Cryptomundo » Martian Bigfoot?

Martian Bigfoot?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 23rd, 2008

BFMars1

The newly rediscovered photograph of a Bigfoot-like image on the planet Mars is getting a lot of humor-filled play in the media. We might as well talk about it here too.

I just saw CNN laugh their way through a report on it. (”So that’s why there’s been no reports of Bigfoot from Tibet. He’s on Mars.” And “Oh, it’s not Bigfoot. It’s a woman.”)

Anyway, here is the photo, along with some others that appear to not show the Bigfoot image.

Thoughts?

mars bf1

That is an odd rock near it, that’s for sure.

mars bf2

mars bf3

The wider view shows how small or far away this “Bigfoot” really is:

mars bf4

BFMars2

bFMars3

The photograph, taken in 2004 by the Mars explorer Spirit, appears to show a human shaped object that looks similar to a frame from the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Spirit, sent to Mars to capture images from the surface of the planet, is one half of a $820m (£410m) mission, along with its twin explorer, Opportunity.

It landed on Mars in January 2004 for a three month mission to search Gusev Crater, a rock strewn stretch of soil that scientists believe could be the bed of an ancient lake. If Mars once had surface water, it had the potential to support life.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoology, Out of Place, Photos, Pop Culture. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

43 Responses to “Martian Bigfoot?”

pcs800 responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Yep it’s funny, that is for sure.
Must be a rock or a shadow of a rock or something of the sort. and umm, the uh.
noobfun responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
They definitely should have gone over for a closer look.

That’s sure better then the face on Mars.

I know it’s matrixing, but that one’s pretty good, all seems in the right(ish) proportions too except the lower legs seem a bit short.

And its messing with something on its lap, makes me think stitching clothing or a blanket lol (black/grey patch where legs would be).

So Martians are really seamstress Patties, I guess the 4th dimension and phasing between realities theory for bigfoot doesn’t seem so wrong when you look at it this way.
thehoch responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
I think developing a few “cosmic trail cams” could be the next order of protocol for NASA.
sschaper responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
This would be one of the Little People. Based on the rock, it must be only a very few inches high, say 2-5.

What it is is a water-deposited concretion that is harder than the surrounding layers worn away by the wind. Basically a bunch of ‘blueberries’ stuck together.
calash responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It is so obvious what is going on here.

For many years the Patterson-Gimlin film has been occasionally transmitted by television. The, Martians have seen this and been impressed with the reaction. Having a sense of humor they have made a copy of the “suit”, picked a suitable wearer (a Martian lady named Grozxiky) and sent her to walk just in range of the camera. Not too close though. They have to maintain Martian blobsqatchiness.

Regards
CamperGuy responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
It’s a Martian in a monkey suit
Why is the “figure” darker than the surrounding rocks and soil?
Chris1980 responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This is definitely a very small formation, probably only a few inches high based on the complete picture. Most likely a curious rock formation, nothing more nothing less….
Richard888 responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
The picture looks more clear than most of the pictures of cryptids taken here on earth. Tsk! Embarassing.

Maybe it shows a silicon-based humanoid that smelled the tasty Pentium chips inside the rover and got out of its crevice for a snack.
graybear responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Martian otters.
chabuhi responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Martian with mange?
bill green responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
interesting new photo indeed.
red_pill_junkie responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Patty was martian! Case solved!
Saint Vitus responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I don’t know what the hell that thing is, but I guess rock formation is the only thing it could possibly be. Either that or an action figure somehow mysteriously found its way to the surface of Mars! It’s definitely not alive, whatever it is. If there is (or ever was) life on Mars, it would probably resemble bacteria or some micro organism.
Smug responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I love the headline in CNN.com “Sasquatchy image spotted in Mars picture “
YourPTR! responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Oh man that’s awesome! This brings back fond memories of the infamous face on Mars (still not proven 100% not to be artificial btw whatever it is it still looks like a face albeit a seriously eroded one). Anyway, Mars & Bigfoot are two of my favorite subjects but I never in a million years dreamed the two would cross paths
Looks quite a lot like Patty and it’s even doing the classic Bigfoot pose, arms are a bit too short though I think!!
eireman responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The dangers of pareidolia strike again. We laugh it off because of the humorous image of a Biggy on Mars but give it time. Soon you will see this all over the UFO blogs as “evidence” of something that (invariably) the government doesn’t was us to know about. [cue dramatic music]
KashaPaw responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dangit Bigfoot! You get back down here right this instant!
XD Ahh, can’t wait for the ‘theories’ about this one.
fmurphy1970 responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
How long before we see Tom Biscardi setting out on an expedition to Mars?
dbard responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“# sschaper responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm

This would be one of the Little People. Based on the rock, it must be only a very few inches high, say 2-5.

What it is is a water-deposited concretion that is harder than the surrounding layers worn away by the wind. Basically a bunch of ‘blueberries’ stuck together.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m not trolling, but I am missing some things here…

You say the figure is small, based on the size of the rock. To figure out the size of the rock, you need to know how far it is from the camera. How do you know how far away it is?

In order for a “water-deposited concretion” of even 2-5 inches to be worn away by the wind in a short period of time, it must have been deposited fairly recently. The rover took pics of the rock with, and then later, without the figure. I was not aware there was evidence of flowing water on Mars in the recent past….

Please fill me in..

Thanks!
Smug responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Martian with mange.
squatch-toba responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Re;fmurphy 1970… LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too funny! Thanks for making my day!
rl_esteves responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’ve read about psychics that have had the same dream of an apocalyptic scene of UFOs piloted by bigfoot type pilots attacking our cities.If there is or has been life on Mars why couldn’t it resemble a sasquatch?What if sasquatch if he does indeed exist is of a superior intellect than our own?Wouldn’t be too far fetched with the right circumstances.
Ann Unknown responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
My local paper reads,

An Unknown Figure Appears In Martian Photo

Just my luck - my 15 minutes of fame, and they misspelled my first name with only one “n”!
(O well, they at least think this ol’ gal still has a “figure”.)

That so-called “odd rock” was in reality my ship - coincidentally named “The Odd Rock”. That chameleon devise tends to slip just a bit in cold weather.

I was up there looking for real estate slightly outside the planetary limits, and not yet subject to the taxes about to be levied on us all, in order to protect other people’s ill-mannered, tiger-taunting young from being eaten.
DavidFullam responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Looks somewhat like the Little Mermaid statue to me.
kittenz responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
That’s not a Bigfoot, it’s a Wookie. Chewy, come home!
dbard responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Looks like one of the “Sand People” from Star Wars to me..
cryptidsrus responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Whatever one feels about this—one has to admit it IS interesting.
cryptidsrus responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Heck, it COULD be real. one never knows.
There are more things in heaven and earth…

You get the drift.

I personally don’t think it’s real—I’m just saying one never knows…
noobfun responds: January 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
How long before we see Tom Biscardi setting out on an expedition to Mars?

$5 Meldrum and his best friend monsterquest beats Biscardi there
$10 KKK says he has already been there and proved there and no bigfoot on Mars, and has made a fake bigfoot movie to prove it. He went there in his special Israeli intelegence top secret foldaway rocket ship that fits in the heel of his shoe.
PhotoExpert responds: January 24th, 2008 at 1:05 am
If you were to look at this photograph, stereoscopically speaking, one would come to the conclusion that it is merely a small but curious stratified rock formation. We can guage it’s size by the distance of the subject to the lens. This ratio, knowing the focal length of the lens used on the rover to take the photo will give us the answer in terms of approximate size. Voila! In laymen’s terms, an unusually shaped small rock.

