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

a reply to: Neill887

Rocks. Just rocks.

originally posted by: plaindoughnut
a reply to: Neill887

Rocks. Just rocks.

Wow. Just wow.

Thanks for the valuable insight.

Every single time I see a picture supposedly showing some sort of life on Mars, it turns out to just be a rock. I don't think those rocks look very much like a rodent at all.

But hey, let's assume that there is a rodent on Mars. How would it have survived? Who would bring a rodent to Mars? Rodents are from Earth. I think it's completely implausible that a rodent, very similar to what is found on Earth, would have evolved on Mars, not only sharing the physical characteristics of Earth rodents, but also within the same time period.

That's the thing with trying to find sentient life in the universe - time. In the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence, homo sapiens has been around for only about 200,000 years. It's entirely possible, in this world of possibilities, that an alien race could have detected life on Earth, and paid a visit, only to be greeted by massive reptilian dinosaurs. By the time humans decided to emerge, countless extraterrestrial civilisations could have risen and fallen, and we were too late. And what if we discover a hospitable planet, zoom over to take a look, and find only the remnants of a long-dead civilisation? Or we find a place where intelligent life has yet to evolve? In regards to life on other planets, you mustn't forget to consider the importance of time.

The coolest Mars rock I've seen is the one that looks like a floating spoon. Key words there being "looks like".

Seeing animals and artifacts on Mars is like seeing shapes in the clouds. Yes, sometimes things totally look like other things, given the right angle. Like the infamous face on Mars - at the right angle, it totally does look like a face! But of course, at another angle, it totally doesn't.

The only reason I'm really bothering to comment on this is because I am getting kind of weary of the never ending claims about various critters and objects left hanging around on Mars. Every time, without fail, it's just a rock, which almost always doesn't even actually look at all convincing.

While I'm at it - does anyone actually, genuinely believe, that there are aliens living on Mars, or that it was previously inhabited by macroscopic fauna? There's surely a reason why people continue to form shapes out of Mars rocks.

originally posted by: DeepThoughtCriminal
Every single time I see a picture supposedly showing some sort of life on Mars, it turns out to just be a rock. I don't think those rocks look very much like a rodent at all.

..............

The only reason I'm really bothering to comment on this is because I am getting kind of weary of the never ending claims about various critters and objects left hanging around on Mars. Every time, without fail, it's just a rock, which almost always doesn't even actually look at all convincing.

I'm sorry to tell you that you typed that long reply in vain. You should have read the openingpost a bit more carefully. It is being theorized that the rovers are on Earth on Devon Island in Canada and also in Utah. That's where the Mars Society has bases on Earth because these places look like Mars.

The theory is that the rovers are a smokescreen for something way bigger. The Pentagon and the black project world will be the first ones into space and they will try to make sure they have a military strategic advantage in the solar system before anyone else gets there. They will most likely be the first ones to build bases on the moon and Mars. They might want to keep that quiet as long as possible, because they don't want any prying eyes before they have reached their strategic goal.

While I'm at it - does anyone actually, genuinely believe, that there are aliens living on Mars, or that it was previously inhabited by macroscopic fauna? There's surely a reason why people continue to form shapes out of Mars rocks.

We can make informed guesses about Mars' history, but we can't pretend we know exactly what happened to Mars millions of years ago. The reason we know a lot about Earth's history is because we have done loads of research, like drilling ice cores in the arctic. We haven't done that type of research on Mars so we can't jump to conclusions that Mars could have never harbored life.

And can you now comment on my question asked in the openingpost? We have two pictures taken from different spots of the rodent rock spot. When I look at both pictures, it looks like the rodent stone is not there anymore. Can you comment on that please. Take one of the pictures from the OP and draw some lines to help me see if I'm missing something.

a reply to: Neill887

Yeah can't see any rodent in the 2nd pic. But can see a sort of cave hole thing in that front rock in the 2nd pic. In the 1st pic there looks to be a sort of track around the rock into that little cave.

a reply to: Ghost147


why are these threads still in skunk works?
We can rest assured that these are Stanley Kubrick productions, given to NASA after the great job he did on the moon landing set. A pity he had to sign his death warrant by directing Eyes Wide Shut

a reply to: Neill887

Ridicule does not help.

