is definitely too small to use for protection. No way to know for sure about it. I thought it possibly representative and similar to the ""decorations/medals" military personnel wear on their uniforms. Or, it could be a "badge of honor", affixed to the wrist, before burial. Or, it could simply just be some sort of id tag.

One point is, this little shield is so undeniably real as intelligent design, to me, it just screams out, I AM NOT JUST ATTACHED TO A SIMPLE ROCK", I AM ATTACHED TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT BEING"!!!!

Some how, NASA has missed this Reptilian and little shield, in their attempts to hide and cover up. Yes, the Reptilian is almost covered anyway, whether by NASA, by the calamity event that happened here, or by natural burial practice. (I am just guessing burial, because of other evidence)

I do believe that this Reptilian/little shield photo will one of these days "get legs", into somebody's world of major news items.

 



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink  
 

oops link

Mars Exploration Rover Mission- Multimedia- All Raw Images- Oppo



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink  
 

rdunk

back to pile of rocks sol 1070

reminded me of a pallid sturgeon

1P223173014EFF78VAP2359L2M1.jpgPallid_Sturgeon.gif



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

It appears the clarified pic had errors or was too large.  i am working on it.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

So sad but so true. We are paying to be deceived. That has been the way since the beginning of the space race. 

At least we know some of what is going on while the general public puts on its blinders and watches sitcoms.

I have clarified to the best of my ability, your shield. If it is some kind of stylized shield then it must be for decoration only because it is much too small to be used against any type of sword or knife.  And sorry Q but I have to agree that the thousands of carvings in this destroyed complex do not seem to have been made by the tiny people that used to live on Mars.  It would have taken a million years for 2mm people to make all this. 

 

 

B2010_nereus1f_full.jpg

 

 

B2010_nereus1h_full.jpg



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

ICEMAN wrote:

NASA working on images for at least two layers, there it is determined how clearly the basic image will be seen through the deception texture.
The color, landscape features such as: craters, sand and some rock are presented in this second layer. Do not forget that the goal is to make 
everything that is not part of the background, as texture and contours of rock.


 Iceman, your comments are interesting, while your subject content is disgusting. There is absolutely no acceptable reason for the reality of whatever the photos show, not to be revealed to the public, as it is we the public that is actually paying to get the photos in the first place. Without our tax money, NASA doesn't exist anyway.

I am no youngster, but, I am relatively new at some of this (less than 2 years). During that time, as a result of in my Mars research, I have very explicit NASA photo examples, wherein NASA et. al. has made changes to photos. I do have before's and after's, and the evidence is clear, as the photos of specific identical scenes are very different. I could make a post of this evidence now, but, I just don't want to do that yet!?

In addition, fairly often, particularly with MOC Orbiter photos, some of the Mars surface results appear to be "program formulated", as their appearance seems so "unnatural". I have especially noticed this in the north and south pole areas, where there is evidence of ice/snow.

Just for thought................!!! angered.gif



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 679
Date:
Permalink  
 

NASA working on images for at least two layers, there it is determined how clearly the basic image will be seen through the deception texture.
The color, landscape features such as: craters, sand and some rock are presented in this second layer. Do not forget that the goal is to make 
everything that is not part of the background, as texture and contours of rock.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

"The two impact craters in the original pic do not seem random to me. It looks like whatever kind of structure, temple or whatever was here was deliberately targeted and directly impacted.

Macten, this may strike you as interesting, but, your statement that I quoted above has been precisely my thought for quite a while. There are some similarities among several "small craters". They are deemed to be young craters by NASA. They are very small. And the several that I have studied all have some evidence of civilizations/intelligent design. I made other anomaly posts here last year that also shows some of that evidence.

Now, for me, and maybe many, can we accept as coincidental, the fact that Rover Opportunity "JUST HAPPENED TO PASS BY EACH OF THESE VERY SMALL CRATERS, AND TAKE PICTURES",  during its very limited Mars land trip, relative to distance traveled - total odometer for Rover Opportunity thru 27 Sept. 2012 is 21.78 miles??? Since 2004, RO has traveled only about 22 miles - less than 3 miles per year - and just happened to pick out these types of craters to bother with?? I don't think so.

Yes, I believe they were probably targeted, as you say. If we expand that, then we could conjecture that these places could have been found/seen from MOC Orbiter photos, targeted, hit with missiles, and now we send Rovers to inspect the results!! Just coincidence??

If that is so, then it might be interesting when we find out the real mission for Rover Curiousity!!



-- Edited by rdunk on Monday 8th of October 2012 03:46:12 AM

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

qmantoo wrote:

Now, when you look at this rock, what do you think about my theory?

