MARS MOVING EVIDENCE
May 24, 2009
Joseph P. Skipper
J. P. Skipper can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org
This bulk of this miscellaneous
reporting will be about different types of evidence that share a common theme
in some images. For example, evidence that is appearing and disappearing in
the same location as well as movement from one location to another in the
same general scene. The above first side-by-side split frame images are from
the Opportunity rover taken on Sol 1832 with a little color added by me. It
represents a relatively minor example brought to my attention by sharp eyed
In the left frame you see a white streak pointed out by a yellow arrow that is not there in the same location in the right frame. It may look sort of like something possibly on the camera lens or something possibly as a result of processing. However, this streak appears in the first three separate frames and in both left and right camera lens. This confirms that it is not likely a camera artifact. In the next five right and left lens shots following the first three, this streak is missing as represented by the right frame. This suggest that what we are seeing may be something small in high speed flight crossing the camera field of view.
The above second over-and-under
split frame image demonstrates in the top frame a small dark object on the
sand that looks suspiciously like a insect of some kind. This evidence was
brought to my attention by another sharp eyed viewer Rob Clay who identified
this as his "cricket" and would like for it to be named Robert after
him. Yes you read it right, this is "Robert" the cricket.
Rob's theory is that if the evidence is in one shot and not in another of the same location, then the object must have moved on out of sight and therefore must be capable of movement and alive. It's a good theory but the problem with it is that there are only two images in the science data of this particular spot. So what we are actually talking about here is that the object appears in the left lens shot and not in the right lens shot.
That raises the question as to whether the object is merely debris on the left lens that is not present of course on the right lens. At first consideration that possibility lends too much ambiguity to the object to be classifying it as evidence. So Rob took this to other websites who recently did publish and sensationalize it calling it not surprisingly a Mars "cricket."
However, as I had also advised Rob at the time, I noted a tiny white spot very near and behind the location of the object. I suspected that this tiny white spot represented a small group of empty pixels. In preparation for this report, I took a closer look and noted some .jpeg compression artifacts clustering at this tiny white spot as you can see in the next image below.
In the above third side-by-side
split frame image with a 200% zoom factor, note the closer view of the "cricket"
on the left and the tiny white spot in the right frame. Next to the upper
left of the white spot is a few .jpeg compression artifacts. It appears to
me that something likely has been removed from this spot and the empty pixels
are a carelessly left behind manifestation of this intrusion.
You see the rover imaging, although the camera work was promoted before launch as some of the best resolution ever utilized, as released to us it is in the .jpeg format and severely compressed. That kind of severe compression results in smaller display image file size but also very poor image resolution quality. In other words, what ever was gained by sharp high definition camera work resolution in taking the pictures is lost and severely compromised in the public image release presentation. This obviously prevents effective zoom and closer examination of evidence like this. Now it's hard not to contemplate how convenient that is should secrecy be someone's goal.
It is sort of like a plastic tub of margarine in the grocery store noting on the tub with special highlighting that it holds 25% more at the same old price. When you are looking at the exterior of the tub in the store, it can be seen to be larger than the original tub, so you assume you're getting 25% more product and buy it thinking your getting more for your money. However, when you get it home and open it up, you may find the tub only partially filled with essentially no more product in it than the regular tub or perhaps even less. It is an old con game of misdirection. We give to you on the up front and in your face but take it all away on the back end. Unethical certainly but also sometimes effective.
On the other hand, when something has been added or subtracted from one of these digital rover images after it is taken but before its public release, the general severe processing compression of the image causes .jpeg compression artifacts to cluster around such intervention sites within the image revealing the presence of manipulation. These tell tale compression artifacts can often be seen in the terrain, in the sky, and on the horizon line where the sky and ground have often been separated. I don't report on this very much because it is so plentiful and routine and I get sick of reporting on just image tampering.
This type of intrusion is what we have here. The compression artifacts are faint because what ever was removed was small. The processing level carelessness only comes into the picture by virtue of leaving empty bright white pixels behind like a beacon to draw a researcher's attention to the spot.
My point is here that someone went to the trouble to do this and I think we can assume they were not wasting their time in the process by messing with rocks just for the hell of it at this particular intrusion spot visible in the right frame image. The only likely thing anomalous here in this general scene is that dark insect looking object. So it is possible that a small living creature may have moved a few inches out of the sand and back toward the rocks where it was captured in the next right lens image and then later removed in that image.
