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.

 

skull of animal on Mars

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Sorry i didnt mean to come off as a lamer...


Maybe but you did... especially making a useless one liner, which BTW we frown on around here just as an FYI



but comeon everyday people are coming on here posting new photos of nothing but rocks claiming they are this and that.

They are rocks.


And everyday there are those that come on here an post that "They are just rocks"

So what's your point? And why did you pick a name like 'alienstar' if your a debunker?




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
we frown on around here


What do you mean "we", Kemosabe? What'd you do? Buy a stake in the enterprise?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
What do you mean "we", Kemosabe? What'd you do? Buy a stake in the enterprise?


That 'We" is the Royal WE Herr Penny I thought you knew that by now... what is he a protege of yours?


but as to stake... well the amount of bandwidth I provide ought to get me a little stake in things around here


Skulls on Mars?? I like these bits and bones..










Bigger images here...
www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I know zorgon....they look like bird skulls. I wish they were...I really do. But, even here on Earth, bone simply does not survive on the surface of planets. Mars is dusty, with strong winds and "dust devils" blowing that dust around constantly. The erosion and abrasion on bone would whittle it down to zilch fairly fast. And they're not fossils. Perfectly preserved fossils, right down to the cavities in the skulls, just don't occur. At least without a good deal of other material packed into and around the basic structure.

It's a cool image....but is it some kind of skull? Sadly, the contemplative and reasoned answer is....No. It's a rock that has been coincidentally weathered to look like something familiar to us, Earthbound humans.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Now Zorgon, don't you know better these fossils are from Mars and are suppose to have 3 and 4 eyes LOL. One thing is consistent the fossils all have 2 eyes and what a coincidence, and the fossil heads are mostly symmetric. Hmmmmmm

Rik Riley



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
MARS PHOENIX LANDER QUESTIONS




Someone has been digitally messing with this image.


This is a really good investigation of the anomalist object that's all the buzz.

It sems there IS something NASA is hiding from people, only a few NASA insiders know whats really being seen by the Lander.

Joseph P. Skipper does an in-depth investigation of the image everybodies talking about.

If you have time-READ "the whole investigation" by Joseph P. Skipper.

It makes the most sense IMHO so far. follow the link below for a really good look at anomalies on Mars and how NASA is hiding them and also, the question "IS the MARS PHOENIX LANDER where NASA says it is???

THe investigator Joseph P. Skipper "does not think so..."

just like the fish head I presented in this thread..there's a lot more to met the eye when looking at the pictures NASA presents to us ..it seems you have to "look out-side the picture (e.g. around it) to find the possible truth..

You have to read his whole studing below (linked) to see what he means,,

basically the artifact that is (the white object in the MARS PHOENIX LANDER photo IS A "RUSE" to cover - up what NASA is REALLY TRYING TO HIDE...

again folks need to think out-side the box..thats my take anyway..

go have a look-see and read his report (all) below ..Ruff


SOURCE : marsanomalyresearch.com...



[edit on 31-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by RUFFREADY
 


It's amazing (and somewhat sad) that all these years were not enough for Skipper to learn how JPEG works.

JPEG artifacts are not an evidence of changes in a photo, in the same way that a photo that was changed may not show more JPEG artifacts than normal.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Someone has been digitally messing with this image.




Well thats your take on this:

marsanomalyresearch.com...

But I'm glad he put his 2 cents in this much talked about photo...NASA sure isn't.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I can see why people can only see rocks. Eyes,nose and mouth on MARS ? OH PLEASE !! Nasa will tell us when they find Life on Mars . Can't you people see that rocks can't have faces?
The next thing you'll try to tell us is that the frozen north pole at Phoenix lander site has faces made of rocks. Delusional. It's too cold there,everyone knows. It would be totally IMPOSSIBLE for life to exist on the dead planet mars...EVER. Man will never FLY.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 



vze2xjjk, would you mind maybe letting one thread with pictures go by without posting your complete crap so that we may actually have real research here. I don't know about everyone else but I'm frankly sick of seeing your repetative crap in every single thread here.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Someone has been digitally messing with this image.




Well thats your take on this:

marsanomalyresearch.com...

