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.

 

a skull on mars (not face)

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Umm and do you have any evidence suggesting that this is not a skull ? comeone any evidence that we could please verify ? Umm and dont quote some nasa scientist please because like all you debunkers always say a quote is not evidence because he might be lying and we cannot prove he isnt or is .

What most of you debunkers forget is that the statement "show me evidence/proof" goes BOTH ways


Also you of your favorite quotes is "the simplest explanation is usually the right one" -- So umm it looks like a skull , no other rocks in the are look the same so i guess the simplest explanation is that over millions of years the rock somehow magicly transformed itself to resemble a skull ....umm no wait the simplest explanation would be "its a skull" .. or not ?

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Thill]




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thill..What most of you debunkers forget is that the statement "show me evidence/proof" goes BOTH ways


It doesn't. It is the person that makes the claim that has to provide the evidence so it can be subjected to scrutiny.


Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.


Source.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Farnswoth]

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Farnswoth]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


I for one would love to see evidence of life elsewhere. However, I have yet to see it.

I really do think many people are "seeing things in the clouds". I have a great imagination and can usually make a shape out of nothing...if I stare at it long enough.




Also, the burden of "proof" ALWAYS rests on the one providing the claim. That is just how it is. Reason being....they are the one presenting the claim.

Like when OJ murdered his wife. The prosecution was the one w/ the burden of providing proof...not the defense. The prosecution brought the "claim".



[edit on 25-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


yes I agree that when you stare a long time at something you can see alot of things but umm at least to me and I guess to most people here (the ones that argue this is a skull) this is not the case . This umm "rock" dosent slightly resemble a skull , you look at it and after 1 second you see a skull on the ground . If I had more photoshop skills I would put a real human skull next to it color it redish and show you to compare and I am almost sure you would see that both are very similar .

Of course this could be a rock also , but like I said usually the simplest explanation is the right one and in cases like this where there is no way to prove one way or another I tend to use that theory.

Edit: I agree that the ones making the claim should be the ones to show proof , but how do you imagine that to happen ? See thats what gets to me , usually in cases like that when the debunkers know there is no way to prove this one way or another they use the "show us proof or this is a false claim" argument and then say well you made the claim so you have to find proof ..How ? by going to mars and getting the skull/rock ?

Thats why in cases like that I think the simplest explanation is the right one and thats the proof , the more simple you can state something the more credible it is .. and its more belivable (at least to me) that this is a skull then that this is a rock that just happened to morph into a skull after millions of years


[edit on 25-11-2007 by Thill]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Didnt want to edit for the 3rd time and make it even longer


hmm ok so if I showed you the same picture (well the same rock/skull) somewhere in the middle of Chicago with a question is this skull ? would you reply that it is a skull or that it is a rock ? You see your reasoning is also flawed because you do not look at the provided evidence from a objective point of view , because knowing that this was found on mars you assume that there cant be life so automaticly you assume that this has to be a rock



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Farnswoth
 



Also I could play your game because this is only a matter of making the right topic . You see if I made a topic stating "Proof of extinct life on mars" and as evidence I would put the "skull" then the skull becomes automaticly my evidence of the claim of life on mars and now it would be up to you to disprove my claim with counter-evidence
And stating that this is a rock is not counter evidence


So you see it just depends on the topic name


[edit on 25-11-2007 by Thill]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I remember the story about this "face" on Mars, a few years ago. Carter even had an X files episode about a spirit attacking astronauts in order to prevent them from going to Mars.

Maybe if you change perspective, the skull will not look like a skull anymore, but it's so exciting to imagine a lifeform on Mars. Maybe this one was banned from the subterranean compounds Martians are living in. Haha, just a theory.

Anyway, very interesting photo. Doesn't look photoshopped to me. It's not a proof of existence, but it's something to be followed, when, for example, our astronauts land next to it !

starred and flagged



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
OMG, I'm sorry but If there was a skull, half buried in sand on the floor in front of you and you were looking at it from behind, would you even know it was a skull?

The easiest answer is often the right, not a favorite quote of mine because it often isn't the easiest answer...but whoever quoted that...it's a skull...that is the easy answer, it looks like a skull, same shape size, right eye holes except the nose and mouth holes run together, if I was to take a guess, i'd say it would look alot like davey jones


OFC it wouldn't look like a skull anymore...because we would be looking at the back or side of it, and it would just look like an odd form rock.

I'm still intrigued as to why NASA would let this out, we know they're good at 'BLURRING THE ****' out of pictures that make the public scratch their head rather than the arse...still though It's a skull IMO



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xbrendanx
with no water on mars



good point about there not being water on mars, the temperature's, atmosphere and cosmic radiation also make primate life on mars 100% impossible



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



A rock by any other name, is still a rock.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Yes, I agree that the burden of proof is on anyone who makes the claim that the object in the photograph is a skull. But, since no one (that we know of) is going to be taking a road trip to Mars very soon, that proof just ain't gonna be forthcoming. It's a photograph from a place far, far away and so for the time being it will all just have to be left to speculation.

But at the same time, for anyone to deny that the image at least looks like a humanoid skull seems to me rather a case of outright stubborness. Does it look exactly like a human skull? No, it does not. Actually, to me, it does look more like the head of a statue or, as someone else said, Darth Vader's helmet.