Now understand that I can't of course know this for sure but the evidence here is very suggestive of this. That in turn suggests that the dark object can't be easily dismissed after all.
The above fourth image and the
4-12 images in this report deal with the same strange looking rock scene evidence
as well as an even stranger looking object that also appears to shift locations
within these rocks as viewed by the rover navigation camera starting on Sol
1830. This evidence was brought to my attention by a Japanese viewer
who communicated in English poorly and I do not understand Japanese. However,
he directed me to an all Japanese website http://www.t-xxx.com
with this evidence and the images were clear enough and I have verified the
evidence in the science data at the links provided here.
In the above image, the primary rock object is the one in the upper center with the crack in it and then consider the rocks out to either side of it. I have added a bit of color into these images to make the visuals a little more comfortable for you to view but nothing else except just a bit of clarifying. All investigative work here is my own and not associated with the Japanese site but thanks to them for some sharp work picking up on this.
Note that to the left of the rock with the crack in it is another larger rock. Note the spaces to the immediate left of these two larger rocks and what is there. These areas or spaces to the immediate left of these rocks and what is there will be important in subsequent images below. The left split frame shows another Sol 1830 example from another image of the scene on the left confirming what is there or rather I should say what is not there.
Now the above fifth image represents
the next time on Sol 1833 this scene was imaged
by the rover navigation camera. You should know that none of this evidence
appears in the Panoramic camera images that I could find.
As you can clearly see some strange looking upright object has appeared to the immediate left of the rock with the crack in it that was not there in the Sol 1830 image and it is pointed out by a yellow arrow and text. While you're at it, also pay attention to the strange look of the "rock" with the crack in it and the appendage with the flattened fluke looking end sticking out toward us from it in the foreground. I'll have something more on this item near the end of this report as an addition to it.
Yes the rock with the very prominent crack in it looks unusual and anomalous but the primary evidence here is that strange looking object appearing from no where to the immediate left of that cracked rock in the above 5th image. In the three day gap from Sol 1830 to Sol 1833, where did this object come from? Is it real? Is it rock? Is it image tampering and not real? Is it something alive capable of movement? All we can say with confidence is that it represents nothing familiar to us and it shouldn't be there unless image tampering or active life is a factor in its existence in this image.
The above sixth image of the same scene was taken another three days later on Sol 1836. Note that the strange object is now completely gone from the left side of the cracked rock as though it never existed at all and does not appear elsewhere in this scene. Note also that the crack in the rock in its upper area now appears to be closing or at least minimized. So how could this be happening and what the heck is going on here?
Now we come to the above seventh
image taken another seven more days later on Sol 1843.
Note that the strange object is still gone on the left side of the cracked
rock but also note that the cracked rock itself is no longer demonstrating
that pronounced crack and the once pronounced crack seems to be closing from
the top down. Is it actually closing or is it camera angle or is it the result
of image tampering covering over the crack? Could this object not be a rock
at all as we've of course assumed but something living and incredibly strange
looking but unknown to us?
If that evidence isn't strange enough, look over there on the left side of the image at the evidence object pointed out by the yellow arrow and text. This object suddenly appears there after seven more days and after this object not being there in this spot in the previous Sols 1830, 1833 and 1836. It looks very similar to the strange object that appeared and then disappeared from the left side of the cracked rock. Did this object move the few feet from one place to the other? What is going on here with these "rocks" and this moving object?
The above 8–12th images all offer closer views of the various evidence in the Sol 1830, 1833, 1836 and 1843 images. The 9th image demonstrates the strange moving object the best as well as the rock with the very pronounced crack in it. It is hard to imagine that a little difference in camera angle as exampled in the above 12th image could visually close up that much pronounced crack space from the top down as is demonstrated beginning in the Sol 1836 image and continuing progressively downward in the Sol 1843 image.
ADDENDUM added 5/27/09:
There are a few viewers observing that movement of the rover and therefore the position of the camera and its angle perspective explains the object visually moving from its position at the left end of the cracked rock. The argument is that change in camera perspective places the object behind and hidden by the large cracked rock. When one thinks about it, this at first seems a plausible position, at least until one examines closer.
