Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Keith Laney 'Ferrets" out a Rat on Mars

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon "http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a45/JLehane/MarscropPiper6aSpies.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

I tend to agree with you Keith because I've found people,animals,fossils since 2004 and designed the rovers 1987. jpl123@inbox.com Keith ,unfortunately you're in the 1% of people who can see these things.




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now I have managed to find that rock.... its nicknamed "Humphry" and NASA sent the Rover to drill into it...

But in the close up images there IS NO TRILOBITE on this rock, yet they showed this in a presentation to scientists... so what are they saying?


It is my understanding the Rover was used to test its mining abilities on it.

All life and signs thereof must be eliminated to make way for colonization. There is a term called "necessary evil" which was used to justify wars at various and sundry times in the past, and it is a term that fits here as well.

Regarding the "rat", it could be a ghost too. Both are equally unlikely.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
Zorgon, true sceptics are not your enemy.


I know that... JRA and ArMaP are two great skeptics... they stick to their guns and back up what they say with facts and links that are at least directed to the topic to support their side of the debate and neither one has ever resorted to name calling or childish behavior...

They are examples of a good skeptic.. I even have seen them admit they were wrong on occasion... so they are not Lemmings...

The ones I call Lemmings do not behave like these two



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
As for paying for research on the issue of life on Mars, why on Earth would you assume I never have?


You may well have... I merely asked you to show it if you had... which so far has not happened... so I will leave that open leaning toward you didn't





Hey Zorgon, you specialise in the irrelevant and the obtuse, why not jump over to the threads where Lear himself is being debunked and give us some pretty pictures to go with the discussion there?


I have been to many threads to provide John with images and documents... any particular one lately that you have special interest in? I also send him a lot of material on a regular basis via email... Most people here know this so I fail to see your point?


And had you checked out the living moon website you would have seen that as well...


As opposed to a rock and a fraudulent photoshopped animation foisted on the unaware as proof of a nonexistent ecology on Mars.



Ummm how is it fraudulent? Naturally the animation is photoshopped I mean how else do you make an animation from two separate images... as to the 'rat' that shape is also on the original image... so again how is that fraudulent?






Tired routine, Zorgon. Tired routine. Get new writers for this season. Seriously.


Thanks for the advise
and Pegasus does have many new contributors coming on board... but as to my style? not a chance... it gets great reviews



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
We have eyes, we should let them see as clearly as possible.


So you say and you also say to look at SERIOUS anomalies yet when I show you such you as well as others just ignore it. You profess to be interested in the fossils yet make no comment on the NASA images from a NASA presentation in this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To me that means you have no serious interest in ANY anomalies and thus you must only be interested in wasting time with BS arguments. There are two very interesting images in that slide and its from a NASA source and NASA is obviously aware of them as it is presented by their chief scientist...

Now as you continue to ignore what this implies I cannot but question your sincerity in your request to study 'real' anomalies

ArMaP at least took the time to study the one of Humphrey and help prove that there was no trilobite on that rock, before OR after the Rover drilled into it.... so that makes it obvious that Garvin using that in a presentation was quite simply put... LYING TO HIS AUDIENCE

The other 'artifact' I am still looking for..



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon...no trilobite on that rock, before OR after the Rover drilled into it....


Or was that another photo TT was referring to? Regardless, all life must be destroyed...destroy all life...destroy all life...

*the words echoed in his head as more brain cells succumbed to NASA program doctrine*

-----------------------------Betelgeuse!--------------------------

Seriously though, what are you and DH doing? Or what to whom, by whom, for what reason? DH seems
to me, or am I missing something?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
That's really another great find.

Now we finally know what happened to "Mighty Mouse"......



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I have to admit that I didn't see it until the last image that Zorgon posted. And then only because my kids just finished watching "The Princess Bride."

That thing on the rock looks just like an R.O.U.S. Maybe the lander came down on the edge of the Fire Swamp...



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Personally, I have difficulty with the whole "it looks like" premise. Most of us have seen photos of New Hampshire's "Old man of the mountain." It is even on their States Quarter. Indeed, it does look just like the face of a man, but we ll know that it is a rock formation and nothing more. Just because someone thinks that a rock looks somewhat like a rat doesn't mean much without more significant data. I can point you to a large collection of images which look like something that they are not. They are quite common on Earth, and finding them off Earth should come as no surprise.

If someone were to show me better evidence than a bunch of "looks like" photos I would be more impressed. I am willing to consider the possibilities, but these types of photos are much like seeing animal shapes in the clouds. Smoking gun...? No way. Not even close. More like smoking something else.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. ArMap has the right idea, of careful study, detailed evidence, and rational thought. If said "rat" is alive as some have claimed, could someone please show me the tracks it left traveling around the area. Perhaps you could also show me what it eats, or how it breaths in the extremely thin atmosphere without massive lung capacity. How does it survive the extreme temperature and where does it live? I simply want to know more, than just looking at a picture of a rock that looks like something. Even fossils found on Earth offer more additional evidence than this photo does.

