Mechanical object spotted on Mars Sol 790

a reply to: Blister

Well I guess that tells me everything I need to know then...

Basically you said if it is a rock then aliens are using quantum mechanics to trick us...think about that statement.

Think about this: This statement is false.

You've combined liar paradox with circular logic.

a reply to: raymundoko
You may wrongly draw that unsound conclusion, however, read carefully, that is not what I said.

You should cease trying to put words in people's mouths... could get ya in trouble ya know.

a reply to: Blister

That's exactly what you said:

It may seem unlikely to peasants, but quantum physics suggests that highly advanced life forms would and do have the tech to play with our minds.

a reply to: raymundoko

Only just caught up on the latest posts and i have to interject. When responding with the statement "thats exactly what you said", is ridiculous. Why did you not paste in the whole paragraph where he gave logical and rational comments as shown below.

No one is saying NASA switched the rock. What we are wondering is how come the object now looks totally different than it did in the two previous colour pictures. In making the observation that the object looks different (which may be explainable simply because Navcam is being used) I have not discarded any theory aside, including the possibility that the rock was switched or otherwise altered. It may seem unlikely to peasants, but quantum physics suggests that highly advanced life forms would and do have the tech to play with our minds.

He did no say that if it is a rock its aliens, he acknowledged many possible explanations including your own, however all you can respond with is using sections of his post to fit your ridicule.
Have you ever worked in the MSM because you do seem to have a pattern of using ridicule and unwillingness to see beyond your own belief.

If you have anything to offer proving that it is a rock and is consistent with the other pictures it would be helpful by offering some evidence and not just making statements like they are fact with no research or effort.

a reply to: Blister

What we are wondering is how come the object now looks totally different than it did in the two previous colour pictures.

Because the angle from which the image was taken is different than the angle in the earlier images.

You have assumed symmetry in an object when seen from a particular angle. When angle changed it becomes apparent that the symmetry you assumed does not exist. But, rather than consider that, you now assume it is a different object.

That is called confirmation bias.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Blister

That's exactly what you said:

It may seem unlikely to peasants, but quantum physics suggests that highly advanced life forms would and do have the tech to play with our minds.

And did I ever, even once - and this is for you too Phage - say that the rock was switched or that it is not the same rock?

No.

You are inventing it.

Yes, I did suggest that aliens could be technically so far ahead of us that they could switch the rock. But that is not the same as saying they did switch the rock.

a reply to: Phage
Gee Phage - have you read the whole thread?

As I earlier discussed, Curiosity changed positions and angle. Plus, Navcam (NASA also used Navcams to get earlier shots of the objects) was again used, giving a poor quality, shaded object that debases any forensic examination of the area.

Here is an analogy.

You see a dot streaking through the sky. Ah-ha! You grab your telescope and wow! It looks a lot like a ufo. But you need a wider point of view as the ufo is moving so fast. You grab the binoculars. Darn it! The dot now looks (to you) like a balloon - but at least you can see a wider field of view.

In this case the Navcam is the binocular, providing a poor image. What you really need, and wish you could again use is a Mastcam, just like the telescope.

Questioning what the object is now, as opposed to what it was earlier, is natural. It is scientific enquiry. Assuming it is the same object would lead to problematic assumptions and possibly incorrect conclusions.

So, Phage, please keep an open mind when analysing things we lack knowledge (not belief) of.

Yes, yes but what is NASAs remit for the rovers. Are they just very,very expensive tourist cameras like what has been already suggested. Have they no curiosity as to what these anomalies are? Mars is a different planet so they can't keep coming up with Earth like explanations for them all. Why are they not getting nearer images that would stop all speculation?

a reply to: crayzeed

Again, a toddler in the woods...

a reply to: crayzeed
I suppose that if you had a billion dollar machine you would be pretty careful in using it too.

I certainly would be.

The statement: "it's because the second image was shot at a different angle is why it looks nothing like the first."

Is false reasoning.

1: Go get a camera and an electric motor and take as many angle shots of it as you like.

2: Come back and say they all look like a rock except for the first image you take.

3: Use hearing protection to save your ears from all the embarrassing laughter.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

1: Go get a camera and an electric motor and take as many angle shots of it as you like.

2: Come back and say they all look like a rock except for the first image you take.

1) Your initial assumption is faulty. It is not an electric motor.
2) From one direction it exhibits a bit of symmetry. From another angle it does not. You will find that that is not uncommon in rocks and other natural objects.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

previous probe is another possibility..... could be a fuel cannister or something like that.

more likely it's a weird rock or meteor metal...

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

previous probe is another possibility..... could be a fuel cannister or something like that.

more likely it's a weird rock or meteor metal...

It's a Dyson.

a reply to: Phage

original mars enlargement.

(many motor image can be found that come a lot closer)


I never said anywhere in the thread that it IS an electric motor, but it does resemble one.

After examining the original first posted image, it clearly shows that no matter what angle you photograph the object, it would look nothing like NASA's response image.

You can even see INSIDE this object through absolutely symmetrical cooling vents that have perfect angles of design symmetry.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I never said anywhere in the thread that it IS an electric motor, but it does resemble one.

From one angle. Yes, yes it does. But you can't see the other side of it, can you? You can only see one side of it, can't you?

Lots of things resemble other things from a particular point of view.

a reply to: Phage

There is plenty enough to see and to show in the first image to indicate meticulous, purposeful design on the right and likely the left side showing, and on both ends are where the true indicators are. No matter what angle you image it, it will always show one of those ends or both. There is also indicators that the first was edited to leave out details like the perfect cut line going straight down on the right side looking like a paste job that leaves a perpendicular line straight down.

I can easily determine from what I see without stretching logic or the facts that what I am looking at is not a rock and is in fact not natural. This just from the 90 degree angle cooling design on the right side, let alone all the other valid reasons to conclude this is a goof by NASA that slipped through.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I can easily determine from what I see without stretching logic or the facts that what I am looking at is not a rock and is in fact not natural.

Yes. I'm sure you do assume that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I can easily determine from what I see without stretching logic or the facts that what I am looking at is not a rock and is in fact not natural.

Yes. I'm sure you do assume that.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm using simple observations of known design patterns and matching those patterns to well known mechanical devices just like the webbed cooling ports you find on electric motors.

(plus wires sticking out on the NASA image.
like this:
(yeah the wires are in a different place, but that is irrelevant.)

All of YOUR arguments are assumptions not mine. You really haven't done anything to convince anyone either way of anything, just a little sour grape responses.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm not assuming anything.

Yes, you are. You are assuming that you know what parts of an object which are not visible look like. You are assuming that because from a single point of view an object resembles an electric motor it will resemble an electric motor from all points of view.