Please look at the Sol 1833 9th image above. Note the low profile small rock laying horizontally on its side on the ground at the left end of the cracked rock. Also note very precisely the position of the moving object very close to the left rear of this smaller rock. Now note that the moving object is gone in the Sol 1836 10th and Sol 1843 11th images and yet the small horizontal rock is still fully visible in those subsequent images.
If any of this evidence is real, this demonstrates that the camera angle is not that much changed between the Sol 1833, 1836 and 1843 images. It also demonstrates conclusively that the location that this moving object was in on Sol 1833 also continues to be fully visible in the Sol 1836 and 1843 images even though the moving object is no longer there behind the small rock.
This of course doesn't explain conclusively what is going on with this moving object. However, it certainly demonstrates that the object is not hidden by the cracked rock in the Sol 1836 and 1843 image due to camera angle and that something strange is definitely going on here.
CONTINUING on with the 5/25/09 reporting:
Further, that fluke looking projection out from the right bottom of the cracked rock object also looks suspicious. Likewise there is a ridge of "something" that looks a lot like course hair or growth projecting from the top and right side of the crack rock that also looks suspicious. Additionally, what appeared to be just another large rock to the right of the cracked rock, now in the above 12th image no longer looks like that. It tends to look more like a blurry partially consumed carcass laying on its left side with its head toward us in the image lower right corner. What is going on here?
The poor imaging just doesn't allow the needed better examination of this fascinating evidence and so it and we cannot be definitive. One thing that does stand out beyond all the rest of this suggestive material though is the strange looking moving object. It does appear to be the same object under close examination and it has clearly moved from one location a few feet over to our left to another location. IF this object is real, then we have to logically consider that it may be something alive here.
On the other hand, a very careful search of the context field this evidence sits in reveals many subtle changes in rocks both as to position and as to surface textures and the degree of this is more than can be explained by camera and processing variables. That could suggest the possibility of very subtle image tampering. If so, this would explain much.
However, I cannot definitively answer the questions raised here because the poor quality imaging as publicly released will just not allow sufficient closer examination and that is the root of the problem. If I took these same pictures with my old limited 3 mega pixel camera at the close to medium distances involved here and in decent high quality .jpeg format without the presence of obfuscation tactics, you can bet that answers would be forthcoming because those images would allow that kind of sufficiently close inspection before running into the image resolution problems you see in the above images and that is another point.
If we were looking at the real science data at the real camera resolutions publicly promoted before the rover missions were launched to Mars and un compromised by later "questionable" processing instead of this poor sanitized material we are being fed, answers and truth would be forth coming and this frustration would get short shift. Let's face it, someone just doesn't want you and I to know any truth here. The over riding question is why?
That question is important enough to digress a little here. I see this question asked over and over again. To so many in the more trusting mainstream, it just doesn't make any sense. To them, the presence of a viable distant world within our technological reach like Mars with surface water and sustaining bio-life would just result in massive interest and funding pouring into space research coffers and that would be extremely desirable by entities like NASA and JPL. Even old now defunct civilization evidence could be a treasure trove of new information and learning. So what's the big deal?
That observation has the ring of truth to it but, in my opinion, they just haven't thought questioningly about it quite far enough. For example, what if the more simple surface water and bio-life wasn't the end of it? What if space in general, the Moon right over our heads, and nearby planets collectively have a lot of very technologically advanced beyond us active civilizations on them rather than just empty or containing ruins of defunct civilizations?
In other words, what if we aren't alone and in a big way? I know that some of you viewers might welcome such information. In fact I would myself. But, do you really think that the bulk of the mainstream population conditioned to focus primarily on self and shallow social interests is going to take such information in stride and just move on with it?
If you believe that they will do so without a serious and prolonged adjustment period and turmoil, then in my opinion you haven't thought about it objectively and/or enough. If you don't believe it, just try to bring your friends into the truth fold with the verifiable evidence record here and see what their majority reaction will be. Make no mistake about it, you will almost certainly encounter emotional dismissal reactions with little rational mind set behind it to modify such behavior. So, in other words, be prepared for rejection.
Now also remember that these are your friends who are going to make allowances for you if they can as compared to strangers who will not make such allowances. You know the answer as well as I do, as well as we all do. Most of us who are more open minded have encountered it all of our lives and for me that has been a while. Let's face it, in Earth human behavior, differences from the herd are historically not well received.