Oh it does...unfortunately it helps to quash discussion, rather than to stimulate it...which is really rather the point in many cases and in topics such as these.

a reply to: Neill887

Right! My bad, I'll apologise for my misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up for me - sometimes my reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid.

I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong; in fact, being proven wrong makes me happy, because it means I've learned something, so prepare yourself for a barrage of questions!

I have heard mention of the theory that the Mars rovers are actually located on Earth, but I won't lie - I don't know a huge amount about it. So, let me get this straight - there is the idea that certain rocks have been moved? Could this be a trick of the light, as in, shadows fall at different times depending on the light source. If NASA did move the stone, why would they do that? If not through human intervention, how could the stones have moved?

Is it possible that the "movement" of the rodent stone is caused by different angles? The Mars Rovers aren't stationary objects; they trundle around the Martian surface as long as they can before getting stuck in a ditch. Take the case of the famous Face on Mars - when photographed at a different angle, it scarcely looked at all like a face.

Why is the rodent stone considered important? It just seems like what I mentioned before, about seeping shapes in clouds. I could google this, yes, but I'd rather pose my questions to people who actually have more knowledge of this than I do. In those two photographs, it actually looks like a different clump of rocks. Either that, or different angle. In the second photo, not only do I not see the rodent stone, but I see a few different looking rocks too, which makes it look as though the photos were either taken at a different location, or are the rocks are obscured by the different angle.

Now, apologies once again for the lengthy post, but I am genuinely curious about this whole Mars debacle. Only having paid the most cursory attention to it, there is a lot I don't know.

Firstly, why would NASA send a robot to a part of Earth? Some terrestrial landscapes look rather similar to Mars. Out in the red deserts of Australia, rocks are scattered all over the place. If you ever get the chance, I highly recommend going on a holiday all throughout the country, where'll you see snowy mountains, arid desert, savanna scrub, tropical rainforests, lush green hinterlands. The Mars landscape is looks very familiar to some part of the North Queensland savanna and the red waste in the central deserts. And of course, some areas in the Middle East. I still maintain that astrobiologists studying the tenacity of life thrives under extreme conditions are the best thing we have (so far) to understanding what kind of extremophile organisms can not only survive but thrive under intense environment conditions. The tardigrade (water bear) is a prime example of an (so adorably cute I want a pet tardigrade) organism able to survive in space amongst a whole host of adverse conditions.

I think, if we find life on Mars, it could only be microscopic fauna, like microbes and such. Cyanobacteria has been shown to survive in replicated Mars conditions - this is seriously important for further study of extremophile organisms. There's a good chance that all microbes and whatnot have long since perished, but if we could some sort of fossil record, that would be fantastic.

I never meant to imply that life could never exist on Mars. In fact, it's entirely plausible - at the very, there may well be traces of life forms which have since perished. Of course, they would still almost certainly leave their mark on the world. The presence of water is a good sign.

Back to the whole Mars thing being a hoax - why do you think that? In order to establish a habitable base on Mars, well... you'd have to somehow counteract the harsh UV radiation, as well find ways to cultivate food. Of course, there is the concept of bioengineering - similar basic life forms which, over a long time, transformed the Earth's atmophere into what we now know as perfectly habitable. Now, building bases for people on Mars could theoretically be done, but you'd have to have an insane amount of funding. The majority of this funding would have to come from private sources. And that's a lot of funding - space missions ain't cheap.

Just remember, I'm asking questions, and would be duly grateful if someone was kind enough to elucidate some more of their arguments. Talks of terraforming and inhabiting Mars... well, why? What's their incentive? Generally speaking, most governments are far more concerned about geopolitical issues than about building bases on Mars, hence why NASA's pretty much run into a dead end.

What would be the advantage of establishing colonies on the moon? Assuming the whole planet has been terraformed, it would... actually, it would be fascinating to see how human culture would develop away from Earth. Although, of course, this would take generations.

As for microbial life, well if there's any life left at all, I'm sorry to say it won't been some sexually liberated green alien. I'm more of the opinion that if life did indeed live on Mars (which is totally plausible), it would be all but eradicated by the shockingly harsh conditions. I'd like to send some tardigrades up there and see how they fare.