 


 Now Q, what do you expect us to say? Relative to the Reptilian and shield, I think your theory sucks!! biggrin These anomalies are not hidden, not even in this .jpg photo. There is a complete "arm" in full view (besides the other areas), and one can see two fingers from under the shield, right there. Then the shield, it is totally in plain view.

I do accept that some may cannot see it. Then some, even though they do see it, may not be able to bring themselves to admit seeing what looks like a reptilian, either body or statue, with a nice little designed shield, no less.

Who knows, there may be some little people on Mars, as you say. But here, no theories needed, except about what is this Reptilian doing here, and what is the purpose of the little shield/plaque??



-- Edited by rdunk on Monday 8th of October 2012 02:52:25 AM

__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

OK, well since we are talking about theories (you all 'seeing' eyes, nose, body, reptiles) here, I will tell you my current theory. (The one I work with at the moment)

On some of these rocks are structures, made by small beings, which make us think they are normal-sized 'eyes' 'nose' 'mouth' etc and because they are made by smaller beings, they fit in better with the rocks shape. Look again at the 'arm' and you will see what I mean now that I have suggested this. The armour or reptile's skin on the 'arm' is not skin but a series of small structures on the rock.

Big beings carve out more on a rock, (compare the carvings of presidents heads in the USA) so if we were doing a carving or making a house, it would often be life-sized or bigger which to us - is large. To them, being smaller, the house or structure is going to be smaller obviously. 

As evidence for this theory, there are all kinds of structures and patterns on the ground and also on rocks which we see in the Mars Rover images. I have posted about this before as have others too. It does not take a scientist to see patterns on the ground - round doughnuts which are equal distances from each other, smooth pathways which lead from one cleared area to another, rocks which have been made to look un-rock like or un-natural. There is even a rock being held up by a 'pillar' with a smooth area around the base of the pillar. Examples of these are all over the place and even with heavy compression and some smudging, can be see both near to the rover and further away too.

So, on this rock I feel that you are 'seeing' patterns made from smaller structures by smaller beings. This is your mind making connections which in my opinion are not there, and if you accept my theory, you will be aware of this and see the smaller structures or pathways, buildings, doughnuts, etc for what they really are. Plus of course, you are using jpg images which place blocky compression artifacts all over the place.

Now, when you look at this rock, what do you think about my theory?

 



__________________


 



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hello and good find rdunk. I have done a study on your reptilian and come up with an answer.

I put a crop of the pic in photoshop and did my normal triple layer with high pass filter and the pics show what is really in the dark spot.

The area is completely covered in carvings. so many it would take a month to decipher them all.  The bluberry growths do not help as they came eons after the disaster which overtook this place. It must have been underwater for millenia. The two impact craters in the original pic do not seem random to me. It looks like whatever kind of structure, temple or whatever was here was deliberately targeted and directly impacted.

The "shield" appears to have been importaint enough to be partially obfuscated by NASA or JPL.  I will post more later about this site as I have been working on it since you posted.

B2010_nereus1_full.jpg

B2010_nereus1a_full.jpg

 

B2010_nereus1b_full.jpg

 

The colored portion of the drawings is just color, applied to the original photo. I have done no shading.

I did enhance the black and white portion of the teeth and eyes but added nothing,

There is much more art on this stone. I have decided not to color some as I am unsure  my interpretation is correct.



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

Thanks a bunch Q, I will take a look at them!!! :))



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink  
 

It's all about if there is an eye involved and 2p21149 /Quacks like a duck for me. I would be open to it being a hallucination on my part,easily..when some here see machines , I see animals..I absolutely see the rock reptile of rdunk but can't see the shield etc. Always good questions though qmantoo with the rolling eye avatar !

__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

yes the pds for opportunity is at

http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/mer/mer1-m-pancam-3-radcal-rdr-v1/mer1pc_1xxx/data/
and for general mer datasets at
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/mer/geo_mer_datasets.htm

at least these are the ones I can get to. The other ones at
http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/search/search.html#QuickSearch
I cannot.

There are also links to the pds (at the end of the line) to the browse version (jpg of img) images on the super name lookup which shows thumbnail images around the same time as the one you enter.









__________________


 



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

"Q man said, I think if you actually bothered to go to the pds and look for the img file, you would firstly get a better image and secondly be able to be taken more seriously because the images you will be posting are the same ones that scientists have to use. However, if you insist using the jpgs from the public site, then you will be misled time and time again due to the 'processing' done to them to make them more acceptable to the public. Take some time to really inform yourself how to go about showing these anomalies in the best possible way with the most chance of them being accepted. As to being a sceptic - thanks I take that as a compliment as I have posted so many 'anomalies' that a sceptic is a good thing to be. It keeps me more grounded rather than posting any old thing which looks like it might be something else.

