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.


Evidence Of Ancient Life On Mars?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+41 more 
posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:02 AM
At the outset I would like to clarify that the images I am posting are not absolute proof of an ancient ET civilization/animal life on Mars. But then these images do plant the seeds of suspicion that probably there may have been one tens of thousands of years ago! All the artifacts shown in the images resemble the remains of a long gone civilization, weather-beaten by dust storms etc which are a common feature on Mars.

These include skulls/bones/body parts of critters and alien beings and parts of what seem to be mechanical contraptions owing to their very odd shapes. There is even an object that resembles an Uzi type machine pistol with an ammo box lying close by! Notice the shine of this ‘box’ that seems to have a greater degree of reflection than rocks in the surrounding area. Could it be metallic?

Are these odd shapes the result of a natural geological process characteristic to Mars? You decide!

So without further ado, here are some of the images from my collection…..


Comparison with skeletons on Earth. The first is the Mars pic, above. The other three are the comparisons.

Machine Parts

Unfortunately, I have misplaced the original
NASA image from where the above image was taken.

For corroboration to the alien connection, check out this thread: Signs Of Alien Engineering On Mars?

And finally, the busts of the kings who probably ruled Mars a long, long time ago ….



Original images: NASA
Sol 1420 / 2P252423477EFFAX00P2261L5M1 L2L5L5L7L7
Joseph Skipper for the Earth/Mars skeleton comparison

[edit on 19-3-2008 by mikesingh]

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:08 AM
Very nice images mike! They sure are wonderfull!If only we humans can go there and explore Mars to obtain positive life forms! Well done mike

As always a star and a flag

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:09 AM
Good to see all these images next to each other for a change. While very interesting it all comes down to rocks and tricks of shadow and light doesn't it.

When I was a kid we used to take adventures down this really really long dark tunnel and we used to see weird faces in rocks here on Earth, we can only assume that this happens on Mars as well. Also the objects in these images seem to have a lot of parallels with Earth life (Ammo box?).

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:12 AM
It's just a bunch of rocks. That's not even close to beign evidence of anything, apart from their being rocks on the surface of Mars

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:29 AM
While I do believe life existed (and still does) on Mars, intelligent life I am not sure of yet. We wouldn't see any bones on the surface of Mars though. The sandstorms on Mars are amazing, those alone would destroy them.

I wouldn't make the assumption that anything on Mars might look like something here on Earth. The ammo box for example. Whether that is a rock (which is what I think...) or an actual artifact; it shouldn't be compared to something humans created. There would have been a whole different mindset if there was intelligent life on Mars.

I think humans would have to be sent to Mars and actually dig below the surface. If any remains of life exist, we would find them underground.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:33 AM
Thanks for putting them up mike I really do enjoy your posts, as soon as I seen your name I jumped on it. any way here’s more strange shapes sorry about the links but i still havent worked out how to post just the picture

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:50 AM
wicked images..thanks!
Im not so sure any of them are anything other than rocks, but it just shows how interesting nature can be.
I would love them to be unnatural, but sadly im not sure ive seen anything that is yet.
Thanks once again!

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:53 AM
Very interesting shapes.....makes for some fun to look through them and imagine what they may be or how they were created.

I think instead of finding new, interesting "objects" effort should be made to find a second object nearly identical to one already cataloged. If they're manufactured artifacts.....(hopefully Martians would have discovered the efficiency of assembly lines).....there should be more than one.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by mikesingh

Unfortunately, I have misplaced the original
NASA image from where the above image was taken.

That image was first brought to my attention by Zorgon.

It is part of Powerpoint presentation and is probably a composite made with a real Mars photo and some stock photo made to illustrate the point for which it was used.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by iammonkey
Here’s more strange shapes sorry about the links but i still havent worked out how to post just the picture..

Thanks iammonkey! The pics you linked to were pretty interesting. You should try and post them this:

> Right click on the image.
> Click 'Properties'.
> In the pop up window select and paste the url on your post on ATS.
> Type "[ ats ]" before the url. (NO spaces). And then type "[ /ats ]" immediately after the url. Note the 'slash' (/) in the second "[ /ats ]"!!

Or you can even type "img" instead of "ats".

Remember NO spaces in between!!


posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks ArMaP!
Now I remember! It was from a NASA presentation. Can you get hold of it? Thanx!

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:58 AM
Aww Man, I was drawn into this thread by the Thread Title. Got me again, how foolish of me, my bad. Proof is never going to be forth coming in this section of ATS. I think I will write this statement down 1000 times with pencil and paper. Maybe, I will learn too quit looking at mistitled, misleading threads.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:20 AM
Another mind stretching thread.

Thanks Mike (yet again) for compiling such thought provoking images. I appreciate the efforts taken in consistently challenging us with these collections, many of which would be missed by the casual observer. Everyone with even the remotest interest in theoretical Martian history owes you, Internos, and many others a debt of gratitude. It's this sort of thread that urges us to never lose interest, or faith, in what may be out there.

As ever, however, I look upon these photos with an annoyingly welcome, extremely vocal devil's advocate sitting on my shoulder. It's this voice of reason that makes these photos even more fascinating.

It would be easy to simply accept visual evidence as coroboration of a belief. If that belief is strongly held and dear, as is mine regarding Mars, then these photos are simply a gift. They confirm everything.


what we are working with, and acknowledging that this is all we should allow ourselves, are assumptions regarding the object's provenance. Naming them, associatiating them with familiar artifacts, IMO, is dangerous. I do not offer this as a personal affront, Mike, as I am unsure as to whether you have applied the designations or simply used ones that already exist.

Either way, I'm sure you'll join me in saying that judgement as to what they are, or even appear to be, should be reserved and based on experienced assesment.

I'm well aware that this in itself can be a dangerous approach, and I'm sure most experts would venture an opinion that would go some way to verifying this, in that deducing the identity of any anomalous object cannot really be undertaken by the use of a blurred photgraph.

These images are provocative, evocative and captivating and should be viewed as such. Attaching monikers such as "machine parts" and "ammunition box" only obfuscates what may be something truly alien, in every sense of the word.

We have no idea what they are because we cannot pick them up, analyse them, study and compare them with anything we have or have knowledge of.
Yes, the "bird skull" is incredibly suggestive of being just what it looks like (if it walks like a Martian duck, quacks like a Martian duck etc... does apply), but it isn't really acceptible as evidence because it might just be a trick of the light.

An aside is called for here: this post should not come across as being sceptical.
I have, on many occasions, voiced my opinions regarding past civilisations on Mars, in that I believe they once existed. This viewpoint accepts that any civilisation(s) having been wiped out by whatever catastrophe or applied stupidity, would have had at its disposal abundant flora and fauna. Obviously, and logically, varying proportions of these would have ended up being fossilised.

I want the "bird's skull" to be just what it looks like, because that would indicate that life on earth may well have originated from Mars as some theories have it, or that panspermia has a grounding in fact. This could mean life has reoccured here in recognisably Martian form, which opens an incredible can of worms (or should that be strands of worm-like bacteria? :lol

To look on these photos, for me, is like looking into the past. They are snapshots of memories of childhood dreams; a physical manifestation of what many deem science fiction.

How sad, especially today with the recent passing of Athur C. Clarke, that many will look at these images with something approaching disdain.
(I can here the heavy tramp of the "there just rocks" brigade approaching).
Where is that ellusive spark he had, that ability and willingness to merge hard science with the need to dream, and whatsmore be vocal about it? It is a rare, brave attitude and something that we should all aspire to, but few of us dare.
I read that Mr Clark expressed the opinion that there are large, arboreal life-forms on the Martian surface. In doing that, IMO, he was expressing a deduction based on scientific observation. He may be right, but I'm pretty sure he would have been magnanimous in defeat if proven wrong. It's a damn shame he'll never find out.

I can see strange shapes in your photos, Mike, simulacra, and rocks too. The rocks excite me purely because they are on another planet.
The simulacra amuse, nothing more.

The anomalies, those and the countless others I have seen, however demand the sort of attention that is missing in natural objects; they stand out as surely and awkwardly as a square peg in a round hole.

They are alien in every sense of the word:

a·li·en (ā'lē-ən, āl'yən)
Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange.

This is why it is difficult to categorize them.

For all we know, these "skulls", if indeed they are artificial, may be ritual objects, totems, idols. Indeed, their true origin, even when finally retrieved, may be beyond our understanding.

But that prospect should not quash the allure of gazing upon part of the fabric of a distant, extraordinary landscape.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Shadow_Lord

With all due respect, I kind of disagree with your sandstorm theory (as a complete answer). Here's why.

The atmosphere and gravity is much lighter on Mars. Therefore a sandstorm on Mars is barely able to push you over here on Earth, even though they can measure well in excess of 100kph. Erosion happens at a definitively slower pace on Mars.

One Million years of erosion on Mars is probably equal to somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 years on Earth... give or take.

Also, there's a chance that skeletal remains (if they exist) may have had a chance to turn to stone (carbonize) well in advance of Mars becoming a Desert Planet. This would ensure that some remains would maintain some semblance of their original shape for a much longer period, thus making them identifiable as something 'organic' or familiar to us.

I'm not saying my theory is complete but it's something to consider beyond what you have stated.


Nice post by the way Mike. I find the symmetrical eye sockets extremely interesting. If there had of been just one, it would be easier to pass off as prosaic rocks but the odds of two makes it that little bit more fascinating!

A star from me!

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

If we found one "skeleton", we'd find many more, if animals perserved themselves on the surface when they died.

So far there is no evidence at all for life to have existed on Mars. Even the famous fossil-bacteria-in-a-meteorite didn't prove conclusive.

Can we please leave this nonsense alone? If NASA thought they had captured images of skeletons, they'd have made a massive press release, and the President would have addressed the nation, as Clinton did when they thought the meteorite did contain fossilised bacteria.