Am I skeptical..? Yes. Not because I do not believe in the possibility of life on Mars, I most certainly do, but rather because this evidence is extremely weak and based solely on the idea that an image merely has the appearance of something similar to Earth based life. The moon appears to have a face on it, but that doesn't mean that it is alive.

[edit on 27/1/08 by Terapin]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

Originally posted by zorgon...no trilobite on that rock, before OR after the Rover drilled into it....


Or was that another photo TT was referring to? Regardless, all life must be destroyed...destroy all life...destroy all life...

*the words echoed in his head as more brain cells succumbed to NASA program doctrine*

-----------------------------Betelgeuse!--------------------------

Seriously though, what are you and DH doing? Or what to whom, by whom, for what reason? DH seems
to me, or am I missing something?



Are you implying what i think you are implying?

Maliciousness was not a consideration i have researched the viewpoint of. Would you like to share any information with me, Mat?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
I can point you to a large collection of images which look like something that they are not.



So can I my website

www.thelivingmoon.com...

And I have the "LOOKS LIKE" anomalies from Mars and the Moon

As most people see such anomalies first, cataloging them does to things... provides some interesting images and eliminates them from the big picture. I see nothing wrong with presenting the 'looks like' images along with other more serious anomalies.

The fact that so many others here do the same and get a lot of interest is proof enough that there IS an interest in such material... Take Mike Singh's threads for example... His threads are very popular... showing the same things... LOL but he has an anti skeptic talisman... because so far he hasn't suffered the abuse
(now don't ya'll go rushing over there....
)


They are quite common on Earth, and finding them off Earth should come as no surprise.


And pray tell how do you KNOW they are common on Earth? Maybe because someone took the time to SHOW you them? Took the time to collect them on a website? As you say one is on a coin... several of them are popular landmarks... so why is there a problem showing them on the Moon or Mars? The OP link CLEARLY states "Its most likely a rock" What part of that did you miss?



If someone were to show me better evidence than a bunch of "looks like" photos I would be more impressed. I am willing to consider the possibilities, but ....


I doubt that really I do... "your willing to consider the possibilty BUT.." I have shown images that are more serious... like the NASA slide in this thread Care to comment on that? No? No surprise there...


How about THIS one...? If this doesn't get your interest, I don't believe anything will... No enhancements not high lighting just a simple enlargement from the original posted at a NASA site



I post some serious images and I get silence... I post a 'looks like a rat" and all hell breaks loose... and yet you skeptics scream for better evidence... HA what's the point?


Even fossils found on Earth offer more additional evidence than this photo does.


Yes so do the fossils found on Mars but they are treated with equal scorn by the skeptics despite the fact that NASA itself presents them... So as I said what's the point? You claim to want to see... but refuse to take off the blindfold...

Now please show me you have a serious interest in 'finding the truth' and answer in regards to the NASA presentation slide...

If not I will have my own conclusions on just who is blowing smoke




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Dang!

FEMA's got "relocation" camps on Mars?!?


 

reply to post by Terapin
 


Even "The Old Man of The Mountain" moved:

The Old Man of the Mountain is No More

All we're "permitted" to know about possible Martian life must be filtered through what we know about Earth based life forms, and that which we can surmise, from the hints of what may be, in the images they "allow" us to witness and observe.

The answers to questions concerning the form and features of life on Mars won't be known until we can put "boots on the ground."

Fortunately, that may happen a bit sooner than that which was originally proposed under the "VSE."


Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush's "vision for space exploration"--one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.

Top U.S. planetary scientists, several astronauts and former NASA division directors will meet privately at Stanford University on Feb. 12-13 to define these sweeping changes to the NASA/Bush administration Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).

Abandoning the Bush lunar base concept in favor of manned asteroid landings could also lead to much earlier manned flights to Mars orbit, where astronauts could land on the moons Phobos or Deimos.
Spaceflight Now | Moon Stuck | Space leaders work to replace lunar base with manned asteroid missions

Unfortunately, if these plans are adopted, it means we'll be sidestepping further lunar activity.

(Besides their publicly stated justifications, one must wonder for what other reasons, once again, they are putting new lunar exploration on the back burner?)

It may be true then, as someone stated; the next men to publicly step on the moon, will speak Chinese.






[edit on 27-1-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Relax Zorgon, I am not attacking you. I simply stated that I find "looks like" photos to be distracting from actual scientific evidence.

As for the NASA presentation image.... One must realize that this was for a presentation on the what we are looking for and what we may find. They were not intended to depict actual events, but to point to various levels of possible outcome. Adding in a fossil to a presentation image is not outlandish. I have seen numerous images on what we hope to find, or what we may find, and they are based on possibilities and do not depict actual events. I built the Mars Quest exhibit for the Space Science Institute and it contains both science and speculation. It contained work from JPL and one of the worlds leading science exhibit designers. I recently built and installed a different exhibit for the Smithsonian Air and Space museum in Washington DC, and can assure you that like many museums, the Smithsonian also contains speculative information. NASA's use of an Earth fossil in a presentation is much like detroit showing foam models of concept cars. It gets the idea across, but does not mean that it is real yet.