At the very least, it is a pretty interesting find whether it is in fact the head from some ancient Martian statue or just fluke of nature along the lines of shapes in the clouds.

And beside, provided one doesn't get stupid about it, it's more fun to think of it as possibly being some kind of a non-natural artifact.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThillOf course this could be a rock also , but like I said usually the simplest explanation is the right one and in cases like this where there is no way to prove one way or another I tend to use that theory.

You either don't understand the principle of Occam's razor, or you chose to ignore it. It's is not the "simplest" explanation, it's the one that that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities that is most likely to be the correct one.

Now, I say that it's a rock that resembles a skull. I'm assuming that it is a rock. I base my assumption on the fact that there are rocks on Mars, and the surface of the object is consistent with the surrounding rocks. Also, pareidolia is a known physical phenomenon.

You say that it's an alien skull. You're assuming that it is a skull, that aliens exist, and they either lived in -or visited- Mars.

You tell me which one of them is the "simplest" explanation.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Farnswoth]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by Nohup
 


Umm and do you have any evidence suggesting that this is not a skull ?



Well, how bout' its on MARS???



Seriously though, is there anyway to gain an accurate scale perspective? Is this object in the realm of the size of a human scull or as big as a mountian???



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Farnswoth

You tell me which one of them is the "simplest" explanation.


simplicity is not always the key



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HomeBrew
 

Somebody skilled with Photoshop should get an image of Olivier playing Hamlet and paste it into the Mars photo with Olivier saying, "Alas, poor Martian, I knew ye well."



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Minus the jaw it looks like a scull due to the eye sockets and unusually round head but it could be a natural rock or any other formation...I doubt its a scull but don't doubt there are bones there for sure. Great find though! I'd love for it to be true.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xbrendanx
 


Actualy mars used to be covered in water the remnants of which are still at the poles and etched onto its surface. Also in the not so far past mars had liquid gas on it so the formation of a rock like this isn't un plausible. If you look at the object in the picture it is much to dense to be fragile bone. It looks like a rock with 2 holes in it. Not unlike the ones you can find by any ocean beach. Its seems to be you fell into Pareidolia.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Farnswoth
 


umm heh either you dont really know how to read with understanding or you just want a flame with me .. Where in the post and please be specific did I write that I used okhams razor (sp?) ? Please show me because I dont recall writing it anywhere .. so please stop in insulting me with assumptions that I do not know what okhams razor is .

Because of people like you I avoided using the okhams razor theory openly and just stated that the more simple and (to me) beliveable theory is that when it resembles a skull and knowing that if I saw the EXACT same object dug out in the middle of my town I would assume its a wierd looking skull then I belive it to be a skull..

Like I said previosly , it might be a rock because well rocks sometimes have wierd shapes but only because its on mars (which once had water and I belive scientist proved that it might have resembled earth quiet much) I do not automaticly assume it has to be a rock . See the difference between an open mind and a ...umm nvm about that one


But like I already asked and never got a answer (not you but the other poster I belive) but now I ask you : If you saw the EXACT same object dug out of your nearby park wouldnt you see a skull in it ?

Just to be clear about one more thing , I never said there IS life on mars at the moment (I think there can be but thats not the point of this topic) but stated only that this could be the remains of some ancient EXTINCT civilization ..



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by Nohup
 


Umm and do you have any evidence suggesting that this is not a skull ? comeone any evidence that we could please verify ? Umm and dont quote some nasa scientist please because like all you debunkers always say a quote is not evidence because he might be lying and we cannot prove he isnt or is .

What most of you debunkers forget is that the statement "show me evidence/proof" goes BOTH ways


Also you of your favorite quotes is "the simplest explanation is usually the right one" -- So umm it looks like a skull , no other rocks in the are look the same so i guess the simplest explanation is that over millions of years the rock somehow magicly transformed itself to resemble a skull ....umm no wait the simplest explanation would be "its a skull" .. or not ?

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Thill]

The burden of proof is on the one making outlandish claims...YOU. So far you looked through a bunch of mars photos, and found one that looks like a human skull to you. That proves nothing. All this proves is that people see what they want to see, and untill the UFO community starts looking at evidence like a skeptic we will continue to look like nut jobs. So I thank you for adding to our own lack of credence and validation.
Also mars used to be covered in water and liquid gas so the formation of a rock like this is very plausible. Not only plausible but the most logical aproach. Considering your display of mars knowledge in your original post, and then to state this as being a ET skull, is pure stupidity......

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Osyris]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by Farnswoth
 

Just to be clear about one more thing , I never said there IS life on mars at the moment (I think there can be but thats not the point of this topic) but stated only that this could be the remains of some ancient EXTINCT civilization ..


The huge majority of fossils and bone remains found on Earth are not just lying out on the surface waiting to be photographed. After millions of years, new rock strata form over old. It's simple geology.

Now, it's well known that Mars has a great deal of harsh sandstorms with high speed winds all over its surface. A fragile skull, possibly millions of years old, would NOT survive 40-50 mph wind carrying dust particles.

If there was an ancient civilization on Mars, they would not have left their skulls lying around on the surface.




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join