I know it's fun to think we're discovering something epic, but it's an exercise in futility. As you read this, there are thousands of scientists pouring over much higher-quality images than the ones we get on the net. Scientists with lots and lots of professional experience in analysing photos. Scientists who would jump at the chance to go public and tell the world of their findings. But they don't. Because they have no findings. The evidence is yet to come forward, and until it does, trying to extrapolate our meagre "evidence" into something more fleshed-out, more "accurate", is a massively futile exercise, devoid of reason, and drenched in fanboyistic desire.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but all this fawning over photos of rocks makes ATS look ridiculous. "Deny ignorance" indeed.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:06 AM
As usual, fantastic post Mike! I love all of those "animal/machine part" pictures. Some of them I think lend more to the imagination, but some are down right hard to imagine being natural. Thanks for the post!

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by dave420
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but all this fawning over photos of rocks makes ATS look ridiculous. "Deny ignorance" indeed.

Indeed! Gotta love the "ammo box" and "machine gun" inscriptions put into the pics of rocks. Sure, dude.

I'm totally tired of the endless chain of "cocnlusive proofs", often posted with exclamation marks in thread titles, which contain sometimes blurry pixellated images of rocks, and sometimes clearer pictures of rocks, but invariably pictures of rocks. The only variance is whether one says "I'm certain it's a machine gun", whereas the other says "look it's a craft! I think it's also aquatic capable".

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

As always Mike, neat finds....what ever the heck they are!!

Check the ones shown here:

Especially this one

Here's the Malin site showing the originals

I wish they'd send a digging contraption to archaeological digs generally find the good stuff several feet below the surface....but in the meantime.....

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:36 AM
Strange that... All those people who said 'Bunch of Rocks and Shadows' with such positive certainty, I did a google search and couldn't find any reference to your trip to Mars. With such surety in your assesments, you obviously must have been.

Hmm... perhaps Google isn't as good a search engine as we thought eh?

Nice selection of thought-provoking pics Mike. Without actually visiting there, and examing those objects first hand, it's hard to say WHAT they really are. The dreamer in me would love them to be relics from, and glimpses of, a past Martian Civ... but who knows eh?

Interesting as always... have a star

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:32 PM
OK Guys! I know I’ve opened a can of worms! For those who are stressing that these are nothing but stones, I would like to reiterate what I had mentioned in the opener - that these pics are no proof of a long gone alien civilization! But the idea was to show you the strange looking artifacts on Mars that would be extremely difficult to find on Earth. Can anyone show similar shaped rocks here?

As I mentioned, it is probably the geology of Mars that is responsible for these very strange shapes. But the fact is that until someone goes there and analyzes the artifacts, it can never be said for sure whether these are just rocks or remains of biological creatures. But since these are very unique in appearance, it is likely that some of these could be the latter. At this juncture we can just speculate.

Originally posted by dave420
So far there is no evidence at all for life to have existed on Mars. Even the famous fossil-bacteria-in-a-meteorite didn't prove conclusive.

Well, here's something you may find interesting..

WASHINGTON -- A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.


Hungarian scientists claimed on Friday to have found evidence of living organisms on Mars after analyzing 60,000 photographs taken by the Mars Global Surveyor probe.
The three-man team said the pictures showed evidence of thousands of dark dune spots, similar to organisms found near Earth's South Pole, in craters in Mars' snowy southern polar region.
"These spots indicate that on the surface below the ice there are such organisms which, absorbing solar energy, are able to melt the ice and create conditions of life for themselves," biologist and team member Tibor Ganti told Reuters.

If NASA thought they had captured images of skeletons, they'd have made a massive press release

I’m afraid you have a lot of catching up to do! I’m sure you’re not so naïve to suggest that NASA would disclose any form of alien discovery? What have they commented so far on the zillions of vids and images taken by astronauts and the public of UFOs and so on? Is all this just imagination or swamp gas? Well, NASA thinks so! What do you think? Ah yes, that we’re alone in this universe - the only sentient beings that were formed by a quirk of fate after the big bang! As for the rest of the universe, it’s got to be empty. Deny ignorance!

As you read this, there are thousands of scientists pouring over much higher-quality images than the ones we get on the net. Scientists with lots and lots of professional experience in analysing photos. Scientists who would jump at the chance to go public and tell the world of their findings. But they don't. Because they have no findings.

Now again, how are you so sure that NASA scientists would jump at the chance to go public? They can’t, because if they do, it’s curtains for them where their careers are concerned, not to talk of the harassment that will follow! Others will be branded idiots for suggesting possible life forms that are nothing but ‘stones’! I thought you knew the SOP?

As for the other non NASA scientists, are you dead sure that what they are being dished out by NASA, are uncensored high quality images? The resolution of most NASA images suck. Why? You tell me.

"Deny ignorance" indeed.

Yes indeed! But don’t deny possibilities!


[edit on 19-3-2008 by mikesingh]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in