Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: A Real Extraterrestrial?

  1. #21
    M-A-3D said, "In your ET data point, I see the image 'as a whole" which looks familiar in respect to an anthropomorphic "shape" but I do not see any individual parts which are stricking even though the proportions appear anatomically correct. This does not pass my evaluation process, but it's a good find and worthy of deep analysis for sure".

    Thanks for your comments!!! Well, you are not the only one who "doesn't see it" for what is presented. From my view, every "seeable" component of that ET body is correct........except for what is easily seen as "its head"! Now its head is seemingly totally alien, in form/shape - what we can see as the head is specifically triangular shaped and has some sort of formed expansion on top of the "head" - really weird looking for what we assume as "earth normal"!! Of course, we do not know whether what we see in the "head area" is all natural head growth, or is it a combination of some sort of breathing apparatus with a head under it.

    This ET object anomaly is very small/seeable in the original unmagnified photos, even with the NASA Rover shooting at significant distance from an adjacent cape. So, IMO this anomaly is not an error result caused by photo magnification

    But, even if we do accept the assumption that this Mars ET is an alien reality, we can't know from a photo if it is a natural life-form, or an object of artificial intelligence.

  2. #22
    Senior Member M-Albion-3D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Malibu, California
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by rdunk View Post
    M-A-3D said, "In your ET data point, I see the image 'as a whole" which looks familiar in respect to an anthropomorphic "shape" but I do not see any individual parts which are stricking even though the proportions appear anatomically correct. This does not pass my evaluation process, but it's a good find and worthy of deep analysis for sure".

    Thanks for your comments!!! Well, you are not the only one who "doesn't see it" for what is presented. From my view, every "seeable" component of that ET body is correct........except for what is easily seen as "its head"! Now its head is seemingly totally alien, in form/shape - what we can see as the head is specifically triangular shaped and has some sort of formed expansion on top of the "head" - really weird looking for what we assume as "earth normal"!! Of course, we do not know whether what we see in the "head area" is all natural head growth, or is it a combination of some sort of breathing apparatus with a head under it.

    This ET object anomaly is very small/seeable in the original unmagnified photos, even with the NASA Rover shooting at significant distance from an adjacent cape. So, IMO this anomaly is not an error result caused by photo magnification

    But, even if we do accept the assumption that this Mars ET is an alien reality, we can't know from a photo if it is a natural life-form, or an object of artificial intelligence.
    Well this to me, is what forums should all be about when members can review each others research for the purpose of getting differing viewpoints. I look forward to seeing critical comments of my own research and hope you appreciate my comments and analysis also. Great stuff!

    Back to your research.

    There are a number of methods to use in order to find out if the data is as, what is being proposed.

    One which I have found quite effective and relatively useful if the target data point is believed to be a living anomaly. However, correct me here if I am reading you wrong on this point.

    So if we are considering the data to be a living specimen, then we can compare the same image taken at different Sols. If the anomaly has changed in shape and/or form i.e. moved, then we could presume that the anomaly is indeed alive.

    And in this case, we have the same image target taken both on Sol 1212 and Sol 1213 and in close magnification, to my eyes, it does appear that the data point has remained stationary lending sway that the image is probably a rock.

    This is also supported by the image below taken on Sol 2123 which has a tad better lighting condition exposing the back deeper into the rock face without that compression artifact which was seen in the earlier image. To me, this shows clearly enough, the continuation of the rock strata. But again, this is down to personal perception.

    Image increase in Gamma curve by 31% in section.



    Sol 1212 and Sol 1213



    As Opportunity had taken several images moving slightly across the bay, I was able to create this quite well produced anaglyph if you have 3-D glasses.


    l
    Last edited by M-Albion-3D; 04-21-2017 at 09:28 AM.
    Time, cannot exist without consciousness observing its passing....
    - M.Scott

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •