Statue on Mars? New Images and Commentary

Robert,
I am pretty sure that you know of the 'Low Gravity' effect on friable rock. Wonderful, surreal sculptures abound :¬)

It's interesting..... whatever it turns out to be, and comments about

Haven't you ever been curious about how mankind just happened along in the last couple of million years and still managed to take over the planet?

... are the sort of questions we should be asking rather than deciding we know all the answers....

What if we find spaceship spares, if we ever get to Mars

Looks an awful lot like the old grainy image of Bigfoot, to me, frankly. Now we know where he hangs out when he's not scaring campers.

Christ, didn't anybody learn anything from the whole "Face on Mars" debacle? Is our cultural memory that friggin' short? Allow me to deflate some of the hyperbole-- it's the shadowed portion of one facet of an irregularly shaped rock, which just happens, to our minds which are hardwired to see patterns in everything, to look a bit like a statue.

If you want to see things like it, you can see them in plenty of rock formations here on earth.

Why anybody would be surprised by the effect simply because the rock is on Mars instead of here at home is anybody's guess.

Nice catch! Very intriguing.

Do we think NASA will explore this further?

NASA is a waste of money. We have people who complain about defense spending begging for more research on Mars just because a rock looks like Bigfoot. What a sad day.

If you look at the total picture you can see many odd features, such as a possible trail of mice foot prints. A soldier complete with berry. I wrote an article making fun out of these natural shapes of a low gravity planet. The area looks is part of a lava flow, just before the larver cooled a metorite or vocanic rock has hit and splashed fast cooling lava the splash solified in the low gravity forming this larver statue.

Like Mercury and the Moon, Mars appears to lack active plate tectonics at present; there is no evidence of recent horizontal motion of the surface such as the folded mountains so common on Earth. With no lateral plate motion, hot-spots under the crust stay in a fixed position relative to the surface. This, along with the lower surface gravity, may account for the Tharis bulge and its enormous volcanoes. There is no evidence of current volcanic activity. However, data from Mars Global Surveyor indicates that Mars very likely did have tectonic activity sometime in the past.

Mars' orbit is significantly elliptical. One result of this is a temperature variation of about 30 C at the subsolar point between aphelion and perihelion. This has a major influence on Mars' climate. While the average temperature on Mars is about 218 K (-55 C, -67 F), Martian surface temperatures range widely from as little as 140 K (-133 C, -207 F) at the winter pole to almost 300 K (27 C, 80 F) on the day side during summer.

http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

Of course if your for the silly side of life then please visit my silly article

Can anyone tell how big this object is? I think I saw somewhere that it wasn't very big.

Also, how can I get one of your magazine's?

check out www.xfacts.com

There ARE pyramids on mars. This statue creeped me out. I totally believe it. Because the shadow on the statues lap below the arm is there.... I'm an artist and I know enough about shadows and light.

Never trust NASA though. It stands for "never a straight answer". Of course they know about this, they just don't want to release it to the public so people don't freak out.

So Bigfoot is a shorty now?

...I think we can count out Bigfoot...

Besides, wasn't Bigfoot supposed to be male? ;>}

Two grown men arguing one of you best stop answering the others comments then the argument ceases. I find nothing wrong with this article or the way it has been presented. I am sure most readers of the article and the title will know any reason against it are very unfounded. We know who is very, very wrong. We also know who has show himself to be very silly. Remember gentlemen to read the white text on the green bar under the Enter Your Comments box. Both of you are very good writers and it is embarrassing to see an argument that could have been stopped at the first bad comment. With a simple "I beg to differ on your opinion of your comment, I am sure other viners and joe public, will know the truth of the matter" In this case we certainly do.

Look at the second image from the top. Near the top of this image there are holes in the ground, they are at a distance and are a lighter color, as you proceed down the shadows become darker. This "statue" is near the middle of the picture and it's shadow is about half way between the two extremes in shadowing, this is not including the deeper holes which would naturally be darker.

Now, take a look at the bottom picture. Do you see the rock that it is sitting on? It is in fact NOT sitting on that rock, but behind it. What you are seeing is shadowing from a hole in the ground which shadows differ creating the illusion of being a 3d convex image because it is differing in levels.

My friends, what you have here is a Face-Vace.

This is a very interesting picture. But you know how NASA is, they will probably airbrush the picture and say it's nothing but rocks and shadows without doing any further investigating.

Well, if Marsians can be so stupid to put a statue in the Middle of nowhere, we won't have to be afraid. The last who did that were the Soviets and we all know what happened to them.