I am not saying there is nothing in that photo, but all that I can see is a 'dwelling place' and the arched 'door' to it on the left hand end of that 'rock'. This is why I do not think this 'rock' is a dead reptile !! Maybe you take a look and become a sceptic of what I can see?"

**************************************************************************************************************

Q, most Rover anomaly photos are actually pretty good for just seeing what is actually there, IMO. If one needs to actually see the "ants" on the anomalies, then maybe the better pics might help. And no one is going to get a NASA pic with anything on it, that they do not want seen.

However, at your suggestion, I have searched for a pds "Rover" pic file, so I could just take a look for comparison, but I have found nothing. If you could give us links to those Rover pds files, then that would be good!



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

"ROCKS ARE REPTILES TOO...BUT ARE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE?

FROM OPPORTUNITY/VICTORIA CRATER"

Mars Exploration Rover Mission- Multimedia- All Raw Images- Oppo

Hi geomeo! Interesting pics! Victoria Crater has quite a number of anomalous features, including the "egyptian statue". While, as you seem to say, Sol day 1070 is mostly pics of rocks, I did see something else interesting in one of the other pics on that day. To me, it looks "different and out of place", an the side of that cape. Of course, we may hear "it is just a rock", which could be true. but is certainly doesn't look like a rock, as there seems to be some circumference to its top face, and it seems to be sitting on a circular piece/pipe at its bottom.

To me, there, it just looks very odd! I will post a link to that Rover Sol day 1070 pic as well, along with a screeenshot.

1P223173245EFF78VAP2359L2M1.JPG 1,024×1,024 pixels



Attachments
__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

geomeo - I know what you mean about this picture as I believe it has been discussed before on this forum, or at least I have looked at it before anyway. When I did, I thought that there may be more "rover tracks" than the rover actually made. I cannot imagine that the rover would go up to the left and then come down again more than once and I cannot join up the tracks to make a complete set, but maybe I am mistaken and there is only one set there.

I cannot resolve the number of tracks left in this image with the number of tracks which should have been left by the rover, however, it could be just the angle of the photo. I dont think it is anything moving partially under the surface as you suggest though. But... thats me being a sceptic again.



__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

)) Hello Q, spoken like a true skeptic!! Not at all, thanks for you comments and opinion. To me, this is as obvious as is the nose on a face, especially as the little sheild is totally visible. Nope, no .jpg distraction! IMO, just there, partially under the "rocky stuff", but still there. I think if you actually bothered to go to the pds and look for the img file, you would firstly get a better image and secondly be able to be taken more seriously because the images you will be posting are the same ones that scientists have to use. However, if you insist using the jpgs from the public site, then you will be misled time and time again due to the 'processing' done to them to make them more acceptable to the public. Take some time to really inform yourself how to go about showing these anomalies in the best possible way with the most chance of them being accepted. As to being a sceptic - thanks I take that as a compliment as I have posted so many 'anomalies' that a sceptic is a good thing to be. It keeps me more grounded rather than posting any old thing which looks like it might be something else.

I am not saying there is nothing in that photo, but all that I can see is a 'dwelling place' and the arched 'door' to it on the left hand end of that 'rock'. This is why I do not think this 'rock' is a dead reptile !! Maybe you take a look and become a sceptic of what I can see? 

 



__________________


 



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

And here is another screenshot of the Reptilian - a little better pics of the upper body/arm/head and little shield. Two of the fingers from under the sheld can be seen. You can also see the shadows of the head and arm.



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

qmantoo wrote:

I don't think you will look forward to my comments. To me it looks like a rock. I think we need to be absolutely certain that these anomalies we are posting are in-your-face obvious and that starts with having good images which have the correct data that scientists use. IF you use jpg files, you will be misled because these are used for general viewing and are NOT useful for anything else. jpg files are compressed and so the detail is lost - gone forever and absolutly nothing we can do will bring it back. Sorry to say, in my mind you are deceiving yourself with these interpretations of these photos.

See, I told you you would not like my comments.
Q

**************************************************************************************************************

:)) Hello Q, spoken like a true skeptic!! Not at all, thanks for you comments and opinion. To me, this is as obvious as is the nose on a face, especially as the little sheild is totally visible. Nope, no .jpg distraction! IMO, just there, partially under the "rocky stuff", but still there. 

