Alien Anomalies

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

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?

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

Macten, Causality unfortunately we everywhere eremites.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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!! 

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

oops link

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

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

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................!!! 

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?

 

"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

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

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.

"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

)) 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? 

 

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)

 

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