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.

 

Egyptian statue on mars?

page: 21
198
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
NASA has over the last few weeks made a habit of showing us images that have clear examples of things that can and will be pointed out to be 'artifacts' case in point the recent "Egyptian Statue" and the "Humanoid' that made the internet rounds like wild fire... these images are so clear that even skeptics have to admit it 'looks like'... even if it is just a wind carved rock...

So why does NASA even publish them? and in fact use them as front page news press release? Because they KNOW what the result will be... endless publicity over Mars anomalies that keeps us busy and happy so we keep sending them those tax dollars


If anyone truly believes that NASA is not aware of the effect that those images will have, they are truly playing ostrich





posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


My use of the word machining was pretty broad, I just meant the use of a tool. I'm a bit tired, but how does showing me something everyone thought was a statue (or whatever), which turned out to be natural erosion, not support my 'side'? Or were you being sarcastic? And I'm over it, but there's obviously something still to debate. Hmmmn, does that mean I'm not over it? Damn semantics....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Great post mate. I was studying the picture, and directly below the "Original" statue, down where the rock face meets land (Sorry, that whole taking a snapshot is a bit above me) there seems to be a bit of moisture. Before I posted this i tried a mental list of things it could be, and the only thing I could think of besides some kind of liquid, was a rock that was slightly uncovered by sand. Don't hesitate to prove me wrong, i'd like to know what it is now.



I would like to note however, that if any beings lived on mars, the chances of them sharing the same features as us (Two eyes, directly above a nose, and mouth, etc.) are slim. We have evolved these specific features from millions of years on Earth, and they probably wouldnt suit any creature on mars very well. The average adult human body is between 50 and 65% water, and the average temperature on mars is -63° C (-81° F), if there is anything alive on mars, it's probably not human like, and if it is, its probably settled quite comfortably under many layers of ice. Although I'm sure there has been, is, or will be life on mars, the chances of any life form looking like that up there seems a bit... Farfetched (Not that i have anything against that, i've been reading conspiracy theories for the last 2 hours lol.)

Great post though mates. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill by the way, just realistic, and Optimistic.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Does anyone see the dog along the edge of the cliff ?

Above and to the left of the statue. (sorry if this has already
been posted).



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Mr Anon.. (sigh)

Why would it be so hard to imagine that a bipedal or very similar body construct would exist on mars ?

The universe has thoroughly been proved as a fractal to me and I've opened my eyes to the concept of this. Across this Earth the creatures are replicated but slightly different. Every species has a near clone that may have never been genetically connected.

Add to this concept that the universe has been here for quite a time. This FACT of the LACK of knowledge we have of the true history tells me that I can in no way discount the possibility that we are are remnants of a lost spaceship from a 7 billions year ago incident.y
Even if life were out there and completely sanitized from any physical connection to us, the same fractal fiber that connects us through the void is the same and the human blueprint is within that.

I would be absolutely 1000percent shocked to know that we were NOT like another species out there or shocked that we were'nt like a great many species out there.

This rock, if it were real, makes perfect sense to exist imo


b



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I always wonder why people assume that Aliens must always be different than us...

IF it was God that created the Universe... then I would think he would place more people 'In His image' around the galaxies...

IF Evolution is true... then it would also follow that certain forms would evolve in similar conditions... While its cute for Starwars to show beings with tentacles... it would seem difficult to develop skills to build spaceships

IF the Ancient Astronaut theory is true... then these beings seeded the Universe ... again showing our form would be common

The other thing that gets me is people just automatically assume that any Aliens visiting Earth would have to be superior...

WHY???? We are only a few major discoveries away from Star Drives (if we don't indeed already have them in Black Ops like Ben Rich says). It could easily be that another race discovered the key we are missing earlier... some scientist might have stumbled upon the answer and did not have to suffer the ridicule of his peers (Example Nicola Tesla 1900)

And just because they developed space travel does not mean they are more spiritually advanced, nor socially advanced and may be lacking in other things we already take for granted

Heck they could even be some Trogladytes who found an abandoned ship that was preprogrammed for Earth... (that WOULD explain the erratic flight patterns we see)




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
To take that one step further i would posit that life follows very simple growth patterns that are preprogrammed into the very fabric of reality. Atoms arrange themselves in specific patterns. The same can be said of molecules. This is what drives the fractal nature of our universe.

life is THE rule. Everywhere you look, there must be life. No, it isn't likely going to be "like us", as we have a different collective experience on this planet. But it will be very similar to us (or one of the life forms we have on this planet).

Our shape and form is decided upon by the fractal nature of the individual components that constitute our physical body.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
To take that one step further i would posit that life follows very simple growth patterns that are preprogrammed into the very fabric of reality. Atoms arrange themselves in specific patterns. The same can be said of molecules. This is what drives the fractal nature of our universe.

life is THE rule. Everywhere you look, there must be life. No, it isn't likely going to be "like us", as we have a different collective experience on this planet. But it will be very similar to us (or one of the life forms we have on this planet).

