It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible smoking gun Mars rodent picture - 2nd picture found - help needed

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
For people that don't know the original Mars picture of the rodent looking stone:



It looks like a rodent, but is it? I just discovered there is a second picture taken by the rover of the same scene from a different angle. Researcher Richard D. Hall has communicated with a couple of scientists about oddities found in Mars pictures. These oddities are discussed in this topic:

Are the rovers a smokescreen mission for something bigger and are they on Earth?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To continue:

The scientists have commented on those oddities and one of those scientists found the 2nd picture of the rodent stone location. This is the picture:

Picture 2:


My first question is, can someone please help me find the original in the Nasa archive? I have not been successful in my search and Hall didn't leave any links that I can find. This information comes from a youtube presentation.

This is the first original picture of the rodent stone. I have marked the approximate position from where the second picture was taken:

Picture 1:


By having a good look at the stones in both pictures, the scientist and Richard Hall agreed on the following stone identification:


Picture 1:

Picture 2:


These are pictures 1 and 2, both zoomed in on the rodent stone spot:


Picture 1:

Picture 2:


I have tried to put in some lines to determine whether the rodent stone is still there in the second photo:


Picture 1:

Picture 2:


Since stone 2 has a curved shape and seems to curve downward towards the back, it's a bit hard to determine where the green line needs to be. But it does seem that the rodent stone is clearly in the green line of sight, no matter what I try. Of course I would like to get the opinion of others on this.

The scientist says he thinks the stone in picture 2 with the purple arrow, is the rodent stone. When looking at the green lines of sight It seems that that particular stone with the purple arrow is not far enough to the left in picture 2. This stone might actually be the stone that you can see in picture 1 just behind the rodent stone. Now this is very hard to determine of course.

In picture 1, is there the rodent stone with another stone behind it, or is it a trick of the eye and is this just one stone?

Maybe the best clue we have to determine whether it's one rock or two separate things, is the size of the rodent rock compared to rocks 1 and 2.

In picture 1, the rodent stone does not seem to be a lot smaller than rocks 1 and 2. In picture 2, the supposed rodent stone is a lot smaller than rocks 1 and 2.

Are the sizes of the rocks, together with the green lines of sight, proof that the lemming rock is not there anymore in picture 2?

Since the pics on the forum can't be too big, I've also posted them here so you can see more detail:

Broad view pictures 1 and 2:
oi63.tinypic.com...

Pictures 1 and 2 zoomed in:
oi64.tinypic.com...

Pictures 1 and 2 zoomed in with lines:
oi68.tinypic.com...

This is the 20 minute video of Richard D. Hall discussing these pictures:

www.youtube.com...



edit on 9-12-2015 by Neill887 because: pics added and layout

edit on 9-12-2015 by Neill887 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Neill887
My first question is, can someone please help me find the original in the Nasa archive? I have not been successful in my search and Hall didn't leave any links that I can find.


Of course he did not, if he had done that people would have looked at the original!



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Good analysis and post. THIS is what we need more of when we find anomalous pics and objects. Thanks! I don't have much to add yet. Love it.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

Following your logic, I see the Old Testament in there...



...a cruise boat...



...and even a miniature planet Earth!...



It sure is busy on Mars when you have rocks and pareidolia!

Funny how we still haven't seen any lampposts though...


edit on 9-12-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Out of all the rock pictures I've seen, this truly is 100%, verifiable, totally confirmed, unquestionable, No-Way-It-Couldn't-be-A-Rock, absolute proof I have ever seen!

Or.... It's a damn rock.

EDIT: I watched about 20 seconds of the video before my face started to bruise from all the 'face-palms'.

"Here's a pile of rocks that so vaguely resembles a vertebrae that we can only conclude that it is not a pile of rocks, but it is absolutely some vertebrae! If we imagine that it is indeed a vertebrae, and we look at different vertebrae found on earth, then we have just confirmed that it is most definitely a vertebrae of a whale!"

At what point do people not realize that individuals like this know nothing of science, certainly nothing about rocks, and most definitely nothing about anatomy, and are certifiably insane if they honestly believe the garbage they are spewing?
edit on 9/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Neill887
My first question is, can someone please help me find the original in the Nasa archive? I have not been successful in my search and Hall didn't leave any links that I can find.


Of course he did not, if he had done that people would have looked at the original!


Study the pictures for a moment and you will see that the 2nd Mars picture is an actual picture from the same spot from a different angle.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Out of all the rock pictures I've seen, this truly is 100%, verifiable, totally confirmed, unquestionable, No-Way-It-Couldn't-be-A-Rock, absolute proof I have ever seen!

..........

At what point do people not realize that individuals like this know nothing of science, certainly nothing about rocks, and most definitely nothing about anatomy, and are certifiably insane if they honestly believe the garbage they are spewing?


It was really great hearing an opinion that I've never heard before and is completely off-topic.

This is your chance to finally debunk the people that believe the stone is a rodent. So please help me analyse the 2 pictures.
edit on 9-12-2015 by Neill887 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Neill887

It sure is busy on Mars when you have rock and pareidolia!