If you would be so kind as to suffer through my lengthy posts and answer some questions, I would be much obliged. As I said, I know only the most cursory knowledge on this subject. Please, if I've missed something, I would indebted to you if you if you could take the time to give me a brief run-through. Googling is all well and good, but nothing beats rational discourse between people.

Sorry, one more thing - you mentioned that in the second picture is taken from a different angle. Could this angle have obscured the rodent stone?

I don't know why this rock is considered to be so important. It doesn't like nearly enough like rodent on Earth, and its composition seems to change quite noticebly from different angles. There are a lot of strangle shaped rocks on Mars.

Oh, and why would they film this is Utah or some such American state? What's the point on that?

I would truly be very appreciative if someone would be so kind as to eludicate these for me

Good job with this thread! What I wonder about is what a rodent would eat on Mars. There would usually have to be some plant life to support animal life because the plants get energy from the sun and then animals feed off the plants to get the sun's energy.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.

It's nice to know that they are filming the Mars videos right here in America. I am all for American made deception. Support our own people, we have lots of people who like to make films

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!

Hello Bruce! Time to apologize! Richard D. Hall just emailed me back with the link to the original picture:

Large original: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Zoomed in original: mars.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Neill887

Is THIS the original pic you wanted?

Far left about third the way up.

Richard emailed me back with the links to picture 2. See the post above this one

This is where the rodent rock spot is in the 2nd picture:



Direct link: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Zoomed in picture: mars.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: DeepThoughtCriminal
a reply to: Neill887

Right! My bad, I'll apologise for my misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up for me - sometimes my reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid.

.................

I would truly be very appreciative if someone would be so kind as to eludicate these for me

The theory that the rovers are on Earth is discussed in this topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This topic is about the two different pictures. Here's both pictures:

Picture 1:


Picture 2:


It seems to me the rodent rock is clearly within the green lines of sight in picture 1. In picture 2 this does not happen. The green lines of sight seems to go past the stone in the middle or just touch it slightly.

Also the rodent rock seems to be a lot bigger in picture 1 than it does in picture 2, when you compare it to rocks 1 and 2. Do you agree or not?

You can use the picture in this link, together with Paint to help me see what you see.
oi64.tinypic.com...

The arrow on the left in picture 2 is pointing to the wrong spot.
That's not the area where the " rodents " are in picture one. The arrow is way too far left.
To my eye, If you run a horizontal line between the very bottom of both red arrows, the area is almost in the middle of that line.
That's the best way I can describe what I mean as I haven't a clue how to circle an area.

originally posted by: lambros56
The arrow on the left in picture 2 is pointing to the wrong spot.
That's not the area where the " rodents " are in picture one. The arrow is way too far left.
To my eye, If you run a horizontal line between the very bottom of both red arrows, the area is almost in the middle of that line.
That's the best way I can describe what I mean as I haven't a clue how to circle an area.

The green arrows are not pointing towards anything. I made the green lines, arrows so one could see the direction of sight.

These lines are drawn from the sides of stones 1 and 2 to determine how far the rodent rock comes into this line of sight. You need to pretend that you're laying down on the ground, with your right eye aligned with both right sides of rock 1 and 2 aligned.

I've made this top view to explain what I mean:



And in this picture I'm not even talking about the apparent difference in size of the rodent stone in pictures 1 and 2.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.

It's nice to know that they are filming the Mars videos right here in America. I am all for American made deception. Support our own people, we have lots of people who like to make films

???

You said you didn't know there were desert rodents on Earth, so I showed you an example of a desert rodent in our own country. The OP has another good thread that shows the lemurs that live on the same Canadian island where he/she is speculating that the rovers are actually on.

a reply to: Neill887

Well done post!

Dont they ever get video of the surroundings? I understand uploading would take forever, but I'd wait a week for a 5 minute video from the surface of Mars!

99% of all thing Mars is Pareidolia.

Which means 9 times out of 10 a rock is just a rock.

IMO for the lack of a better word people will always try to perceive something familiar on a 'alien' world.

Rocks are pretty much a universal constant.

Other worldly life ?

Not so much.

a reply to: neo96

Then going by your logic, these can be real after all. There are clearly more than 99 rocks in those NASA photos.