But why when viewing it, does it give us an unusual feeling or make the hairs stand up on the back of our necks? Without getting into psychological terminology and boring the dickens out of my fellow Cryptomundo readers here, let’s just say our subconscious can play tricks on us and the way we interpret what we see. When we view a Monet painting from a distance, it may look like a clear scenic picture in painting form. We see distinct flowers, trees, water, and people. But as we move closer to the painting, we begin to see that the painting is somewhat of a blur. And as we move even closer to the painting and change our aspect ratio, we can see the brushstrokes that blur together into a somewhat recognizable form. Our human mind will try to interpret vague forms into something recognizable. But the figure of a person in a Monet painting, looks less and less defined as we move closer until it becomes paint strokes and not human at all. Move away and the smear becomes a person in the painting. This is probably some left over evolutionary mechanism concerning our “fight or flight” reactions. Our brain quickly determines if the form or subject we are viewing is a threat or not. That helps us to determine the course of action to take. Subconsciously, our brain categorizes the image and makes it into something recognizeable to us, so we can take a course of action.

Did you ever look at an inkblot image? One person will say it looks like one thing and another person will describe something completely different.

In debunking many a ghost photo in my time, the person taking the photo will say that they did not see anything when the photo was taken. But miraculously, something strange will appear in the photograph. Almost all of the time, it is some ambiguous anomoly, that can be explained as a common occurance or photographic error. This is based on one’s frame of reference.

As a professional photographer, I see these so called ghosts as camera straps in the way of the lens, dust or water droplets that the flash has enhanced, water vapor, lens flare, etc. Almost all are just examples of poor photographic skills. Poor photography is what I see and can even duplicate the “orb”. LOL

But the person who took it, immediately sees a ghost. They will say, they were not looking for ghosts and “just happened to take a photo”. Yes, really? My question to them is: Then by chance, you just happened to be in a graveyard at 3 AM in the morning, with your camera in hand? See where I am going with this? Their psychological make up, is trying to make any common anomaly into a ghost from the ghosthunter’s perspective. They will always see ghosts because their thoughts are predetermined by their frame of reference. They are subjective in their reasoning.

I, on the other hand, will look at the photograph objectively to determine what the subject or anomaly is and how it was photographed. I have no preconceived notions about what it is or what it is not.

Some see ghosts and some see bad photographic skills and lack of photographic knowledge. Some see Martians and others see more Martian rock. LOL

That is not to say, that life does not exist on Mars. I believe it may. The odds are, there is some type of life on Mars. But this photograph has not captured a being in humanoid form. It has captured an oddly shaped rock.

It was an interesting photo and made for a great topic of discussion. Thanks for sharing that Loren!
jhamm responds: January 24th, 2008 at 1:44 am
That’s nothing new. Here’s a pic from Mars in 1997:

http://www.geocities.com/zoomar1/mars.jpg

So “Planet of the Apes” is true. Now we know where all those Bigfoot-bearing UFO’s come from. Wasn’t there an old book out, titled “Bigfoot Drives a Flying Saucer?”
bill green responds: January 24th, 2008 at 2:32 am
i got a question of if this possible sasquatch was photographed in arizona desert or any desert it would seem like mars in a way. thanks bill green
kittenz responds: January 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hmmm Planet of the Apes…

So now we know where Roddy McDowell went when he passed away ;)?
gkingdano responds: January 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
WHERE IS THE EMPTY CIRCUS WAGON?
fossilhunter responds: January 24th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Okay, here’s why I don’t have a job finding secret airbases from satellite pictures, where in the “Bigfoot photos” is the “odd rock near it” located? I think Loren may be using Photoshop to make us believe there are interesting ROCKS on Mars!! Hmmmmm.
silvereagle responds: January 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Laugh while you can. The fairly revealing book, X3 by Adrian Dvir solves a lot of the mysteries that our physicists have been so far unable to get a grip on. That book also reveals that there are ET colonies on other planets of our solar system. It is entirely possible that one ET got caught catching a few rays, while on an afternoon stroll. There are many mysteries of our universe that on the surface, appear to be laughable for the unlucky majority that have not yet witnessed any of those mysteries.
Alligator responds: January 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Hello Bill Green.

I’ll try to answer your question about the desert. I’m not an expert on deserts but I’ve been in arid parts of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico in the desert, plains and foothills. While many of these areas are similar in appearance to the Mars landscape, you do find plants like creosote bushes, yucca, mesquite, and (ouch) cholla and other kinds of cactus.