But I'm glad he put his 2 cents in this much talked about photo...NASA sure isn't.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by RUFFREADY]


The first thing you should do is stay as far away from marsanomolyresearch as you can.

Read just one of the articles there and if you agree with anything skipper has to say then please by all means continue, but he is generally known as silly.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
I can see why people can only see rocks.
Do you? Really?

Then why do you treat those people with condescending tones and try to ridicule them, treating them like they are lower grade human beings when compared to you?


Can't you people see that rocks can't have faces?
The problem is that rocks (and anything else) can have faces, pick up a dictionary and read its definition.


Man will never FLY.

It depends on the definition of flying.

If you consider moving through the air flying then when someone falls from a high place they are flying, and in that case man could always fly.

If you consider that flying implies moving through the air in any desired direction without any means external to the person's body then, as far as I know, man never flew.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


Ok, will do. I guess I check there because so many folks link to Skipper's site.

We have enuff folk's here to check out anomalies anyway, including my (rock ?) skull find.







posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Ruff Ready your find is completely one of the clearest fossil finds,staring straight in the face.I don't know how people could see it as anything otherwise.I think it's actually a higher evolved ,perhaps land animal rather than a fish since I see 2 symetrical nasal holes up front,but I'm no fish expert admittedly. Certainly looks like a fish,though.It's rounded and symetrical,has indications of some jagged teeth perhaps,long head,small eyeholes,and not just a mere sliver of a lower jaw,but a scoop jaw. Thank you for finding it and sticking to your story.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 


Thanks much for that! I agree with you on your observation also. It was the "jaw composition, teeth" and clearly the "two nose holes" that stood out ( of course the eye hole !!) like if I were to take a picture of a skull in the desert.

I really don't know what kind of creature it was when it was alive. I just called it a fish head first, and stuck with that. Now I'm not so sure..but maybe a really good ARTIST that post here on ATS can draw a possible picture of the little animal (like the police do for crooks that are described to them) and see what different artist can come up with!!

At least I know that "once" life ran around on Mars unless NASA sent an animal there once and did not tell us...thats the only thing I could come up with when I found the animal skull laying there.
(But.. thats why I use the skull I found on Mars for my Avatar now.So I can keep my eye open for more like it! )



[edit on 2-6-2008 by RUFFREADY]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm atempting to show that Ruff's fossil find establishes a precedent. I see similarity in my above Phoenix lander head and a half -skull (top half) from the Ruff pic. I see a mixture of blurred faces(live) around the fish head. Yet when the fish head is in a negative pic it looks quite different with 2 LIVE eyes,rather than one black eye hole. Masking perhaps?
The Phoenix skull is thousands of miles away,and yet there is symetry and similarity in both. The climates must be somewhat different between the 2 distant sites.But HOW different I wonder ?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
In other words,the disparity is that in the positive image the fish head seems turned on its side somewhat with MOUTH CLOSED & one black dot on the head to simulate an eye hole.But the negative image shows MOUTH WIDE OPEN,as if alive and 2 small eyes symetrically UPRIGHT farther back on the top of the head,and looks more snake-like since there is no water there and it's head is OFF the GROUND. It is facing the camera and "menacing" with mouth wide open as animals often do,especially snakes making a defensive display. My assumption is don't trust nasa as far as their images from Mars. I see heads and faces.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Yet when the fish head is in a negative pic it looks quite different with 2 LIVE eyes,rather than one black eye hole. Masking perhaps?
Masking? Do you understanding what you are saying (writing)?

If there is any masking in the positive image it would not show on the negative and vice versa, unless you call masking to something that is not masking.

A grayscale image has always the same information, regardless of being a positive or a negative, the difference in luminance between pixels is the same, only in reverse order, so the information is the same.

If you see things differently then it is only because of you and the way you interpret what you see, it has nothing to do with it being a negative or a positive. A negative image may make you notice better some things that you did not noticed in the positive image, but they were always there, they were not created by inverting the colours.

Stangely (or maybe not), some of the things you say you see on the negative image I can also see on the positive, so my conclusion is:

don't trust image analysis from vze2xjjk



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I kind of see what you mean, it could be taken for a skull, looks a bit like a reptile head



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This is from a panorama of Phoenix taken days ago.
It's positive and negative of the same area from Phoenix panorama.




top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join