Funny how we still haven't seen any lampposts though...



Why are you posting on a forum like this if you ridicule things? I've clearly asked people to help me with the analysis I did. Ridicule does not help. Please stay on-topic.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

It's a rock, mate. Check by yourself - there is no separation between the "legs" and the "head" and the "body". It's all one rounded-edged piece. Your "rodent" would not even be able to walk.

Furthermore, what you perceive as its "eye" is actually part of the background, it's a shadow caused by a pebble on the terrain. You can tell by both looking at the brightness on top of the rock (it marks the edge delimitation and it's quite clear), and by analysing the shadow imprint which the rock casts on the ground.

Finally, earth rodents cannot breathe rarified atmosphere, for animal to breathe rarified atmosphere they need larger lung capacity (so to maximize oxygen intake) and thus a similarly bigger (much bigger!) thorax, something which is inconsistent with your "rodent".


edit on 9-12-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

That is a classic!!
I really want to believe its a rat trotting about on Mars...
But its probably just a ratty rock sadly.

Of course,everything people say is a rock on Mars could be super camoflauged highly intelligent critters whose stealthy attributes convince us mere humans to keep saying "its a rock."

If I was an alien species on Mars,I would try my best to look like a rock when the two legs from Earth started poking about with robots.
I mean who'd want the humans to come and fork up the whole place...





posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Neill887

Finally, earth rodents cannot breathe rarified atmosphere, for animal to breathe rarified atmosphere they need larger lung capacity (so to maximize oxygen intake) and thus a similarly bigger (much bigger!) thorax, something which is inconsistent with your "rodent".



Some people think the rovers are a smoke screen mission and that the pictures are from Earth.

You still haven't commented on the position on the stone when seen from 2 angles. That's what I want from this thread, I thought I had made that very clear.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I worked where they took that picture....it was an island in Canada.....

cool huh....the rodents have really short legs there...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887
Looks like a human head next to the tent that's just left of the green arrows at the bottom.

What do you think about that?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

ENOUGH!



If you have nothing constructive to add (either positive or negative), then you have nothing to add.

The OP worked hard on making a presentation. You can either agree with it, disagree with it, or debate points of it, but remember this: This is NOT the "Jokes" forum.

Any more posts that violate ATS Decorum will be removed. If you insist on making more posts in this thread like that, you'll find yourself under a Post Ban.

Play Nice. If you're tired of Mars Rock threads, than move on. Find something else here on ATS to talk about.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Neill887
It was really great hearing an opinion that I've never heard before and is completely off-topic.


How is pointing out massively flawed use of logic an off-topic remark?


originally posted by: Neill887
This is your chance to finally debunk the people that believe the stone is a rodent. So please help me analyse the 2 pictures.


It hasn't been proven to be a rodent in the first place. You, and the individuals who claim 'it's a rodent" haven't given any evidence at all other than your individualistic, subjective opinion. There isn't any conclusive evidence to be seen anywhere.

In science, when an observation is made, it's up to the observer to prove the hypothesis they have about that observation. Once the conclusion, based off of that hypothesis, is available for peer review, then it's up to the scientific community to confirm or reject the results with their own tests.

So far, you guys haven't even made a scientific observation, but you're more than willing to come to a conclusion right off the bat and declare what you see is a dead, organic rodent. That's quite an extraordinary claim to make, when you have absolutely no evidence.

The rational people, however, know that there are rocks on mars, and realize that there are such psychological phenomena such as 'Pareidolia' which would lead some people to come to these ridiculous conclusions, when in-a-matter-of-fact, it's a damn rock.

So all the evidence so far points to it being a rock, it's not up to us to disprove your ridiculous claim, it's up to you to prove it in the first place.

This same ridiculous mentality is intrinsic to the OP video you linked.


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Neill887
Looks like a human head next to the tent that's just left of the green arrows at the bottom.

What do you think about that?


This is a perfect point. See, Neill887? DenyObfuscation has just as much evidence for his assertion as you do for yours (I realize he is satirical). Anyone could make any claim about any rock on mars, no matter how ridiculous, and it all has the same validity if their claims are based off of opinion, not evidence.
edit on 9/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Star and Flag from me OP.

While I do not believe that what we see in all the Mars Rocks threads are anything more than rocks themselves, I think that you did put a lot of effort into your OP, and is a pleasant change from what we mostly see here in Skunk Works (which is normally just a video link and a few words by the OP).

So you get a thumbs up from me for trying to have a civil debate on the subject.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I didn't think there were hampsters in the deserts here on earth.
Maybe it got out of the filming staff's trailer.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Neill887
It was really great hearing an opinion that I've never heard before and is completely off-topic.


How is pointing out massively flawed use of logic an off-topic remark?


The question in this topic is: Is the rodent stone in the same position in picture 1 and 2?

That's it. That's the question in this topic.

This is the topic where we discuss odd Mars pictures in general:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now back on-topic please.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
I worked where they took that picture....it was an island in Canada.....

cool huh....the rodents have really short legs there...


Yep, arctic lemmings on Devon Island in Canada (where The Mars Society has a base) have short limbs because of the cold.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join