Our shape and form is decided upon by the fractal nature of the individual components that constitute our physical body.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon and Big, the other day I was thinking and I know it is dangerous when I think LOL, but I asked the question why do humans only have 2 legs? Most animals have four legs, lizards have 4 legs kind of, and so does alligators, turtles, and spiders have eight legs, insects have 6 legs and a centipede has an extraordinarily amount of legs and not to mention monkeys with 2 legs, chickens, ducks, birds, Ostrich and Lemu etc.

Most of these animals and insects are up and walking in a matter of minutes to hours. We humans it takes months to learn to walk and when we do first walk around we are stumbling around like a drunk LOL. Maybe the Creator needs a laugh now and then.

Today and in the future man has reached a point where they can manipulate the DNA of an animal and human to become half and half. On other planets who knows what the norm will be but from drawings and photos of supposed alien beings they also have 2 legs. Now the question is do higher more intelligent beings or lifeforms always have two legs? Chickens do not count LOL. Rik Riley



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
A triple answer, to keep the off-topic post count to a minimum.



reply to post by zorgon
 

It does not happen often, but I gave you a star for that post.


I, as one of those that think that the most probable way of reaching our present situation was evolution, am also one of those that think that similar conditions would give similar results, in the same way there are Australian marsupials that look like their equivalent mammals on everywhere else.

In that case, I do not find it hard to believe that if there is an evolved species on another planet that evolved in more or less the same conditions as us on Earth then it is very likely that they look somewhat like us.

But there is also the possibility that they look nothing like us. The only reason we have technology is because of our brains and because we have hands with which we can do things, but there are species that are equally well equipped to build things, only their brains left them behind, so I think that it is possible that in a different set of conditions, although similar, a species looking nothing like ourselves could be the most advanced in a different planet.

Also, the hypothetical superiority is relative, was an hypotetical European superiority the reason for us to reach Japan and not the other way around? It wasn't, it was the economical situation of both civilisations that made one reach for the other.

 
 

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

I don't know if life is the rule everywhere, but it sure is here on Earth.

And I agree with you, the way things "fit together" must be the same everywhere, but only if the conditions are the same, that is why you can not use glue in very cold weather, it only works that way if some conditions are present.

 
 

reply to post by rikriley
 

Other animals also have two legs, it's just the name we give them that makes the difference.

The fact that we take much more time than other animals to walk is not just because we walk on two legs, if that was the case we could walk on four soon after being born, right?

That difference is, I think, because we are born without achieving the same kind of preparedness that other species have, so we have to complete the process outside the womb. Some species of sharks, for example, born from eggs inside their mothers womb, and they fight each other before being born, so only one is born from each "pregnancy", but it is the fittest of all.

We probably have to born sooner because we are very large when we are born (not all, I was born only with 2.2 kg, but that was because I was born one month before my time), and if we were to stay more time inside the womb that would lead to more difficult births.

Also, intelligence is not directly connected with the number of legs, if that was the case then kangaroos should be more intelligent than they are. The case is more clear with birds, where there are great differences in intelligence, although all have two legs.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by iammonkey
 


Same picture, lower left. Sure looks like a head to me. Anybody else see this?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rikriley
 


Humans stumble because our lifespans are so much longer than most other animals/mammals. I do see that most creatures are walking, or flying, MUCH sooner than the average human. It can take a human anywhere from 5 months to years to stumble, let alone walk/run.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


To my fellow Texan, beautiful. I couldn't have described my thoughts better.

I realized yesterday that there is no life or death, ha, in a sense. When you get down to the atomic level, nothing lives or dies, it merely changes place. It moves, adapts, conforms, but never ceases to exist. The fact that i see a beginning and end to the concept of life is merely perception. Life is everything, everything in in the universe is alive. We've only somehow been able to gain perspective or consciousness. The illusion is that we are separate from the rest of the universe because we are alive.

I know people can still argue that we must define our living perspective as such, so that there must be a difference between alive and dead. But like math, it is merely a construction to define what we see in front of us, and is inherently separate, even though it may correctly define what we see.

I'm off to get some breakfast tacos but I'll try to make this make more sense when I get back.

EDIT:

Tried a new btaco place, pretty good, just thought everyone should know. Onwards...

Ok, I was about to start writing a lot more on this but it's getting too off topic I feel, I don't want to start hijacking the post, but I'd be very interested to continue the topic. Probably start a thread.

Back to Mars!


[edit on 1-6-2008 by Parabol]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chotton
It can take a human anywhere from 5 months to years to stumble, let alone walk/run.


Were not in a hurry... nothing is chasing us for dinner



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Actually, there would seem to be natural rules for development in an evolutionary scenerio, irrespective of where that evolution took place. So let's look at some features common to humans.

Predators have forward scanning sight organs because they do the chasing. Deer have side placement to better watch out for the forward scanning crowd. And predators, in their competition for food stand the best chance of developing larger cranial capacity to cope with changing situations. All deer need is better side vision and faster running ability. Ergo, in the very long term, the descendents of predators with forward facing sensory organs have a higher likelyhood of reaching space.

Bilateral apendages for grasping, with opposable digits, and free of the need for aid in locomotion, are required for tool making, and single appendages hinder the "hold and fashion" process, another step on the long road to sentience. Hooves don't work too well for starting fires with a bow drill.

Upright posture elevates the sensory organs, thereby extending the given field of coverage for both offensive and defensive action. This extra area of "personal" space aids in stimulating the growth of the brain, since more information needs to be processed quickly and effeciently. (And the placement of major sensory organs near the brain require the least routing and least input loss.)

Comunal cooperation is essential, since developemental time must be extended (childhood) to allow mastering of complex sensory and moter skills. A gazell can be on it's feet and ready to run within hours of birth because it's learning/developmental process isn't allocated to other complex functions.

These are just a few of the reasons that there is a very strong chance that any alien we find will bear at least a passing resemblence to a human. Naturally, there ought, in the broad expanse of the cosmos, be sentient miniture elephants with three delicate trunks, four eyes, and using telepathy. But I doubt that would be the rule, as nature seems to work with the idea that the simplest solution, with the least redundency, is the best solution.

Just my own opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
.....
Predators have forward scanning sight organs because they do the chasing. Deer have side placement to better watch out for the forward scanning crowd. And predators, in their competition for food stand the best chance of developing larger cranial capacity to cope with changing situations. All deer need is better side vision and faster running ability. Ergo, in the very long term, the descendents of predators with forward facing sensory organs have a higher likelyhood of reaching space.
.....
Just my own opinion.


I am a businessman. I make my living by innovating...hunting differently.

So, down this other path i have been hunting, cause and effect can sometimes be skewed.

Predators have predatory physical traits because they fill that role? Or do they fill that role because they have those characteristics?

If i look at an emu, i see an upright creature...with a very primitive sensory organ set. And a very primitive brain (not that different than predatory giants of ages past).

I know Darwinism makes sense. I know it is logical. But something nags in the back of my mind telling me that it just doesn't work. Its presumption of a static environment, with slow change, doesn't match the catastrophic history of our planet.

Sure, genetic drift impacts individual animals based on what they need to survive. But outside genetic drift (which we can observe over the short cycle of our sentiency as a populace), it starts to get wierder and goes more against what seems to be the reality of our worlds history.

edit to trim quotes

[edit on 1-6-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Oh great, Egyptian statue and then secret tunnel. I didn't here Jews God's promised land in Mars.
Then what?????????????? Russian flag? Red Chinese secret basement?

What else you want to see?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Indeed. Good points.


I was generalising based on what science seems to know right now. however, chicken or egg, the mold is still likely to produce simular results, I would think.

My problem with evolution as it's now understood is the uselessness of transitional stages. A half a wing is just a hinderence. I lean more toward evoltionary leaps by viable mutation, followed by a winnowing or polishing phase that is more gradual.

Still, the role of hunter in overall design perameters, the need for manual dexterity, for communal dependence to allow time for greater brain developement, seem to be a criteria that must be met, even in stages, on any road to sentience as we understand the term.

And because at whatever level one starts, the duality of competition and cooperation in the game of survival molds the participant into certain paths, I think that overall there is a greater chance of ET having more resenblence to humans, rather than less.

And because without the stimulation of competition, the early "us verses them" mentality of the hunter should lead to a species that thinks in a manner very close to our own. Totally benevolent beings from some Paradise planet would not have been likely to have suffered the hardships and struggles that later on would allow them to even contemplate such changes as a machine age.

Again, these are just my own nascent thoughts on the subject.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
zorgon, bigfatfurrytexan, rikriley, Parabol, NGC2736 (and ArMaP
):

Although the conversation is interesting, aren't we deviating too much from the topic?

Back on topic, I would like to ask those that know about these things (in this case geology) if anyone can see anything unusual on the rocks, both the ones like the "head" of the "statue" (that I think may be a different rock, it just happens to be on that place) as the ones that make the crater rim.

What I see (and I am not a geologist) makes me think that the rock in which the "statue" is inserted is the result of the compression of the ground materials that, after being compressed, where subjected to vertical forces that broke them.

The "head" looks like the other rocks that are part of the upper layer, small rocks that do not look like they were created in the same way, or if they were they were subjected to erosion that erased almost completely the striations present on the other rocks.

So, I think that the "body" of the "statue" is just part of the older rock that was subjected to vertical breaks, and the "head" came to rest on the border of the rock, creating the effect of a statue.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hi,ArMaP, I agree it would be good to get back on topic.

I have looked at this part of the image many times, and I am wondering about this edge. I have added a red line to illustrate what I mean. I am sure you will not agree with me
, but this very straight edge doesn't seem quite right to me. But perhaps there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for it?

I am also wondering about the feature/object (?) in the red circle. I hope I haven't missed anything, but I don't think it has been pointed out yet.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by ziggystar60]




top topics



 
198
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join