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: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I didn't think there were hampsters in the deserts here on earth.
Maybe it got out of the filming staff's trailer.

Canada
Lemmings
That's where the Mars production is underway.
Trump knows all of this too.




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Vertebrate.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Nice post op


Ignore them, some are here for the sole purpose of discrediting such topics, while others just cant handle their little bubble being burst, and None of them have any more evidence than we have, so everything they say is just opinion.

Personally I do not believe for one second that if nasa found anything on mars that we would be told about it.
I also believe there's a very good chance they may have found something on mars, and if they have, they would need to show us something other than mars, like that place in Canada!
I've seen the original rodent pic but not the others, is it the others that you cannot find a source for?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

were are mars videos i am being serious because all i see is pictures.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Nice post op


Ignore them, some are here for the sole purpose of discrediting such topics, while others just cant handle their little bubble being burst, and None of them have any more evidence than we have, so everything they say is just opinion.

Personally I do not believe for one second that if nasa found anything on mars that we would be told about it.
I also believe there's a very good chance they may have found something on mars, and if they have, they would need to show us something other than mars, like that place in Canada!
I've seen the original rodent pic but not the others, is it the others that you cannot find a source for?


Yes it's the second picture I need a source for. I'm thinking there must be another database that I can't find.

If I go into Nasa's picture databases I also can't find the orignial one by navigating the website. But I know the original picture is there in their database because the direct link can be found online.

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



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Neill887

were are mars videos i am being serious because all i see is pictures.


Good question! It's the 21st century and they spent millions of dollars on the project, yet they didn't fit a video camera. .

One has to wonder why. :/



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes


i think because a video stream can be hacked and if someone hacked it we can find out were its comming from



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Neill887

were are mars videos i am being serious because all i see is pictures.


Yes that's a very good question. Would it really be that hard to stream some video with the technology they have at their disposal.

Edit:

This is about their bandwidth:

NASA upgraded the bandwidth connection to its pokey twin Mars rovers, a boost that will allow scientists to send and receive data like pictures more quickly, a mission manager said Friday. The rate is now nearly five times the speed of home dial-up Internet connections.

www.nbcnews.com...
edit on 9-12-2015 by Neill887 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Wide-Eyes


i think because a video stream can be hacked and if someone hacked it we can find out were its comming from


And it's harder to airbrush video's than to airbrush pictures.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:12 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".



i'm sure he is saying your "earth rodent" is still on earth

edit on 9/12/2015 by scubagravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.

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



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.


No, that's the first one where the rodent rock was first discovered


There's now a second one from a different angle of the same spot. The second one I can't find.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

Not this again... why is it ATS members always bring the same kind of thing... I miss the old days of ATS where there was original content and not just hammering away at the same old... interesting photo but nothing more than perspective ..

Knowing the makeup of the planet we're expected to believe they have rodents running around? .. true they are hard to get rid of ... but that's beyond realistic ... you'd be more likely to see roaches or some other form of insect life than mammalian life .. besides, that doesn't look like a living thing to me .. it might to you ..



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I know a rodent when I see one, and that, is a rodent.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: miniatus
a reply to: Neill887

Not this again... why is it ATS members always bring the same kind of thing... I miss the old days of ATS where there was original content and not just hammering away at the same old... interesting photo but nothing more than perspective ..

Knowing the makeup of the planet we're expected to believe they have rodents running around? .. true they are hard to get rid of ... but that's beyond realistic ... you'd be more likely to see roaches or some other form of insect life than mammalian life .. besides, that doesn't look like a living thing to me .. it might to you ..


The whole point of this topic is to see whether it is a matter of perspective. We now have two pictures from 2 different angles of the same spot. This can help us determine if the rocks are exactly the same in both pictures. Please comment on that.

And there are people that think the rovers are on Earth, maybe part of a smoke screen mission.
edit on 9-12-2015 by Neill887 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.

That's definitely interesting. I'd love to see another pic of the same region from the same angle. Even an image taken a few seconds apart would be fine. I have a hard time navigating the NASA website's galleries. Once I get HERE, it starts getting odd for me (assuming I'm even in the right section).

As for the OP: I have to admit, I was skeptical of this OP at first. I love astronomy & had all kinds of dreams of space exploration as a child. I was fascinated by the "face" on Mars that they used to show on tv. And the first time I saw the "Pillars of Creation", it was like a divine revelation to me (probably because of that flashy name). And I used to be fascinated by UFOs (still have a lot of vids on my computer).

But over time, there have been so many fakes, "clarifications", advances in editing software, and the such. It's made me doubt everything I see concerning them. And honestly, if the original picture wasn't on NASA's website, I would've written this one off too. But no matter how many times I look at the original on NASA's website, it still looks like a mouse/rodent. Particularly since I've had to exterminate mice before, then grew to love & respect them, and now pray I never have to kill one again. So the image is really resonating with me.

It definitely deserves a second look, though I'd prefer it from the same angle. Good finds.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Neill887

Everything is too small on my phone to be of any help. And despite 20/10 vision, I'm horrible at discerning much in pictures, but, I will say, great thread, well done.

This is the first "anomaly" I know of which has given us a chance to compare the same scene at different angles. It's a shame such a thread gets filled with so many "just rocks", "paredolia" etc. responses. They apparently didn't bother to read the OP, and instead defaulted to their "no-thought, closed book" responses.

As you stated a few posts in, this is finally an opportunity to say "just rocks" or not, with some good evidence, but instead, the thread devolvers come in to pour their genius intellect upon us all. It's as if they're saying, "I don't want to bother with evidence, I just want to plug my ears, say some nanananananas, and scream ROCKS the easy way!"

Good on you for taking this one to a new level, with no prejudicial answer as to whether it is a rodent on Mars (or possibly Earth) or a curiously shaped rock.

For too many people these days, actual thinking just isn't in vogue.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I didn't think there were hampsters in the deserts here on earth.
Maybe it got out of the filming staff's trailer.

Desert pocket mouse

Those are right here in America.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Neill887

As you stated a few posts in, this is finally an opportunity to say "just rocks" or not, with some good evidence, but instead, the thread devolvers come in to pour their genius intellect upon us all. It's as if they're saying, "I don't want to bother with evidence, I just want to plug my ears, say some nanananananas, and scream ROCKS the easy way!"

Good on you for taking this one to a new level, with no prejudicial answer as to whether it is a rodent on Mars (or possibly Earth) or a curiously shaped rock.

For too many people these days, actual thinking just isn't in vogue.


In the end I'm always hoping there's at least a few people that go from debunker to true skeptic by reading threads that are well presented. Most will stick with their old views, but at least a few can be convinced certain topis are actually based on some interesting facts.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join