A photo from the Mars Curiosity Rover reveals what appears to be a small animal or lizard on Mars. The photo was taken on February 20, 2013 by Curiosity’s MASTCAM and a high resolution copy is available on NASA’s JPL/Caltech website. The image was originally discovered by a Japanese researcher in March and uploaded to Youtube on May 14. The small figure appears to have a tail, four legs and has the characteristics of a lizard. If the object is indeed a lizard, then the photo from NASA’s own Curiosity mission not only reveals that life exists on Mars, but is also evidence that NASA is ignoring direct evidence of life.
Here is what Scott Waring from UFO Sightings had to say about the Lizard looking creature:
This odd creature was discovered on Mars by a person in Japan in March. This animal was not the first to be discovered in NASA photos but is in a long line of strange creatures. Remember the last one we reported that was very similar to a squirrel … Well this one also seems to resemble a rodent but also may be a lizard. With water existing on Mars in small amounts, its possible to find such desert animals wandering around…although very rare mind you.Then again, is NASA placing animals from tiny cryogenic chambers inside the rover onto the surface of Mars to conduct tests?
The Martian squirrel photo that Waring is referring to is discussed here. Again, another photo from NASA’s Curiosity mission that appears to show an animal on Mars – yet NASA remains silent. Why? Is it, as Waring believes, because NASA is secretly conducting biological tests with terrestrial animals secretly transported there?
The official answer from NASA/JPL is that the Curiosity Mission is designed to find evidence of the conditions for past life on Mars in rocks and soil – e.g., water and chemical compounds necessary for life. Any evidence of current life on Mars is outside the mission parameters of the Curiosity mission. This in itself is noteworthy given evidence that the 1976 Viking Mission conducted tests for life on Mars and the original results were positive, and then deemed inconclusive. The ensuing controversy has not abated with new scientific analysis upholding the original positive results that life was found on Mars.
Also, Dr Thomas Van Flandern former Chief Astronomer for the United States Naval Observatory released his own research findings about photos from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft that there was current vegetation on Mars in the form of shrubs, and trees. In an April 5, 2001 Press Conference at the National Press Club, Washington DC., he presented his evidence of vegetation on Mars along with his analysis of evidence of artificial structures. Van Flandern also revealed the strong opposition to him publishing his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals – a clear way to minimize the ground breaking results that there was photographic evidence of life on Mars. Despite Van Flandern’s professional standing in the astronomical community, NASA and the scientific community ignored his pioneering research revealing vegetation on Mars.
Despite ongoing controversy of the 1976 Viking experiments and Van Flandern’s analysis of photos revealing vegetation on Mars, NASA decided not to include scientific equipment for testing or analyzing data suggesting current life on Mars. Consequently, the Curiosity mission is not designed to analyze any evidence of current life on Mars. As a result, any photographic images of life roving the Martian surface is either ignored, or is dismissed as an anomaly by NASA.
What is the general public to conclude about NASA’s Curiosity Mars mission and lack of equipment for discerning current life on Mars? As the anomalies pile up, we see more and more photographic evidence of what clearly appears to be life on Mars, yet NASA continues to remain silent or obfuscates the obvious. Is the latest photo from Mars Curiosity evidence of life on Mars, or evidence that NASA is secretly conducting biological experiments on the Martian surface?
© Copyright 2013. Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Exopolitics.org
This article is copyright © and should not be added in its entirety on other websites or email lists. Permission is granted to include an extract (e.g., introductory paragraph) of this article on website or email lists with a link to the original.