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.

 

Jaw Bone with Teeth on Mars?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Maybe we should let the Rover scrape off the blueberry's and drill a few holes in those bone impersonating rocks
maybe we can see some "marrow"!

Just a thought,
Bzzzzzzz



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Well to me this picture Kilgour posted earlier really does look like a complete skull. I can see teeth on the lower jaw which seem to match the skull jaw.








I think this pic is wierd, looks like a rock with goo spilled over it.





posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
So the dinosuars did not become extinct! They went to Mars.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I'm sorry for saying this, but this is pretty much the equivalent of someone seeing Mary in a piece of toast.....It is simple visual relation...Have you never looked into the clouds and identified the shapes they were making as common objects? It's the same principle....



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
My problem is that these are all intact "skulls" intact skulls are very very rare. It just looks way to much like ordinairy rock. Fossilis look different from ordinairy rock and always are imbedded in rock even if they stick out from it they never just appear.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
My problem is that these are all intact "skulls" intact skulls are very very rare. It just looks way to much like ordinairy rock. Fossilis look different from ordinairy rock and always are imbedded in rock even if they stick out from it they never just appear.


yeah agreed, if we are talking in terms of how old this supposed fossil/skull/rock would be, it definitely wouldn't be in the shape/form it's in, it would be more likely to find an imprint or cast of said creature in rock, not the actual casted intact full model itself in rock.

imo, it's neat, it's cool, heck it's pretty neat and maybe even neat-o, but it's just a rock.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
My problem is that these are all intact "skulls" intact skulls are very very rare. It just looks way to much like ordinairy rock. Fossilis look different from ordinairy rock and always are imbedded in rock even if they stick out from it they never just appear.


NO CraP, I would just ove to have these rocks in my garden!

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Cydonian Priest]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by ZikhaN
Wow interesting picture. That really does look like a humanoid skull.

Actually, it doesn't.

It looks SORTA like a rather badly done Greek helmet crossed with a medieval helmet. Sorta. But it's not a skull... skulls need places where jawbones hook on, and this one has flat rock "cheekplates."


Okay, you've managed to convince me again, hehe. I'm usually the type who gets easily convinced by theories and photos.

It does look like a humanoid skull though, but I'm not saying it's real
You never know. Maybe there are humanoids out there with helmet-shaped heads, hehehe.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
why cant a million dollar machine take better pictures looks like something from a camera phone no wait my camera phone is better then that



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Well to me this picture Kilgour posted earlier really does look like a complete skull. I can see teeth on the lower jaw which seem to match the skull jaw.




I ran into this picture on my computer again today and I swear I see skull bones.



.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join