Transhumanist

MARS MCMURDO IMAGES PART II

Yesterday I mentioned my Facebook friend Paul McNamara who has graciously allowed some of the enlargements he's done of NASA's Mars rover images of McMurdo to be shared with readers here. Just to refresh our memory, here's NASA's original image:

NASA McMurdo Image

Now, here are some of the things lurking in this image, courtesy of Mr. McNamara:

Curious Rocks? or Curious "Things?"
Curious Rock? or Curious "Thing"?
Odd "Rock"? or Machined Object?

 

Well...the case gets curiouser and curioser, and I can't help but see in the last image a clear indication of possible artificiality. This begins to raise all sorts of philosophical questions, that I'll get into tomorrow.

14 thoughts on “MARS MCMURDO IMAGES PART II”

  1. What if all these NASA images we are getting from the space probes and robots surveyors are actually phoney, and just manufactured imagery from software computer graphics programs such as VUE?
    The real stuff we never see, ….
    Maybe un maybe not.

  2. Rover rolling damp earth that would mean water is closer to the surface than NASA is willing to admint and moss growing on rocks. That would be clear signals of life on Mars what is NASA hiding.

  3. The Mars Anomaly Research Site is an excellent example of poorly thought-out “research” and analysis. Look at http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2011/208/tracks-n-water.htm
    The author points to a supposed “object” moving along a transportation “track,” and on the quickest of glances, one might think this is possible. But the photo reveals that the illumination is coming from the upper right, and all the craters show shadows consistent with this, being dark on the right half and light on the left half. The supposed “object” is lit just the same way as the craters, when the lighting would be the opposite if it were an object on the “track” as opposed to simply a small crater. If it were not a crater but a rail car or whatever, it would be lit on the right and shadowed on the left. But the site’s author misses this very obvious point. He offers a half-hearted excuse for the shadow problem, but is obviously in love with the track and rail car explanation to the exclusion of common sense.

  4. All very interesting. Thanks to those posting Skippers work. I’ve seen all these
    before but of the Skipper report of moving objects I had never taken the time to
    fully read all that investigator had written. Pure laziness on my part.

    Of the turquoise objects above, I have seen many other objects in that same color.
    There is one website selling the idea of living yet highly hybridized life forms. I’ll
    not mention that site because it is owned by a lawyer and we all know lawyers.

    In those reddish brown and turquoise “life forms” I mentioned in paragraph two,
    there is one object that is clearly recognizable as a seated human-like female. The others
    require quite a stretch of the imagination.

    But as in the image Doc Farrell posted above, I have seen just too many objects,
    both Martian and Lunar that appear to me to be manufactured objects.

    I for one am fully conditioned for disclosure. I say, set the Brookings Report aside
    and move on. Most of us are Big Kids now.

    Good show, all.

    1. I concur regarding Joseph P Skipper’s analysis of the evidence presented on his website. I have followed his analysis of genuine NASA/ESA/MALIN images for several years and find them right on!.

      In fact, I have often thought that apart from the obvious similarities in their first names, that both Dr Farrell and Mr Skipper have the same arms length, reasoned analytic method in evaluation of the facts within their purview. I find this to be logical and refreshing in todays world in which many seek to “impress” others with their willingness to play with the truth in order to bring attention to themselves, at the expense of their reputation.

      We are indeed blessed to have such men who will dedicate themselves to truth above self gain

  5. After downloading the 368 MB Tiff from the NASA website, I’m struck by how much the rover’s tracks across the picture look like they were made in damp soil.

    1. Eh? The bottom picture is not fuzzy and is clear. Again, if I saw that on earth, it would more than likely be artificial in origin, considering it is on Mars, that is incredible. Just to concentrate on the two top fuzzier images and to ignore the bottom clear image does not make sense.

      1. Paul McNamara:

        Huh, I didn’t say any thing about “artificial in origin”.

        It’s pretty clear that the tracks in the picture are from the NASA rover which took this photo(s). (Unless you’re proposing a second rover in the immediate area.)

        However these tracks appear to have been made in mud or damp soil, and yet liquid water is not supposed to exist on Mars. (If the tracks were made in dusty top soil then wouldn’t Mars winds, which most certain exist, have destroyed the tracks within a day or so?)

        Generally though: Get the entire 368 Tiff file from the NASA website before saying what looks blurry.

        Then there’s the green stuff on the rocks problem too–that means moss not a huge copper mine on Mars.

  6. Eddie:
    As Romanmel has said above—-continued.

    Well maybe these photo’s are a little fuzzy, this is true, and the guy who sent them to the good Dr. has all good intentions, but I think you should be better informed. I am facinated with Joseph P. Skipper’ web site, and his work on de-smudging moon and mars photo’s, his work is ledgendary on the internet.

    Can I suggest you take a look at what he’s done with the (ESA) photo of the Hale Crator on Mars, go here………..

    http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2005/084/hale-civ-evidence.htm

    And there’s an absolute pluthora of photo’s there that are not fuzzy. The site is a testimony to what NASA, AND the ESA, has been doing to hide the truth about the Moon and Mars.

  7. As much as i admire your erudition and wisdom, you tend to lose me when you start seeing things in fuzzy NASA photographs. The danger of blowing up over-pixilated images and squinting to see man-made (or alien-made) objects is fairly obvious. I think the only “philosophical” discussion which these photos should generate concerns man’s willingness to find pattens, signs, and symbols where none exist. Your credibility on other, more important matters suffers when you start seeing machined items in blurry pictures of rocks.

    1. I agree with this comment by Eddie. (I am thinking of the time during WWII when America used life-size cardboard planes as decoys for Japanese bombs. I imagine the same monkey business is still being tried today. Also looking at dots on a film can almost be like looking into a cyrstal ball?)

      As far as credibility goes, who is correct all the time.

      No one is!

      The images just make for amusing speculative entertainment.

    2. You seem to be missing 2 obvious points. 1 Why are these so blurry in the first place? All the money spent on these rpvers and they have substandard photo equipment.

      2 Why is NASA *never* curious about anything that might be something? They never go up for a closer view to see if it amd is something or not. NASA never displays even a remote curiosity about anything about anything photographed.

Comments are closed.