Dude, if you're going to use my handle in the captions to your photos, you could at least have enough journalistic integrity to spell it correctly. Is it that hard? I mean, c'mon, you don't know how to cut and paste, even?

It's not "ionuocon"
It's not "ianuocon"
and it's not "iuonuocon"

You can't locate an "r" when it's right in front of you, but I'm somehow supposed to take your "analysis" of this photo seriously? Good job, Roberf Bleeving - AE of Seanie... lol

Oh, and you might try actually showing some other shadows from "the surrounding terrain" if you're going to expect people to make comparisons. Ah, screw it, why bother? That'd just get in the way of "objectivity."

The landers on Mars, especially the Rovers, are designed for finding artifacts, such as an old brick wall, broken statuary, household items and so on. At the South Pole, beyond any doubt, there are very large trees, survivors of an ecosystem ravaged by floods, which carved the water channels on Mars. The entire ecosystem was like the earth's, and if trees survived, then insects that burrow in trees survived, and there were higher forms of animal life. Did intelligence evolve? It looks like there are carved "Faces" on Mars, and it is enormously easy for NASA to turn the rover around and go right back to this and do a photo study from a distance of six feet or less . It is far too important not to. We n eed landers and rovers near the trees growing from the dunes, The Face, and so on

Had there been a rational space program, we would already have a permanently manned base on the Moon, and then, yes, already, manned bases on the two moons of Mars. Despite the long travel time, it would be enormously easy to have already sent on ahead, to the two Martian moons, tremendous amounts of supplies in unmanned vehicles that would gently settle onto the moons' surfaces. From these vantage points, rovers could be driven by radio in real time all over the surface. (Remember, the first possible landing dates were btwn 1980 and 1984, had it been an Apollo-Saturn follow-on project.) The initial landers could have been sterilized to avoid contamination by and destruction of Mars' organism. Examination of soil samples could have been done in Mars-space before bringing them back to earth. Instead we have a near useless "space shuttle", now being abandoned, in favor of an enhanced Apollo capsule, to land again on the Moon, as though it never happened the first time. The psychology of all this was best expressed by Lyndon Johnson, who was put in charge of the manned space program, who said, famously, that the American people were so ill-informed and so unwise that after all this marvelous technology had been developed, launched and proven out, that they'd just p--- it all down the drain. How right he was.

To me it appears that a civilization on some level was wiped out. The Saganistic view that extraordinary views require extraordinary proof is total rubbish, as was a good deal of the science commentary of this weak-kneed Liberace of astrophysics. Certain chemicals become amino acids in interstellar space, so they will also on planetary surfaces, and evolution will occur. This evolution will eventually result in "intelligence" that works tools, constructs buildings, fights wars and so on. Intelligences permeate the universe but are stranded from each other by inconceivable distances until we develop Star Trek - style technology, but right now the evidence lays heavily on the side of those who argue we have the ruins of a civilization on a neighboring planet that at least functioned on the level of ancient Rome or ancient Egypt.

It saddens me to read this article. What seemingly was a simple question about a picture, spilled into a lesson of futility of close mindedness. I am of the opinion, that everyone can have their opinion. And, it is their right to speak that opinion. I also feel that healthy debate is good for discovering all aspects of a topic such as this as long as that debate does not resort to name calling. We have the right to agree to disagree.

With that said, this picture does spark some debate as to its origins. I am a "see it to believe it" type. There is not enough information to say for sure, and more investigation will easily divulge the mystery from speculation. If we did not investigate things which warrant it, then discovery would be vastly stunted. We would never invent things nor go down the path less traveled. Why bother, it is obviously a path not worth taking, otherwise it would be well traveled, right?

As for iarnuocon, I like to keep an open mind about things, but not so open my brain falls out. Like I said before, I need proof of existence, but I am not willing to discount a mystery when I see one. You seem to be very black and white with nothing in-between. What troubles me is you have a certain amount of faith about some subjects, but that faith does not extend to others. You blindly believe that God created everything, even though there is no hard evidence that he/she/it really does exist; yet this faith does not extend to the fact that this could be something more than a rock formation. Doesn't the uncertainty warrant a second look? Even if it turns out to be a rock formation, at the very least answers the question of uncertainty and at most something of interest could be found upon closer inspection. Perhaps some frozen H2O, who knows. Before you get your razor wit out to debunk the H2O, that was just an example.

I don't know that God exists, aliens have visited our planet or continue to visit our planet, or that this is a simple rock formation made from ancient volcanic lava flows; but, there is enough evidence to support the theory and warrant further investigation until we know for fact what they are. Who knows, there could be a whole race of God entities who live outside time and space, and our universe is but a science experiment for one of them. Simpson's did it :P