personally I see an oddly shaped rock without teeth.
oddly shaped rocks though odd are common anywhere we know of.
the teeth, what teeth exactly?
and what does it prove if it were a jawbone with teeth, especially if it's a jawbone looking like an earth mammalian bone.?
life on mars or pics taken on earth?
I've seen amazing and controversial imagery on mars, this wasn't one i'm sorry
The most amazing work on mars pics are the color corrected images (nasa has rarely corrected the redshift on their camera's on public images, it's
not actually that red on the red planet. The people who did the (not affiliated with nasa) corrections also spotted the off chance sighting of running
water on Mars, nasa only recently and quite a while after the color corrections stated there was occasionally fluid surface water on mars. they should
put the red correction in their default software.. then it might actually be nasa to be the first to spot some obvious things that people like the
one's working on the corrections have to spot that nasa missed. It would also make for a lot prettier and realistic images to sell for some extra
cash instead of the ugly red plains with boulders around type of shots.. those boulders come in a variety of tones depending on the material, yet with
the bad coloring on their pics you don't get to see any of that.
I don't actually understand why they do that, they give nebula and other hubble shots pretty colors (ok it's officially to distinguish different
substances in the nebula but still) they don't sell hubble images in actual how you see colors either (then all those pretty nebulae would be brown
yellowish and pretty boring
) why don't they sell better mars shots with the color corrections, it's prettier and in contrast to hubble deep
space shots the colours would actually be more accurate as to how you would see it with your eyes as well... ah well nasa
EDIT:
besides, I can't imagine a fossilized skull to remain on the surface for long.
although mars has no large bodies of flowing water anymore, and I'm in the dark about any seismic activity, it still has a turbulent atmosphere with
consistent and harsh windconditions. which means a lot of surface erosion. All the loose and gritty sand that is picked up in windstorms also acts as
a very good sandblaster. my guess is any surface fossils would be eroded beyond recognition in a relatively short time. and seeing as how long the
planet has already been dead...
I wanted to add, actually finding fossils of animal life on mars would not really shock me personally, scientists have long believed mars was a living
planet a long time ago anyway, it's no secret.. if it was we should find fossils of plant and maybe even animal life beneath the surface one day,
when we can really dig up there. but just lying on the surface under those conditions for so long? nah.. you can prod and stare at pictures untill you
go blind but no... the chances of something surfacing and being found in the minute area's we can explore are... well improbable
I'm sure we'll find stuff though when we get up there for real and do some real digging. the theory that mars was once living was already well
established when I was just a little kid. Anyone shocked by that should have paid attention in school
just my 0.1 cents
[edit on 26/6/2007 by David2012]
[edit on 26/6/2007 by David2012]