And, if you will take the time for a detailed look at the B2010 link I posted, you can see another likely burial place. It is located on the opposite side of the crater, and it too is messed up some, but, some features are still visible. I will post a screenshot of it, so you will know what  am referring to. In it you can see some stacked round rocks, and you also can see that the torn covering has an appearance of carpet type material.

 



-- Edited by rdunk on Saturday 6th of October 2012 09:45:32 PM

Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink  
 

Is this a live reptile/rock , creeping through the mud or whatever?

the first adjusted in size only/ the second my photoshop re-work to emphasize  movement

2P211497257ESFAS00P2560R5M1.JPG (1024×512)

 

2P211497257ESFAS00P2560R5M1.jpg2P211497257ESFAS00P2560R5M1-1.jpg



Attachments
__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Date:
Permalink  
 

ROCKS ARE REPTILES TOO...BUT ARE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE?

FROM OPPORTUNITY/VICTORIA CRATER

Mars Exploration Rover Mission- Multimedia- All Raw Images- Oppo

 

1P223173014EFF78VAP2359L2M1.JPG

 



Attachments
__________________


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

I dont think you will look forward to my comments. To me it looks like a rock. I think we need to be absolutely certain that these anomalies we are posting are in-your-face obvious and that starts with having good images which have the correct data that scientists use. IF you use jpg files, you will be misled because these are used for general viewing and are NOT useful for anything else. jpg files are compressed and so the detail is lost - gone forever and absolutly nothing we can do will bring it back. Sorry to say, in my mind you are deceiving yourself with these interpretations of these photos.

See, I told you you would not like my comments.
Q

__________________


 



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hello all! I am going to post something here that is very different.The primary piece of this is mostly covered by plaster looking rock, either real or "applied". For me, this is an anomaly that absolute depicts the fact of intelligent design and a type of life existence on Mars. I found this anomaly in a Mars Rover Opportunuty Sol day 2010 photo, taken at the Nereus Crater. This crater is a severely disturbed impact area (maybe was a burial place), with ejecta. The anomaly I found here can possibly literally be mind-changing for some of us.

There actually are two anomalies I will be presenting, as they are seen together. One is a Reptilian life form, and the other is a very small "shielf/plaque" on the Reptilian's wrist. I know this sounds very strange, however, these pieces are not "scratches" on a rock. Rather they are real and visual objects, in the photo.

To describe what we can see of the Reptilian in the photo:

 

* We can see a portion of the Reptilian’s head, his shoulder, a little of his chest (or back), his rather long arm, which is more flat than round, “two fingers”(??), and just maybe a strange looking foot

 

* Unfortunately, we cannot see any face or facial features.

 

* There are lighter strip pieces on the Reptilian’s left upper chest (or back) area.

 

* The Reptilian-looking anomaly is a dark color, almost black.

 

* His head, arm, and body all have the same very thick lumpy reptilian-looking skin appearance.

 

* A piece/object that is in the lower left of the screenshot could be (I said “could be”) the Reptilian’s foot.The top area of the “foot” is similarly dark, with a lighter area at the "toe-end" of the “foot”, and it is consistent with the two “fingers “ with “finger nails”.

Maybe just as significant as the Reptilian, is a small metal-looking object, on the Reptilian's wrist, that covers the Reptilian's hand. This piece is very obviously an object of “intelligent design”.

 

* It looks like a metal plaque, or maybe a small shield-shaped piece. 

 

* There are very obvious symbols inscribed on the “face” of this plaque/shield - one of the symbols looks like maybe a number/”2”, another looks like a letter/“W”, and then there are dark star/dot features across the upper area of the plaque/shield. 

 

This small metal-looking plaque/shield literally screams out “intelligent design”, right here on Mars, and portends all that goes with that - ie a civilized race of people, aliens or otherwise. Also, because the small plaque/shield is attached to the Reptilian’s wrist, I would lean toward thinking the Reptilian is a burial cadaver, rather than a statue.

 

Of course, we don’t know what the presence of the Reptilian means - Where did he come from? Did he live and die on Mars? Is he an alien that came to Mars for whatever reason? Is the Reptilian a statue? Or, was the Reptilian brought here just for burial?

 

Please note, when I use the term "Reptilian", I am referring to its "look", and not to whether it is a warm blooded or cold blooded life-form.

 

I will post screenshots, and I will post links to the Rover Opportunity Sol day 2010 photos.

 

I certainly encourage you to comment on what you see and think! I will look forward to your comments.

 



-- Edited by rdunk on Friday 5th of October 2012 10:46:34 PM



-- Edited by rdunk on Friday 5th of October 2012 10:49:42 PM

Attachments
__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard