Nasa's Mars Explorer Spirit sent back images from the surface of the Red Planet four years ago, and there was initial disappointment among scientists that they lacked any signs of life.
But space and science fiction enthusiasts are convinced there is more than meets the eye, and after years of studying the images, have found what appears to be an alien figure walking downhill.
It's obviously a rock heavily accented by shadow and JPG compression, but it does look like a passable humanoid torso. Coy little fella, huh?
UFOMystic comments here.
9 comments:
I think this is just an intriguing visual case of pareidolia.
From: www.dictionary.com
Pareidolia (see also wikipedia):
The term pareidolia referenced in 1994 by Steven Goldstein, describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- — beside, with or alongside — and eidolon — image (the diminutive of eidos — image, form, shape). Pareidolia is a type of apophenia
So ... do you think Hoagland/Bara will run with this?
I'm tempted to say even they wouldn't be that stupid, but I had a chance to browse their new book and closely examined the photos in it, and realized these guys just don't know their pareidolia from a hole in the ground--to them printing artifacts and scratches on prints equal glass matrix structures and alien crystalline domes. So, yeah, they just might.
But if they do, they'll further undermine whatever residual credibility they may still have with those who support their unfounded conclusions about various Moon artifacts.
There _are_, OTOH, a few odd tower like protrusions on the Moon shown in a few of their photos which are curious, but to leap to the conclusions they make in their book that these definitely represent artificial or alien-built structures is unsubstantiated, and likely wrong, to put it most politely.
The "Data" skull-like object or rock is interesting, especially the red band on it in the "jaw" area, but I suspect that this too is a case of pareidolia, or wishful thinking. IMHO.
It's obviously a rock heavily accented by shadow and JPG compression, but it does look like a passable humanoid torso.
The story is stupid, implying people looking at picture might think it was a LIVING figure, ergo "life on Mars." Completely absent from the story was any concept that this might somehow be a STATUE left over from an ancient Martian civilization.
After hanging with Geraldt on his Mars Relay Station for the better part of a year a while back (miss ya, Gerald!) I may have gotten a bit too dogmatic about this, but we DID spot a lot of, shall we say, highly suggestive rock formations in the Rover pix.
I agree with dr. x about the tendency of people to see patterns in various natural formations. This tendency in and of itself, however, proves nothing about any given possibility like the one in the picture. It certainly doesn't "prove" that it's NOT some ancient Martian statue. I'm not claiming that it IS either and I would be inclined to agree with Mac that its a simulacrum sculpted by natural sandblasting and who knows what other weather?
Except for one thing. And that one thing is the graceful gesture of the right arm. Simulacra typically do not look THAT much like a human figure, with head, arm, torso and legs all in the right places and all proportionate. Oh yeah, wind creates images like this all the time....
Completely absent from the story was any concept that this might somehow be a STATUE left over from an ancient Martian civilization.
It's obviously not that, either.
The "Data" skull-like object or rock is interesting, especially the red band on it in the "jaw" area, but I suspect that this too is a case of pareidolia, or wishful thinking. IMHO.
"Data's Head," if an artificial skull-like object, is a damned poor one. At best, it's only the upper portion of a head. And the "red band" is so much "noise" introduced by filtering.
I recently done a post on Hoagland and Bara's book via the Project Camelot interviews and yeah, he could run with something like this, but unlikely IMHO.
I can't judge his photos, which were given to him by this NASA "whistle-blower", enough to make an accurate assessment on "pareidolia" or not, since my shtick is P.T. Barnum-like in nature.
But I think that since actual Out Of Place Artifacts (OOPArts) exist, Hoagland and Bara shouldn't be completely dismissed immediately, even if they strain the limits of credibility.
Hey, if there's actual ruins on the Moon and Mars, they could've been left by your Crypto-terrestrials during their formative years!
Oh yeah, that Mars figure just might be a cool looking fungus!
It's obviously not that, either.
How can you be so positive? Can you argue that it doesn't at least LOOK like a statue? And if that's the case, all you're doing is following the line of argument that NASA types favor, which is. We know that there CAN'T HAVE BEEN an ancient civilization on Mars. Ergo, anything that might look like an artifact CAN'T BE one.
Excuse me, but accurate logic based on shaky presuppositions produces shaky conclusions.
"...What would happen to the state of mind of America's press if Allah (God) orders the Blacks on Mars to show themselves? Yes, Blacks!", from the book "Closing the Gap: Inner Views of the Heart, Mind, & Soul of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan", pg. 233
Post a Comment