It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Weird skull like thing near Opportunity

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
i forgot to mention zzub, doesn't that object you highlighted in the lower left look like a toy plane? The other one on the trail totally baffles me though.

Hey, ww, my first thought was "space shuttle" on the plane-like thingy. As for that horned jobber, could it be some sort of weird broken (or snapped) plastic clamp? Something that was looped around a strut or something at one time? Or maybe they're both just alien happy meal toys?

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by MichiKami
Nice find Wintermorg! Any chance you (or anyone here) can provide a link to the original photo?

I found the pic, but even the highest resolution version on JPL's website is only 2072 x 256 pixels, and there's no way that's sufficient resolution to see this anomaly.

There are a couple people I plan to ask about this, but they'll crucify me if it turns out to be a cute Photoshop exercise.


i just post everything i got
bout the mineral

source of pic

btw, seems to be another thing just a couple of inches to the right, check it out, i haven''t zoomed in on it yet, dont have alot of time lol.

more water

so here you go, i didn't even read it yet, all of them i mean, don't have time haha i even got to go to work in 15 minutes

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Zzub
Great post, well spotted!

I posted this on another forum, by coincidence I cut out 3 pieces of the picture earlier today and was inspired by this post to make this collagefrom them.

What gets me about the object on the right is that it is sitting on top of the lander air-bag tracks. It does not look like it's been dragged through the dirt as it should have been if it was there first and then the air-bags landed on it and were then dragged. Does this mean it's a piece of the lander which has come loose? Perhaps this is some of that wire cut from the rear. Who knows, it's too close to the lander to roll up to, so I hope they get a good hirez pic of it at some point.

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Zzub]

even more

can't wait till it gets closer to it, and makes some more pics

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix
in regards to what NASA plans on doing, check out where OP's robot arm is trying to take a microscopic picture.

ITS the spot where the object was, I bet they are looking for residue or other things associated with life, droppings, debris, tunnels who knows but the link that says rover pictures and has a view of the arm is about the spot where the thing was in the pan shot of SOL 2

we just hit the jackpot people

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:07 PM
look at the other topic about it

it seems on one newer pic its gone

and on other pics i saw in this topic if i am right, pics where it was still there, taken earlier then the pic where its gone! nasa erased it!

anyone ever saw that episode of the outer limits where this scientist got some very small eggs from mars, and they lived mostly just under the sand surface, they were kind of crabs.

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Wintermorg]

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Wintermorg]

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:07 PM
after reviewing these pictures over and over again.. a few of us here, have agreed the most anamolous is the "shell thingy". we really couldn't come up with a better explanation than "martian sand crab" again the color, shape, size and the shadows etc, lead us to that conclusion.

the stuff that you highlighted zzub, we are leaning more towards parts of the rover coming loose....only because they look different, more metal? i don't know, just seems as if it could be something that fell loose.

**Us** = no real experts in this bunch, just an artist, 2 brokers, and a few telecommunications guys, so that the expertise there for you

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 04:13 PM
Welltome it lookslike either a sea shell or a slug type creature or even a crab like thing that lives in a shell?

and it mars has mud then could these things not live under ground in mud and only come up when maybe super hungry or something?

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 04:17 PM
When is the rover going to check it out?

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix
By the way the air you breath is far from 90 or even 80% its more like 50 or 60% O2 and then you throw in CO2, Ni and a whole host of other crap.

Actually, the air we breathe is roughly broken down like this:
78.08% Nitrogen
20.95% Oxygen
00.97% Other Gases including water vapor.

Dont mean to be an arrogant know it all (well actually yaeah that was one of my intentions), but i just have to make sure people get their science right when posting on the science forum!

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:47 AM
Did anyone see that Outer Limits episode (old and new) about the sand things from mars?

anyway here is something about it, it reminds me of it

THE SANDKINGS was the pilot episode for a revival of "The Outer Limits" TV series, which ran in the mid-60s and still has a cult following. While the feature is long on moody atmospherics and morality, it's decidedly short on the thrills modern horror audiences have come to expect.
For nine years, scientist Simon Kress (Beau Bridges) has worked in a top-secret government lab, analyzing and evolving a microscopic species of Martian insects that he has dubbed "the Sandkings." Kress is certain his work will eventually be made public, and he will be awarded the Nobel Prize. But the project is unceremoniously terminated, as is he. Seeking glory, Kress swipes some of the Sandkings, builds a giant terrarium in his barn, and continues his work. Free of restrictions, he quickly develops the Sandkings into intelligent, scorpion-like creatures which seem to revere him as a god.

Kress's obsession with his secret work alienates, and finally drives away, his family. After one of the Sandkings bites him, he slowly begins to lose his sanity. Kress invites his former supervisor (Kim Coates) over, and throws him into the terrarium to be devoured by the Sandkings. His struggle breaks the glass and the Sandkings escape. In the end, Kress has no choice but to blow up his house, and himself with it, to destroy the alien invaders.