The mainstream population, due to long conditioning and as compared to you and I, must move collectively as a body and they must be able to emotionally feel collectively that it is safe to do so as a body and within the framework of socially approved consensus. Likewise, although there are individual exceptions, they must generally be convinced primarily as a body that there is more than they ever imagined there was to this space exploration business.
The secrecy agenda has been conditioning this collective body subtly for decades through the media as well as science and learning centers and government and that conditioning is not now going to turn around from its habituated course willingly or readily. That includes science and academia because they are already firmly entrenched social communities within the larger social context. Think of it as a great collective mass that resists change automatically and eventually changes direction only collectively and grudgingly, if at all.
If there was a sudden effective revelation of very technologically advanced active alien presence all around us and even on what we consider as "our" Moon, how do you think that would impact mainstream populations habituated to thousands of years of perceived isolation thinking we were and are alone? There would be a huge amount of uncertainty and insecurity and that would translate into strong reactionary demands on perceived leaders. However, perceived leaders are the products of our mainstream social structure used to dealing and counter dealing in a political process that corrupts. They would have no clue and no real answers.
Right quick the public eye political leaders would be pounding at the gates of real hidden leaders they defer to and clamoring for solutions. However, hidden leaders are the kind even more thoroughly addicted to self interest, money, power, and subtlety. They effectively maneuver behind the scenes and not out in the open. If they get out in the open very much, long experience tells them that bad things happen for them. The American and French revolutions come to mind as adverse reactions in populations prevailing over the perception of greed and parasitic leader behavior gone too far.
Space exploration from the hidden leaders point of view is a business that aspires to profit and benefit mostly for them and their now world wide community. In this time of our Earth human civilizations, real benefit and the power edge comes via technological advances. The old model produced benefit and power via controlling the media and thereby public opinion, controlling key governmental positions directing public wealth, and controlling the industry that the public wealth is directed at and thereby into their coffers.
The newer model does this as well but for decades and generations now adds in a much larger way the constant search for technological advances that translate to advantage. You and I out here in the public call is space exploration. When any advances gained in this search and acquisition process have used up their time serving secrecy interests directly, they then and only then trickle down into the mainstream population. Even then the downward distribution benefit is still in the hands of the hidden leaders for their second harvest.
For example, if what we consider an alien craft is shot down, simply crashes, or is acquired by interaction trickery, it is a priceless technological treasure trove for who ever can acquire it. Such an acquisition can provide a power edge here on Earth that may sometimes last for generations. However, that's just one example. Another very important and more reliable one is to simply acquire images of alien technology in operation. That is why missions to the Moon and Mars are for the most part covert operations that scoop up technology intelligence under the guise of terrain surveys. Any insight gained is priceless ultimately leading to reverse engineering technological advantage, wealth and power.
This model eventually trickles down technology gained to populations and so there is advancement in absolute terms. However, it also requires those populations to be dumbed down into ignorance to prevent any public attempts at intrusion into what hidden leaders regard as their territory and disturbing the balance. However, this negates too much that is important to broader Earth human well being. Meanwhile, hidden leaders live the good life relative to you and I and at our expense. We are the cash cow that supplies the money that enables the search and acquisition while the great bulk of any benefit goes to those who parasite off of us.
From their point of view, if populations were to become more involved and wake up to too many realities, we would of course get excited and be making demands and striving for greater participation at minimum. Do you see anything in such a scenario that would be desirable from the hidden leaders point of view? They would regard anything like that as intrusion into their territory by we great unwashed masses.
For example, inconvenient laws and enforcement would be passed as to full disclosure negating their advantage. You can bet that even more inconvenient laws and enforcement would be enabled to disable their parasitic process and redistribute the technological gain. Why ultimately breaking the chains of public control by them could even be an issue! If you are a hidden leader thoroughly addicted to control, power and self benefit, what in such a scenario would be attractive to you?
Wide spread public knowledge of any greater realities represents nothing good or desirable to hidden leaders. To them, good means something good for them, not you and I. Quite the contrary, intrusion puts their position of privilege at risk and that is to be avoided. It is they who currently control our space exploration and that means NASA and JPL as well as the key influential positions in Congress associated with space exploration. For them, space exploration is the business of search and acquisition of technological advantage to their benefit. To you and I space exploration is simply the acquiring of universal knowledge. I trust that you can see there is a difference.