As for the other black and white NASA photo you have presented, while I find the image interesting, lack of further data does not allow me to form any particular opinion on it's meaning. It could be the result of a number of things. Yes, it is interesting. Lacking further data, it proves little this far.

Personally, I feel that adding in the photoshopped animation of the "rat" disappearing, detracts from it's veracity. Untouched photos are more credible than someone's suggested version.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

The OP link CLEARLY states "Its most likely a rock" What part of that did you miss?



I went back and looked at your OP in this thread and you mentioned that perhaps this was the smoking gun. You did not state that it was most likely a rock. YOUR statement is what I was commenting on as you started this thread.

[edit on 27/1/08 by Terapin]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Relax Zorgon, I am not attacking you.


I know



Adding in a fossil to a presentation image is not outlandish. I have seen numerous images on what we hope to find, or what we may find,


I understand that... speculative... and on that slide I am more interested in the artifact that clearly IS in the photo... so I hope to find that. But would it not be nicer if NASA would just pay ONE person to at least attempt to share info on anomalies/ don't expect personal responses but set up a site that covers the main ones... The least they could do is place the image number on the data so we can see ourselves if its real or speculative...

Personally I think NASA thrives on the attention of anomaly hunters




NASA's use of an Earth fossil in a presentation is much like detroit showing foam models of concept cars. It gets the idea across, but does not mean that it is real yet.
Hmmm well don't forget the "Rotini"


But your right NASA likes speculation... It also generates interest in the Space Program...

Yet when we do it here its a different story...
The rat is show unphotoshoped along with an animation to highlight the point... While you may prefer them unhighlighted the original image is always provide to study

More of NASA's speculation... seems the Rover DID cut out that Trilobite





posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
zorgon, I find the rectangle interesting. While there are 'fun' things to look at, this plain old geometric object seems to offer more real possibilities. I can understand a single right angle, and maybe stretch it to two. Three really pushes the limit. And when they are in conjunction with lines that run parallel, then I do get interested.

So, is there more than one picture of these? Is there anything that is to be found in the area that indicates what they might be? Are there other such 'structures' that can be explained that might shed light on what these are?

Do you have filtered pictures which might show other details?

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Personally, I feel we would be more likely to find something along the lines of Crinoid fossils than living rat like creatures. If, and that is a big IF, life developed on Mars beyond the microbial stage, then I would guess we would see something more like crinoid fossils or similar. Currently, the surface of Mars appears to be self sterilizing due to it's highly oxidizing nature. A lack of atmosphere and magnetosphere would seen to rule out larger mobile life forms. It is a very harsh environment.

If there were living Rats or the like running about, wouldn't we see tracks, droppings, food sources, burrows and more obvious movement? Such a creature is obviously self locomoting and we would see the signs of that.

As for the apparent geometric shape in the BW photo, I wish I could see it in a different shot. It could be anything from a photographic artifact, to an optical illusion based on the single photo we have. A better photo might give us more to go on. Hard to analyze with such little data.

NASA does number their photos according to their own archive methods. Not always easy to find or understand their system at times, but I am simply glad that we have the opportunity to look at them.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Ah ! Lord Zorgon, we joust again sir! As always a interesting post wether someone believes or not, thank you for posting.

I think I may have found where the fuzzy little guy made off to when he left the rock, I'm trying to post a couple pics to show you.


We are looking for this little guy.




I think I found his friends in this pic, one standing up against the rock, his fur red from the soil and his tail sticking out as a sign of aggression. He is looking at the other critter marked by the arrow. This one looks a lot like the one by the rover, you can even see his tummy!




The one standing up is similar to this groundhog pictured on earth,





Just a couple of observations, not saying they are real and I haven't been to Mars recently but, The one by the rover looks like its sitting on fresh earth like from a burrow. So does the one under the arrow. You can make out the paunch (stomach) of the one under the arrow.

Also the one standing against the rock, you can make out what may be ears and hind legs.

As I said, interesting thread as always, I believe 100% percent in life beyond earth, I have not had the an experience of my own yet, (hoping) but a very close friend of mine interacted with a alien ship and its crew for 5 to 11 days when he was about 15 years old, I've known him for 20 years and never known a lie to come from his mouth. I believe him.

If mars had life and it was destroyed it might make sense that burrowing animals may have survived, isn't that what happened here when we lost the dinosaurs?



Ladies and gentlemen, the real mystery is not whether there is life on mars, the real mystery is how I finally figured out putting pics in my post! thanks for your patience.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bledforit]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bledforit]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bledforit]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bledforit]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bledforit
 


Ack!

Your image links aren't working!

Please, try again...





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join