A 2nd picture of the Mars rodent spot

[Leon55]

A while back I saw the following video by Richard D. hall, from Richplanet TV and I found his hypothesis that the Mars Rovers might still be on Earth intruiging:

x-4cRW_T5Xg

One of the more intruiging pictures is the one of the infamous Mars rodent:

http://livrespensadores.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mars-rodent-orig-rover-composite1.jpg

Original: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg

A few months ago, Richard shared during a lecture, that he had found a 2nd picture of the spot where the Mars rodent can be seen (this spot is called the Rocknest by the way). I emailed him asking for the link to that picture.

Now here you can see the second picture that Richard discovered and it's taken from the top of the hill this time. Where you see the square, that's where the rodent can be found:

http://oi66.tinypic.com/2w4fh9v.jpg

Original: http://mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/interactives/billionpixel/index.cfm?image=PIA16919&view=pano

This is that same spot but then zoomed in:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00077/mcam/0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX-br2.jpg

Original: http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX&s=77

In his update Richard shared that he had been in contact with a scientist and the scientist had identified the rodent-stone in the second picture (starts at 6:55):

NoCVSRtqILM

Now, I wasn't convinced that the rodent-stone had been properly identified so that's why I asked Richard for the original picture taken from the top of the hill and then I did my own analysis and I found that the first analysis from the video above done by the scientist was wrong.

Before I continue, all the pictures below are actually larger than the forum is showing. If you copy paste the address in a new tab, you can see the full size pictures.

This is my analysis:

This is the comparison of the two larger panoramic pictures:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/dr4bog.jpg

And this is the comparison of the zoomed in pictures:

http://oi66.tinypic.com/20jk35v.jpg

The order in which I identified the stones is alphabetical.

I did some more comparisons to make sure we were looking at the right stones:

http://oi63.tinypic.com/2w4egps.jpg

http://oi63.tinypic.com/wivgus.jpg

http://oi65.tinypic.com/18on81.jpg

To be continued below...

[Leon55]

This is my conclusion and the rodent "stone" is missing in the 2nd picture:

http://oi67.tinypic.com/qn1weq.jpg

http://oi64.tinypic.com/vrf2vs.jpg

Important to note is that it might look like there's a lot of sand against the back of stone 3, but don't forget you're looking downhill. What you're actually looking at is this:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2uiu2pt.jpg

When looking from above, it's the perspective that makes the sandy part look larger than it actually is.


Also, because we know that Curiosity measures 2.7 meters in width and we can see the tyre tracks in panoroma 2, I've tried to determine the size of the rodent:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/24fcnxt.jpg

http://oi66.tinypic.com/i6wo3s.jpg

My measurements conclude that the rodent is probably around 20cm long, or at least within the range of 15 to 25 cm.

I've been in contact with Richard for the past weeks and I've been sending him my analysis pictures that he will probably soon use in a new update.

For now I'm wondering if anyone has any constructive criticism of the analysis above?

And any other type of comment is welcome as well of course.

[amor]

Many many years ago, the New York Times printed a picture of the dirt surrounding a Mariner which was sent to Mars and which had photographed the surrounding ground. Apparently, the surrounding rocks, etc., had been carefully placed by first placing a card or paper identification label on the spot. Unfortunately, they overlooked one of these labels which had the Mariner identification letters on it. That is when I knew this was all a setup to account for the billions of dollars they claimed to be spending, probably to support the real program which was well established on Mars already. Either that, or some high stealing is going on.

As to your rodent, under 400 magnification between the rock and something else there seems to be a little animal with a nose and two eyes, all furry. They forgot to inform the local gentry.

[nomadguy]

http://livrespensadores.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mars-rodent-orig-rover-composite1.jpg


Looks a little bit like a Lemming.
http://www.arcticphoto.co.uk/Pix/OP/21/WL.0416-00_P.JPG
Ofcourse it could also be a Lemming shaped rock.

[MorningFox]

I appreciate people's eagerness to prove nasa are hiding things, which there's almost no doubt anymore that they are, but I'm afraid this is another classic case of pareidolia...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

[M-Albion-3D]

I appreciate people's eagerness to prove nasa are hiding things, which there's almost no doubt anymore that they are, but I'm afraid this is another classic case of pareidolia...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Excellent analysis of the Martian surface here, this IS what I call great research!