So those that can't understand why the need for secrecy and find it just too incredible to be reasonable need to put themselves in others shoes and look at it from the other party's point of view a bit. After all, the human civilization currently on Earth, regardless of country boundaries or ethnic differences is all about capitalism and the acquisition of wealth and power. It is simple, wealth = power = security! Given human diversity, it should come as no surprise that some carry the concept further than others and to extremes.
In any case, even though I've digressed perhaps too much away from the evidence in this report, I thought a little insight into secrecy and why it exists might be informative. In any case, before ending this report, I have some other evidence for you that I'm going to include below even though it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moving objects.
Remember that fluke looking appendage in the above 5th and 9th images protruding from the cracked rock? Before you settle on identifying this as merely a rock and disregard it as nothing of likely importance, take a look at the evidence below from a website at the link below brought to my attention by a viewer. It takes you to a no longer active website a researcher Tim Beech established back in the late 1990s with parts of it still available via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. The images surviving there are too small with links to larger images broken but some very interesting evidence can still be discerned as appears below.
The above 13th image is taken from the old Tim Beech website. It is sourced there from the vertical column of small thumbnail images on the left side of the page and the 6th image down from the top. Left click on it to open a slightly larger black and white image. In my work I've added some color to the image to help with viewing comfort and also to add some better visual detail.
The image demonstrates what appears to be some hard bone or rock material now laying on the ground. It is possible that this object was originally sticking upright and was knocked over broken on the ground by a portion of Viking 1 passing in the air over it. The hard object laying on the ground appears to contain within it a light color material that may be living matter. This protrudes from within the hard object and then appears to have been literally cut off as some portion of the Viking 1 plowed across the ground at this point forming a significant trench in the soil. This cut off the protruding material pointed out with my blue arrows which is now hanging limp and draining fluid into the trench very much like bleeding body fluids.
ADDENDUM added 6/5/2009
I have been in contact with Tim Beech now at his new website www.martianlifeforms.com thanks to the help of the viewer who originally brought his work to my attention. With Tim Beech's cooperation and assistance, between the two of us the above 13th report image is now identified as image number 12D091.BB2 as well as located and verified on official CD ROM as a browser compatible image at the address below.
Go to http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/vikingl/vl_images.html. On the page that opens there scroll down near the bottom and note the input box there labeled "CE Label." Enter the image number "12D091.BB2" in this box. Below that is another input box labeled "Mars Solar Day" but leave this box blank. To the right of that box are two small round input boxes. Click in the left of those two and this equates to selecting Viking Lander 1. Then click on the "Submit" button right below those boxes and the page with only the 12D091.BB2 image will come up.
On this page will be a very small thumbnail image. Click on the thumbnail and a larger but still thumbnail size image will come up. Immediately under that image is a menu of various types of images for selection such as FITS, GIF, JPG, PDS, TIFF, and VICAR. The menu defaults to GIF and that is what you want because it is actually a BMP image that will download and the other options are no better or worse than this one despite what the selection ability implies. With GIF appearing in the menu selection box, click on the larger thumbnail image and the full image will display.
But, that's not quite all. Note the additional evidence below also from the old Beech website. It isn't that great evidence wise and so I'm not going to try and document it as I did the one above but it is still interesting.
The above fourteenth and last image here is taken from the 7th thumbnail image down from the top on the Beech website page. When you click on this thumbnail and the image page opens, there are three small oval images on the right. The above is the 2nd or middle one worked on a bit by me.
It is suggestive but not conclusive of possibly one creature sticking out from an underground lair with another possible creature in its mouth. Note the light reflective body and very dark eye. This is typical of other Beech poorly viewed evidence. This might be a plausible characteristic of creatures that live mostly underground and other Beech poorer quality evidence tends to suggest this as well.
However, please note the similarity of this evidence to the eel looking creature in my Report #157 titled "Mars Spirit Rover Mixed Life." It might be prudent to consider that any barren appearing Martian wastes are not the place to take a casual unprotected evening stroll unless you want something not so pleasant latched onto your leg.
Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator