In the above first report image here, you see a wide angle context view with the primary discovery object within a yellow box outline. This is exactly as it appears in the science data with no graphics work in it by me except for the yellow box outline. As you can see, on the surface there appears to be nothing really to see.
That is however misleading. Note the tiny bright reflective object within the yellow box, that is the evidence. However, before we get deeper into that, please also note the tiny bright reflective object in the scene about midway to the upper left of the yellow box and then note the same type of object at the same angle further behind that near the top of this image. It is noteworthy that all three of these tiny bright reflective objects are in a near perfect arrow straight alignment with each other. The other two objects do not represent something particularly anomalous here but their near perfect alignment with each other does.
Now I want you to also note the general color of everything else in this wider view black and white scene and its uniformity as to color uniformity. Note as well the broken rock flat plates that extend to the right and upper right of the yellow box area. Note how uniform their color or the lack of it is all across these large rock faces. Now I want you to go to my Report #135 and take a look at the second image in that report and note the message about image tampering that I tried to convey about that evidence.
It is basically the same message here and that is why all of the above scene appears so uniform in its color. Just about everything in this scene has been negatively but subtly impacted by this type of image tampering. This type of image tampering does away with just about all finer detail without the need of specific applications to specific objects. Along with degraded resolution, this subtle obfuscation is useful when there are just to many small objects in a scene to adequately indentify every one as either a candidate for “special” treatment or not.
Now solid particulate geology is generally very light reflective with many different reflective variations in full sunlight and the absense of that quality here is a clue as this general application subdues reflectivity. Three small objects were left out of this wholesale treatment just to provide a little, and I do mean inadequate little, light reflectivity variation in the scene. All three of these small light reflective objects are likely in such perfect alignment because it is computer decision making the applied the image tampering treatments and so it is in mathematically precise alignment.
You need to understand how this happens in order to understand how a fairly decent zoom view can be had of the main evidence here in spite of the general low quality of the highly compressed .jpeg imaging that normally will not allow such decent views including of nothing much around the main evidence object. It was simply left out of the obscuring coating treatment and, although it isn’t visually readily apparent unless you know what to look for, we are looking at the main evidence object through a small hole in the overall tampering field.
The above second image is a slit panel of 200% zoom views with the left panel demonstrating the main evidence object pointed out with an arrow and the the right panel is the same scene with some color and very minor clarification treatment by me in it. Although you must look very closely to see it, this 200% view is just enough to begin to demonstrate two eye sockets looking back at us from the primary light reflective object. Note that the larger rock short shadows clearly indicate that the sun angle is high. That in turn means that the big flat rock plates should be demonstrating some strong sunlight reflectivity but aren’t. It’s a clue.
In the above third image the 300% and 400% zoom factor views show the light reflective skull looking object better but note that the arrow to its immediate right points out yet another face and the third arrow below those two point out another increasingly curious unknown object. Note that this secondary evidence of a another face and the unknown object is my own discovery whereas the bright light reflective skull looking object is the discovery of sharp eyed Michael Middleton of Australia.
On the light reflective object, note the perfect round dark empty eye socket uniform semetry as well as the nose bridge between them and the cheek bone area. Note that there is something partially blocking the view of the mouth and jaw area but part of that mouth can still be seen as a darker mark on one side. Take special note that there appears to be an object or an extension on top of the head but to the side of center. Unfortunately, in this fourth image, this feature on top of the skull is glowing too much not for real but because I put too much contrast on the skull trying to bring out its other features.
Now note the other nearby darker smooth secondary face in this imaging with its elpitical dark eye sockets, also of perfect uniform, if alien looking, semetry. Note that it too seems to have head extensions on top. However, this secondary face looking object has been hit with a coating of image tampering. The application conforms closely to the object, just as it did to the under side of the rover parts in my previous Report #135 in the second image, but still reveals its basic shape. The same is true of the other objects in this scene pointed out with the arrows. The only exception is the bright light reflective head looking object that has been left out of this allowing its light reflectivity to come through the hole in the tampering field.
One of the other suspicious objects rests between the two head like objects pointed out with an arrow partially obscuring them. It is suggestive of some kind of devise, mechanism, or perhaps rigid armour apparell. On the other hand, the dark object in the foreground in the fourth image now takes on the appearance of some sort of animal look even though it is suppose to be just a shadow on the near side of a larger rock. However, I am suspicious that this is an inky dark image tampering application hiding something there and the dark applications just happen to create the animal look.
Of course neither I nor you can know conclusively what the truth is here but, one thing is for sure, this is some strange evidence that will be very difficult to explain away in any geological way. Yes quite strange but I’ll take a stab and tell you what I suspect may be going on here.