On the positive side, THE SANDKINGS is well-acted and well-made. It continues "The Outer Limits" tradition of emphasizing moody visuals and intense atmospherics over scenes of explicit horror. On the negative side, it languishes over its characterization and plot to the point where the movie becomes very dull in its final third. "The Outer Limits" always offers a moral--here, a caution about delusions of grandeur--but THE SANDKINGS is so determined to drive its point home, it leaves interesting story points unexamined. For example: how exactly does the bite affect Kress, and were the Sandkings just conning Kress with their worship to gain their freedom?

THE SANDKINGS was broadcast in 1995, and released to home video in 1996. With its decided lack of graphic shocks, THE SANDKINGS might be a choice for parents searching for "sanitized" entertainment for their children. Conversely, kids acquainted with Freddy Krueger will probably find THE SANDKINGS tame, and be put off by its platitudes. (Adult situations, violence.)

cant find any pictures of the episode, damn internet, cant find anything good

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:50 AM
Hope they drive the rover up to this and get a real good closeup. Better not drive over it!

I think it could be a plant or something too, who knows?

Definitely worth a second look.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:52 AM
Looks like part of a tree to me.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 09:44 AM
It would be nice if we could arrange for the rover to retrieve it & have arrangements made to bring it back to earth for further study.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 11:44 AM
I should have taken and extra second and searched google for the composition of the earth atmosphere before posting.

But the point is that us "humans" do not rely on oxygen to sustain life. As you pointed out the majority of what we breath is Nitrogen.

And everyone knows that Oxidants are bad for you. So the debate begins about, What is it that Humans really need to breath. And what kind of adaptation humans have made over the centuries to continue to survive in our atmosphere when humans have changed the content of the particles in the air over the last several hundred years.

Therefore can not extra terrestrial beings also adapt over thousands of years to survive in what ever atmosphere that their planet currently has.

So the fact that Mars atmopshere is different than Earths you can not rule out that life can be sustained there.

I simply wanted to make the point that people have a certain impression about what it takes for a human to breath and most people think its a high concentration of Oxygen. Which is actually false.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix
I should have taken and extra second and searched google for the composition of the earth atmosphere before posting.

But the point is that us "humans" do not rely on oxygen to sustain life. As you pointed out the majority of what we breath is Nitrogen.

While you are at google, it wouldnt hurt to look up respiration and learn how the body uses oxygen. It is oxygen we rely on out of the atmosphere. The only people who think the atmosphere is mostly Oxygen are the people that know nothing about it anyway, so I don't think we should be looking to them to find out how humans make use of the air we breathe.

Questor: the Rover does not have the capability to collect things, only analyze them in-situ.

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by Kano]

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:13 PM
I do know that the body uses Oxygen to exchange with red blodd cells blah blah blah blah.

But the point is that we breath in way more Nitrogen then Oxygen, but yet has anyone said what the affects of Nitrogen on the blood stream, body are ?

And what is the composition of the compressed "air" that is used for REALLY deep sea divers? Its not the same as the "air" we breath on the surface is it ?

Why is it different ?

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 09:56 PM
The Nitrogen doesn't do a lot in normal circumstances. Obviously when deep diving, due to the pressure, the mix of air we usually breathe is not suitable (or safe) to use. What mix is used depends on the depth.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by jrod
When is the rover going to check it out?

I doubt it will, or if it does we probably wont hear anything about it. NASA probably wants it kept a secret

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 10:22 PM
It may be too close to the lander to check out with the Rover, but it doesn't look like it.

More likely if we hear nothing more of it then its been found out to be something irrelevant.

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 10:40 PM
I can assure you that Kano is CORRECT. The reason the gasses are "mixed" when one dives rather deeply are due to pressure differences.

The "bends" is a serious condition caused by too much pressure exerted upon the gasses you breathe. Your body REQUIRES the proper amount of oxegyn no matter what depth or pressure you are at.

The avoidance of the bends, the REASON for mixed gas diving, in very simplistic terms, is to keep your body from dealing with excess nitrogen the same way a coke does, by allowing it to bubble right up to the top.

When a diver decompresses to quickly the ambient pressures against the gasses in his system are releive to fast and he literally "bubbles up". What's happening is the gasses he ingested are allowed to escape his body at a much faster rate at 14.7 psi (sea level ambient pressure) than they would be at say, 3 times or 3 "atmospheres" ( 33 feet of depth = one atmosphere in diving) so they literally bubble out of your body which is NOT GOOD.

100' or less is considered recreational diving depth and requires little or no decomp. I have been as deep as 180' and have suffered the BOREDOM of decomp for hours returning to the surface...

Bottom line is your body NEEDS oxegyn to live the fact that our atmosphere is only 21% oxegyn os kind of meaningless, anything less and we would need supplemental O2.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in