Originally posted by Thill...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 ?

If my post offended you in any way, I apologize. That was never my intention.
So you're saying that you base your assumption solely on a personal belief? If that is the case, there's no point in discussing it any further. You will believe whatever you want to believe.

I'll still answer your question, though. Your proposed scenario is completely different. First, someone has to dig it up. That means that the person will be in direct physical contact with the object thus making it easy to distinguish rock from bone. On earth you can get close to take a better look, and you can move around to see it from different angles. You can even pick it up. No speculation needed.

Now, if it was a picture, I would say the same thing that I say about the one one Mars. "That's a neat looking rock! It kind of looks like a dead storm trooper."

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Farnswoth]

I used to follow the unimpressive b/w Nasa pics nearly every day. I thought this pic was extremely significant. 2 yrs ago. Nohup, what is your problem? Your main goal seems to denigrate everyone and there contributions. Your off my buddy list once I figure how to do it. More, or evenly significant are the strange aerial bodies rovers pick up.

Something seems very fishy with thoes pictures above.



It looks as if they are in two different spots.



The building/door way on the right of the guy stepping in/on the drawing should be on the left in the top pic, but???


[edit on 25-11-2007 by HomeBrew]

Originally posted by evanmontegarde


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.

you are right the winds moving the terrain around could be why it is not underground
i think it could have been underground then the wind moved the terrain away and moved this to the top

Looks really good to me!

;-D Jess

There's so much discussion about whether this is what it looks to be - we can't seem to believe anything until we see it and when we do we refuse to believe it????? It is what it looks to be - its a skull and its on Mars and that is that. Despite NASA's discounting of the face through their zoom in, that is also what it looks to be - a face and it is on Mars. We saw these things and we should believe them because we saw them. It is what it is and that's all there is.

Dear Moderators: Please don't dock me ATS points for this post without replying to my question about why I was docked.

Hmm looks kinda like the robot head that Richard Hoagland (not sure how to spell the name sorry in advance) found on the moon awhile back......Atleast I think anyhow.....Interesting

Upon viewing the entirety of the larger pic it does seem to jump out at you due to the fact the other rocks surrounding it look quite dissimilar to this one. Also the erosion on these other rocks are 'layered'. Not the case with the 'skull' with which, if eroded to this state, would have needed water to make such a cast.
Interesting

Originally posted by Thill

Umm and do you ...snip..... Umm and dont quote some....snip...- So umm it looks like a skull ...snip ....umm no wait the.....snip.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Thill]

So you like the word "Umm" I gather. I'm just curious, why would you go to the bother of typing out this word in your comment. It's bad enough when people can't verbally formulate a sentence without adding this pesky "word whisker", but to purposely add it to your written comment in just weird in my opinion.

Sorry for unloading about this, it just gets on my nerves. Back to the subject at hand... I would think that when seeing something like a skull shaped formation one would default to the most reasonable conclusion while at the same time leaving the door open for other possibilities.

For me the most reasonable conclusion would be a rock resembling a skull, with the outside possibility of of a real skull, unlikely but still remotely possible.

Originally posted by Farnswoth

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.

You are assuming:

1. That alien life doesn't exist
2. That alien life could not have developed on Mars
3. That there could not have been an advanced civilization on Mars
4. That pareidolia is the only explanation to describe the object

You are disregarding:

1. The ancient historical narratives and religions that indicate the existence of an ancient civilization. A civilization that was considered ancient even to the writers of that time.
2. The solid photographic and scientific evidence that indicates that there currently is water and ice on Mars.
3. The photographic evidence of many anomalous "things" on Mars.
4. The photographic evidence that NASA does obscure certain areas of the images they release to the public.

I could go on with this list but it is a moot point as people with myopic analytical skills will no doubt not comprehend what I am writing anyways.... what you don't understand about Occams Razor is that it cuts both ways..... ALL evidence, whether substantial or circumstantial MUST be included in the analysis of any subject to reach a logical postulate.

If circumstantial evidence is ever excluded from any subject under investigation the analysis WILL become "weighted" or "slanted"; and the postulate derived from the analysis will be prejudiced by being based upon incomplete analysis.

-Euclid

Originally posted by Evasius
Given it's appearance, I'll put forth the idea that's it a helmet made of some metal that's oxidized over the years but still managed to keep it's structure.

I've always thought it was a helmet; good analysis, good logic.

-Euclid


[edit on 27-11-2007 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclidYou are disregarding:

1. The ancient historical narratives and religions that indicate the existence of an ancient civilization. A civilization that was considered ancient even to the writers of that time.
2. The solid photographic and scientific evidence that indicates that there currently is water and ice on Mars.
3. The photographic evidence of many anomalous "things" on Mars.
4. The photographic evidence that NASA does obscure certain areas of the images they release to the public.

You're joking, right? Talk about myopic analytical skills...

1. The only link between ancient civilizations here on earth and ET's on Mars is in your head.
2. Who asked about water? Sure, if it's water there is a big chance for life, but there is no evidence of life on Mars yet.
3. Only evidence is in your head.
4. See number 3. JPEG artifacts and data loss does not equal little green men.

Bah, I don't even know why I bother. You seem more than willing to accept a comparison between pictures of a rock and a stormtrooper helmet as evidence.

Well, we better put our tinfoil hats on and have our head & shoulders ready.
*sigh*