As to the claim of so-called Pareidolia. Keep in mind that there has been NO definitive medical conclusions as to the absolute existence of pareidolia and in fact, is a trumped up word used by NASA and its affiliates to create doubt as to the "potentiality" of what the researcher is seeing on the planet surface. Something along the lines of "ball lightning, swamp gas", etc etc.

TPTB absolutely want to keep the findings of the real ET presence on Mars under lock and key. Their desparate response, is due mainly to public pressures gained under the freedom of information act, (FOIA) accumulating almost daily in the images sent back from the orbiters and landers of our nearest planetary neighbor.

They try every trick in the book to modify, bury, blur and manipulate the images to cover up the myriad of evidence being brought forth. The effort is augmented by increasing the ridicule, where the fallacy of a "pareidolic visual/mental episode" is being blamed as a last ditch "catch all" to discredit new discoveries.

This practice is particularly common in research forums where selectively placed trolls and their shills "interjecting" where and when new discoveries are openly discussed and unfortunately, is further being "ramped-up" to fever pitch in the MSM.

My advice here IMHO, is to take no notice of this fallacy and continue your investigative research into the evidence on the Martian surface. If the pareidolia claim is made, you will find that the perpetrator's eventually expose themselves by their "acts of insistence" each time evidence is brought forward, and of course, once they are exposed, their effectiveness is thereby diluted beyond any usefulness.

Please don't get me wrong here, I am not saying this is happening on our forum but the gauntlet is down...."to be forewarned is to be forearmed" as the saying goes.

[M-Albion-3D]

It seems we have to be faced with this color saturation on nearly every image sent back from the landers as the color corrected image below shows. This is just one way NASA "defuses" image analysis.

Although, I have to say, people are finally catching onto this "red hue" practice. I just wish NASA would catch on themselves!

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsevidence01/COLOR%20CMP_zps1qzvkfey.png (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/marsevidence01/media/COLOR%20CMP_zps1qzvkfey.png.html)

[Matthew]

... this "red hue" practice ...

If possible would you be able to un-hue the lemming/lemming shaped rock picture?

[M-Albion-3D]

... this "red hue" practice ...

If possible would you be able to un-hue the lemming/lemming shaped rock picture?

The image is quite close to true color but off just a hare LOL!

Here's a more accurate adjustment.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsevidence01/mars-rodent-orig-rover-composite1_zpsphoiiptr.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/marsevidence01/media/mars-rodent-orig-rover-composite1_zpsphoiiptr.jpg.html)

[Leon55]

I appreciate people's eagerness to prove nasa are hiding things, which there's almost no doubt anymore that they are, but I'm afraid this is another classic case of pareidolia...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

The point here is that we now have 2 pictures of the same spot. When you have 1 picture, this rodent could very well be the result of Pareidolia. But when you have a second picture of the same spot, taken weeks later, you can actually determine whether the rodent-rock is still there.

In my analysis it seems quite clear to me that the so called rodent-rock is gone in the 2nd picture. What do you think of this conclusion?

[Leon55]

Ofcourse it could also be a Lemming shaped rock.

But it seems to me the rock is gone in the 2nd picture, so how can it be a rock?

[MorningFox]

It's very clear to me that the rock isn't gone. It simply looks completely different, and completely rock like, from another angle.

[Leon55]

It's very clear to me that the rock isn't gone. It simply looks completely different, and completely rock like, from another angle.

It looks different because you're looking from a different angle in the 2nd picture and you're looking downhill. That's why I did the analysis.

Where do you think the rodent rock can be seen in the 2nd picture?

[M-Albion-3D]

I appreciate people's eagerness to prove nasa are hiding things, which there's almost no doubt anymore that they are, but I'm afraid this is another classic case of pareidolia...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

The point here is that we now have 2 pictures of the same spot. When you have 1 picture, this rodent could very well be the result of Pareidolia. But when you have a second picture of the same spot, taken weeks later, you can actually determine whether the rodent-rock is still there.

In my analysis it seems quite clear to me that the so called rodent-rock is gone in the 2nd picture. What do you think of this conclusion?

This is well articulated and expertly analyzed...but (and it's a small but) it is difficult to really account for the camera angle in the second image acquisition which could, be responsible for "hiding" the data point "behind" rock nr. 2. Your equation is sound except for this point.

One other thing that steers me here is the actual "color" of the rodent data point. In this case, the color is absolutely congruent with the surrounding rock colors and their "color blend". Now this could be that the alleged animal has superior camouflage along the same effect as earth based Chromophore's (octopus etc.) and, research is beginning to bring forth some significant evidence that this form of "background blending" is being seen on Mars.

So IMO, the conclusion is still out of reach here but two things are for sure. 1. We cannot conclude that the data point is NOT a live creature and 2. In any case, is there any evidence of the fallacy of pareidolia.

[Matthew]

After looking at the left hand side of rock 3 in the second picture, at the point where there is a sudden decline in the sand. Using the rock I've squared in purple and comparing that part to picture one.. it looks to me like sand build up against rock 3. I'm afraid to say I see a gap in picture 2 where I see a rodenty shaped thing in picture 1. Still open minded though, but I do see a sand build up that looks like a rock from one angle

Taken from this image (http://oi63.tinypic.com/wivgus.jpg)in this thread
32871

[Leon55]

This is well articulated and expertly analyzed...but (and it's a small but) it is difficult to really account for the camera angle in the second image acquisition which could, be responsible for "hiding" the data point "behind" rock nr. 2. Your equation is sound except for this point.

One other thing that steers me here is the actual "color" of the rodent data point. In this case, the color is absolutely congruent with the surrounding rock colors and their "color blend". Now this could be that the alleged animal has superior camouflage along the same effect as earth based Chromophore's (octopus etc.) and, research is beginning to bring forth some significant evidence that this form of "background blending" is being seen on Mars.

So IMO, the conclusion is still out of reach here but two things are for sure. 1. We cannot conclude that the data point is NOT a live creature and 2. In any case, is there any evidence of the fallacy of pareidolia.

The yellow and green lines can be drawn very accurately due to the placement of stones H and G in conjunction with the right side of stone 3 and the corner of stone 2.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/qn1weq.jpg

http://oi64.tinypic.com/vrf2vs.jpg

The small part of the hill we're talking about (from H and G to the corner of stone 2, has no major dips and hills. The angle of the hill on that small part has no major fluctuations. That can clearly be seen in the first picture.

And especially the yellow line is a very trustworthy line since in picture 1 you're almost looking directly at it and for this reason the yellow line can be comfortably drawn in picture 2 as well.

Yes in picture 2 there seems to be a bit of a dip in the landscape starting at stone 2, since the yellow line in picture 2 seems to be quite close to stone 3 where it's not close to stone 3 in picture 1. But again, the yellow line in picture 1 is very trustworthy since you're almost looking directy at it. Perspective has almost no effect on the yellow line in picture 1 because of this reason. The reason why the yellow line is almost touching stone 3 in picture 2 is because you're looking downhill. So in picture 2 perspective does play a role but not a major one.

You can see the effect demonstrated here with the purple dots and the blue arrow on the left side in picture 1:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/20qnx8g.jpg

The purple dots are not on the same angle as the blue arrow and that's why there's some distortion in perspective in picture 2 when looking downhill.

But in picture 1 you can see the rodent's height is almost the same as that of stones 2 and 3. For that reason you might not be able to see the bottom of the rodent clearly in picture 2 (if it was still there), but you should still clearly see something relatively big that comes up to the yellow line in picture 2.

[M-Albion-3D]

I see what you are saying here and agree. It's unfortunate that the angle inclination of image 2 is considerably "lower" than when the original image 1 was acquired. To fully conclude that the data point "rodent" is not there in image 2 is difficult to confirm.

I know that this investigative analysis seems always compelling, (I have been there many times) but what we are trying to assert here is; is this proof of a life form on Mars? For me, I have come to the conclusion that no matter how good the photographic evidence is, we can only say to ourselves either yes or no. Society moves by consensus and until such time as there is a certain critical mass or "weight of evidence" to compel a change in the status quo, we can only be left with our own interpretation of "yes or no".

However, for those of us who have made the effort to investigate and to look deeply, we find there is so much to compel. That formidable step over the Rubicon is a wonderfully enlightening experience which opens us to a world of alien life never truly known by the billions which lived before us, who asked that same question and were unfortunate to live in a time not to have the latest evidence at their fingertips.

Keep looking my friend, there is much evidence to be found on Mars, for Mars "holds the key" IMO - to irrefutable disclosure!

[Leon55]

After looking at the left hand side of rock 3 in the second picture, at the point where there is a sudden decline in the sand. Using the rock I've squared in purple and comparing that part to picture one.. it looks to me like sand build up against rock 3. I'm afraid to say I see a gap in picture 2 where I see a rodenty shaped thing in picture 1. Still open minded though, but I do see a sand build up that looks like a rock from one angle

Taken from this image (http://oi63.tinypic.com/wivgus.jpg)in this thread
32871

I have to admit of course, that the situation is not as clear cut as one would like to draw some immediate definitive conclusions.

I looked at these pictures for hours and hours and for a while I thought it would be impossible to draw any conclusions. But due to the shape and height and position of the rodent in picture 1 and there not being any indications of a sudden rise of stone or sand between stones 2 and 3 in picture 2, I did conclude for myself that there is no rodent-rock anymore in picture 2.

One has to have a really good look at the rodent spot in picture 2 zoomed in:

http://oi65.tinypic.com/29g21c6.jpg

This is what I see:

http://oi65.tinypic.com/21sorn.jpg

To me it's quite clear that the sand is quite flat around the blue area and that it mainly follows the slope of the hill and that there is no indication whatsoever of a sudden rise in the slope that would indicate there is another rock there, not even with sand up against it. To me it's quite clear after looking at this zoomed in picture for a while, that the only rise in sand is up against the back of stone 3.

[Matthew]

I should clairify, when I said a sand drift that looks like a rock, I meant there is no rat-rock in the second picture. I judged this by my purple squares few posts up.


EDIT:
Is this right with that in mind?
32872

[Leon55]

I should clairify, when I said a sand drift that looks like a rock, I meant there is no rat-rock in the second picture. I judged this by my purple squares few posts up.


EDIT:
Is this right with that in mind?
32872

Yes, that's what I see as well. In this case you drew the blue line to the side and more down the hill where I drew the blue line to the side and up the hill.

[Matthew]

It's too bizarre. Hopefully we are wrong. But at least we showed our workings.

[conk]

this photo was not taken on Mars. It was taken on Devon Island, where this little critter is a native dweller. Much can be found on the web supporting my contention. More lies, among yet more lies.

[M-Albion-3D]

I'm not sure if this color correction helps at all?


http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsevidence01/0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX-br2-corrected_zps4poajmpw.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/marsevidence01/media/0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX-br2-corrected_zps4poajmpw.jpg.html)

[Leon55]

I'm not sure if this color correction helps at all?


http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a528/marsevidence01/0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX-br2-corrected_zps4poajmpw.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/marsevidence01/media/0077MR0005750010103776E01_DXXX-br2-corrected_zps4poajmpw.jpg.html)

I like the color corrected versions that you posted in this thread. Gives somewhat of a different look on the situation, but more detail when zooming in would be the best ;)

[nomadguy]

this photo was not taken on Mars. It was taken on Devon Island, where this little critter is a native dweller. Much can be found on the web supporting my contention. More lies, among yet more lies.

FYI the "Lemming" is native to Greenland, right next to Devon.... I still don't think this is conclusive but certainly interesting...

[Leon55]

Hi guys, Richard uploaded a video of his lecture tour where he discusses the analysis done in this topic:

https://youtu.be/MraNNzf31gk?t=16m23s

Since he doesn't show all the pictures from the analysis, I might make a youtube video myself soon.

[Matthew]

I thought the animations in Richards presentation helped. That was a nice touch.

[Leon55]

Richard has done a new full show on the Mars Rovers:

p7D3S9u6S5Y