I suspect we are looking at a scene where finer context detail has been eliminated by the image tampering field and we are seeing only a small part of the evidence out of context with the detail of its true surroundings. I suspect that what we can see and recognize is not true biological skull evidence but mask or helmet like objects that are characterizations of intelligent life but not absolutely faithful to what they are suppose to represent. For example, the light reflective head I suspect is an exagerated Ronald McDonald type characterization of a human or humanoid head and the other face is a characterization of what we would consider an alien figure.
The purpose of these characterizations might be art and/or headdress. If the latter, the exageration at the eye socket area and the mouth area on the more human looking figure might make more sense because they may have been meant to be seen on a stage by audiances at a distance much like the exagerated face makeup that stage artists use today.
What ever they are, they are extraordinary and obviously do not in the least fit any kind of natural geological explanation. I might add that the fact that these face or head shapes held up rather well when being blown out to 400% beyond the original raw data files without being adversely affected is itself extraordinary. The compression artifacts you see in the terrain immediately around these objects in the third and fourth images at 300% and 400% respectively is normal for the rover severely compressed poor quality imaging and why I say that we are looking at these objects and especially the most sunlight reflective one as though looking through a hole or window in the tampering field.
Did someone want these objects to be found? If so, why do so with the sunlight reflective object so tiny in size in the original image making it so easy to miss? The very first report image here demonstrates this. It would have and did take a very sharp person to detect the presence of this evidence in the terrain as most including myself would likely miss it.
The above fifth split panel image demonstrates yet more Spirit rover evidence and this was brought to my attention by Marcus Johannsen of Hamburg, Germany. The top panels demonstrate the profile outline of what appears to be human face complete with nose and mouth on the end of a large rock pointed out by a white arrow. The lower panels demonstrate what appears to be a portion of a uniformly thick old broken section of a ordinary dinner plate.
Normally I wouldn’t pay very much attention to the face profile as evidence except that this broken section of rock that it is on is unlike other rocks in this panoramic presentation image showing a great wide field sampling of many different types of rocks. Also note how the rock surface seems to have been smoothed to accomodate this profile although now obviously much worn. Likewise, if you will look very close on the forehead, there seems to be evidence of a close fitting slightly darker color cap worked into this rock. This feature gives it a bit more credibility.
On the far side of the rock face, note the darker rock that looks like a dense collection of many oysters or claims attached to the underlying rock. There are many rocks scattered over this presentation image that have a look similar to but not quite the same as this. The rocks are officially identified as highly eroded lava rock forming many tangled pits in the rock surface. This may be but this rock looks different. However, the resolution just will not a allow a decent closer look to be definitive about what this is.
In my opinion the plate looking object, even though very common looking to us, is the most telling evidence. Such uniform flat thin thickness along with very smooth surfaces is hard to attribute to natural causes. Note that this appears to have originally been a round object with uniform raised outter perimeter edge very much like a common dinner plate. This shape is even harder to attribute as the product of natural causes. I think we all know that, if this was shown to anyone here on Earth and the fact that the image was of Mars, anyone looking at this object would immediately identify this as a broken dinner plate and think no more about it.
In any case, we all benefit via getting a look at this miscellaneous unusual evidence. You must decide what you think of it. What I think most of us can agree on is that it absolutely does not have the look of any natural geology. That leaves only artificially worked evidence and that is precisely what it is extremely suggestive of.
If this is a artfully and created mask characture of a human and if this is a broken dinner plate, that brings up another question. Are we actually looking at human generated debris for example from Earth’s Gobe Desert rather than Mars? On the other hand, if that secondary alien looking face/mask is something real, what does that tell us?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/1526/2P261833662EFFAY00P2298L7M1.HTML: This link takes you to the official raw science data image that is the source of the 1-3 images in this report. The object is bottom center in the image but remember that it is only a very tiny light reflective object and zoom factor will be needed to reveal it adequately.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/panoramas/spirit/2007.html: This link takes you to JPL colorized mosaic PIA01907 presentation image labeled “Spirit’s Winter Panorama” image. There you will find several smaller file size .jpg browser compatible images. However, although the face profile on the rock in my 4th image here is large enough and can be viewed there to the right of mid-center in this imaging, the plate object is too small to be adequately identified in these JPL images.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/?IDNumber=pia01907: This link takes you to the NASA/JPL PhotoJournal PIA01907 imaging labeled “McMurdo Panorama from Spirit’s Winter Haven.” This location is charaterized by a large 28.47 MB .jpg file and an even larger 386.9 MB .tiff file. The big .tiff file was used by me to produce the plate object evidence you see here. The location of the plate is not easy to find but it is left of center down near the image bottom area above the visual edge of the rover and between the rover tracks you will see there. Obviously it’s very small size is likely why the tampering applictions missed it.