Vegetation may be very sparse in the deserts but you always find plants tucked away here and there even in the most desolate spots. When it rains in the spring, the desert plants have incredible blooms and flowers. If these pictures were in Arizona or New Mexico, you would see evidence of some vegetation somewhere. At least the places I have been in were not entirely barren. Someone who lives in those areas may have better details.

The figure is a rock, but it is a really neat photo. PhotoExperts analysis is spot on. If you could actually pick it up or even look at it from a different angle, it wouldn’t look like a humanoid figure. Erosion can do funny things and the minerals in rocks will determine how they react to erosion. I’ve picked up rocks out of creeks that when you turned them certain ways, you could imagine they looked like faces, animals or arrow points - but alas they are just eroded rocks. Mars probably once had water erosion but now it experiences only wind erosion.

If there is life on Mars, it will be very different in form. Odds are against a humanoid form in that environment. Actually, we have probably introduced an invasive species to Mars - Microbes that would have hitchhiked on the Spirit. Microbes are everywhere and some could survive in airless cold environments like space.
Artist responds: January 24th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Ahhh… over 37 earnest comments about a small, wind & sand-eroded rock on a barren (?) planet millions of miles away!

Talk about pareidolia! And where does Bigfoot figure in this? Are we at the point where ANY unidentifiable random collection of line, color and tone will automatically be labeled Bigfoot?

C’mon, Cryptomundians, let’s get serious!
Artist responds: January 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
On the other hand, what will we do if the next photo of that area shows the figure missing, with a line of tiny footprints leading away?
jhamm responds: January 25th, 2008 at 2:13 am
WOW! When I made my “Bigfoot-bearing UFO’s” comment of Jan. 24th, I had not read any of the previous comments. including rl_esteves’ “UFOs piloted by bigfoot type pilots” comment of Jan. 23rd.

So what seems like a response to his comment, it’s not. Just a coincidence. Or was it?
mystery_man responds: January 25th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Very good post as usual, photoexpert! As someone who is purely an amateur when it comes to photography, I found your comment to be immensely informative. Thank you.

I think this photo illustrates very well how a blobsquatch can come about. Obviously this is something other than a sasquatch that nevertheless appears to be very humanoid in shape and to me this begs the question of how often this happens in alleged photos of sasquatch taken here on Earth. I believe our brains are more or less wired to try and find patterns in things, to make sense out of chaos, and to find something with which to relate what we see. This can cause random rock formations, tree stumps, branches, and what not, to take on more familiar patterns such as humanoid shapes. If you really look hard at an array of spots, for example, and want to see something in all the randomness, it will likely appear to you.

I may catch some flak from believers that may be here, but in my humble opinion the very same thing happened with the so called “Face of Mars” photo. There was a peculiar rock formation shaped by wind or geological forces, and the human brain takes that and fills in the blanks, seeing something familiar to us which in this case is a face. I’ve read of all the “evidence” in favor of this being something intelligently made, and some of it really seems plausible on the surface. But looking behind the curtain, beyond the smoke and mirrors, to me most of it is again someone looking for patterns in the randomness and chaos, taking their interpretations of data and fitting that into their hypothesis.

This cool little photo shows how something so inanimate and remote can become a humanoid shape when we view it. I absolutely think this sort of thing sometimes plays a role in what we see, or think we see, in alleged sasquatch photos.
Holmes responds: January 25th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Looks like an old hiking boot to me.
sschaper responds: January 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
dbard,

Where is this alleged image without the concretion?

I’m pretty familiar with the topography of that area. I’ve been following the rover’s images fairly closely, since they landed. Those rocks are small, the layers are very thin. That is a typical concretion for that specific area on top of the Columbia Hills.

There are some very curious impressions in some of the rocks in that area (not this image) that look very much like fossils, but this isn’t one of them.

And yes, we have before and after images of a water outburst in a gully in the southern hemisphere, but that isn’t going to produce an underground, interstitial concretion and then have the surrounding rock away in the wind in anywhere near such a short period of time.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

43 Responses to “Martian Bigfoot?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training