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.

 

**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

page: 19
81
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Im sure NASA has the other datasets. I mean you dont send a multi million dollar rover on a geological scientific mission and not get geological data of interesting geological areas....logical?


So they've got the wrench and we're just spinning our wheels here?!?




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mi2sense

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Im sure NASA has the other datasets. I mean you dont send a multi million dollar rover on a geological scientific mission and not get geological data of interesting geological areas....logical?


So they've got the wrench and we're just spinning our wheels here?!?


Who knows what that is. Visually it looks like some kind of wrench like object. Visually it also looks like some fossilized carcus of a martian version of an eel. Visually it has the brightness and contrast of the surrounding objects that appear (visually) to be rocks.

See the 256 gray scale image only gives us visual data. It doesnt give us the data that can tell us what a rock's composition is, nor does it give us the data that can tell us that the object in question is made up of the same composition of the surrounding rocks, or if it is made up of different elements that would clearly identify it as not being a rock.

That is where the problem is. We can just say that it looks like a wrench, or a martian eel, or a piece of metal, or just a very strange shaped rock.

Without the geologic data that tells what the compositioinal differences is in each item we see in the image, we only have a visual prospective. Which technically, that isnt good enough to say its a rock, or its a wrench.

But to assume its just a rock because we know rocks exist on mars is quite unscientific and unreasonable..and quite illogical.

Mars once had oceans, an atmosphere, and most likely, life. Mars had the elements for life for millions of years. That is plenty of time for sea type life to form, such as an eel like creature, or a worm like creature. Something happend that drastically changed that planet. It lost that atmosphere, the oceans, the huge lakes, to which Odyssey, the orbiting probe that has the THEMIS IR camera and the Radiospectrometer sensors, tells us that mars is currently blanketed with huge masses of frozen ice under a layer of dirt/mud/dust. This data was confirmed back in 2001 by NASA themselves as well as the ASU THEMIS team.

Now with that in mind, its plausible that there will be fossilized remains of whatever life existed there when mars had its oceans and warm atmosphere.

Is there definative proof of that? No. However there is enough data to suspect that life such as an eel like creature could have existed, and other forms of life.

But with this one image, a single pair of 256 gray scale images to give us 3D visual candy, it doesnt give us any data to say its just a rock, or its a fossilized carcus of a martian sea creature, or a piece of metal that was once a wrench, or anything substantive.

Me personally, I think its not just a rock given the other evidence of what mars once had, the oceans, the warm atmosphere, and all the elements for life to form there. And since mars is constantly hit with massive dust and wind storms, slowly erroding away at the surface, something could be exposed on the surface eventually that may have been buried for eons and now we see that something by mere chance because Spirit decided to take a photo of a specific area and caught it in the image.

But as I have repeatedly stated, no geological data to say one way or the other.

So technically, those that say its a rock, "MAY" be correct. Those that say its a "wrench" or "fossilized eel".."MAY" be correct.

Its 50/50 chance for either conclusion.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I would like to add that even if it's a fossil, the geological and chemical composition could be the same as those from the rocks, because fossils are just that, rocks.

But I don't think this particular object looks like a fossil, at least when I compare it with the ones I know (from Earth, obviously) and the area with the areas where I have found my fossils.




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
PS: while I was looking looking at above image I noticed that the information about the site and position is not what I was expecting from the file name of the photos. I will "investigate" about it.
I am quoting myself just to say that the difference between the information on that image I posted and the filename was the result of bad interpretation from me.

Both sources point to the same site and drive.

Sorry...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
You know... I love how this place can get so many flags on a thread rehashing pics already done and under a sensational headline...

Yet a SERIOUS study on fossils on Mars hardly gets noticed?

Fossils on Mars - A Collection of Evidence
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Silly Lemmings...




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I would like to add that even if it's a fossil, the geological and chemical composition could be the same as those from the rocks, because fossils are just that, rocks.


True it "could" be of the same compositional elements, but would also have the extra elements of somethiing else if it is of a creature, along with the "rock" elements from fossilization.

If its some form of metal, it definately would have definative differences in composition from the surrounding rocks.

Sure would be nice to have those other datasets. Well hopefully someday when there is a manned mission they might land somewhere near this area and can investigate.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

 

So technically, those that say its a rock, "MAY" be correct. Those that say its a "wrench" or "fossilized eel".."MAY" be correct.

Its 50/50 chance for either conclusion.


50/50 chance is very benevolent. Too benevolent. There must be a reason why. You’re looking at a picture of a stony beach in a magazine and while you observe about a hundred rocks in the photo you say to yourself that just because a shape stands out in your mind comically, not even naturally to be other than a rock; it has a 50% chance of being the impression you are getting? In the face of the other 99.5% matter which has an even higher percentage of being the likely matter, than a wrench on Mars; which you generously give 50% of the consideration to the most highly unlikely possibility that the fuzzy image suggests? And you call this scientific?

This is the mark of bias, not scientific in the least.


Originally posted by RFBurns

 

But to assume its just a rock because we know rocks exist on mars is quite unscientific and unreasonable..and quite illogical.


I don’t know about that…remember…


Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by mi2sense
Does anywhere in my posts say that I deny there are rocks in that image????


Isn’t that the same assumption that is being made about all the other images in that photo; that they are rocks?


Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by mi2sense
 
I suppose all the secrecy, all the lack of full datasets, all the provable and documented coverups..(google it yourself), all the tape delayed video from space....all that billions spent on missions for the sake of nothing but rocks.


This is why I entered this thread with utter incredulity that some here conclude that all the billions spent on missions to Mars could never be for the sake of nothing but rocks. The obvious expectant disappointment that that is a possibility demonstrates the eagerness to see something else, no matter how much a stretch.


Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by mi2sense
 
You see how that works? There is no definative proof either way....


Alas, just to have the possibility of a 50% chance you concede for the sake of making your possibility equal to the other rocks. Tsk tsk, very unscientific indeed. I don’t even think you have a .5% chance because of the highly unlikelihood of your premise. Some day, you will have to come to terms with what your subconscious has already admitted is in that photo (rocks), the fact that billions are being spent on many Space missions that bring back nothing but rocks. To pose your original question just goes to prove your preconceived desire and determination to see what just isn’t there.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by mi2sense]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


The problem is this.. It may look like a "wrench" but common sense and reason point to other more plausible explanations regardless of what people think it might be. Alot of ATS members like to run through the gambit of possible explanations and it has been no different with this thread.. Actually, hypothesizing and speculating are areas where ATS excels and this are both good and bad.. There are problems this causes though. People reading through threads like this end up on page 20 with 100 different possible explanations and don't even know what to think.

So I guess my post here is more or less in an effort to keep things in perspective.
IMO we should be focusing our efforts on why this object couldn't be a simple rock. My last post was meant to, at least in part, address this issue. Anyone can post their opinion on what it is or isn't.. Personally, I think its good to see other members putting their brains to work trying to figure out stuff like this. But at some point it reaches a limit at which it just makes the thread impossible to read and strays from the simpler questions we should really be asking.

There are problems with alot of the theories I am seeing too.. A fossil perched up on a rock on the surface of mars is not going to last over time. I would argue that erosion from constant wind and sand-blasting from the sand storms would have destroyed any real fossils a long time ago before anything would have had time to fossilize enough to better counter the powerful erosion acting on that fossil. We still might find fossils in martian rocks.. All I'm saying is that a fossil out in the elements like this is incredibly unlikely when you consider the forces of nature affecting the martian surface.

Considering the hypothetical scenario that this really is a fossilized martian creature, one might make the argument that the animal/creature died when the surface of mars was much richer in liquid water and perhaps even planet life. That would mean that sandstorms like we see today on mars would not exist. That could, perhaps, give a creature's remains ample time to fossilize.. But how likely would it honestly be that after millions and millions of years we would see some fossil on the surface of mars that has somehow survived millions and millions of years of sandblasting and wind erosion... Probably not so likely when you think about it.

And I also think people forget this sometimes..
Occam's Razor


The simplest explanation is usually the best.


-ChriS



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I applaud the Op for bringing this up again.

Most of us has seen this anomolie many times but it has never been research so much in depth before apart from the Mars Anomolie Web site and Pegasus.

There are so many artifacts/junk and crap all over Mars and also claimed plant evidence, may be its trick of light shadows etc and weird formed rocks but I dont think so?

Mars seems to have had one Big Muther Eco change over the years or a nuke drop on it?

Also I go with the fossil evidence on this pic and many more.

I had better Shut The F*#k Up before I get flogged with the Big knobly Skeptic Stick.


Where Are You Phage?


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Bob Down Under]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You know... I love how this place can get so many flags on a thread rehashing pics already done and under a sensational headline...

Yet a SERIOUS study on fossils on Mars hardly gets noticed?

Fossils on Mars - A Collection of Evidence
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Silly Lemmings...



I forgot about that one after my favourites where lost. Very interesting thread indeed IMO.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


People act in the same way everywhere, ATS is no exception, even for those that like to speak about "thinking outside the box"...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
I would argue that erosion from constant wind and sand-blasting from the sand storms would have destroyed any real fossils a long time ago before anything would have had time to fossilize enough to better counter the powerful erosion acting on that fossil.
If you look at the rocks you can see that there are not many signs of eolian erosion, so I think a theoretical fossil on Mars could remain there for a very long time before becoming eroded.

Also, the erosion may not affect the side we are seeing, from what I have seen, winds on Mars blow usually from the same direction (in each place, not in the same direction all over Mars).

And don't forget, although the winds are fast, the air is much thinner than what we have on Earth, so the capacity of transporting heavier particles is much reduced, giving more of a polishing to the rocks than the sandpaper like effect of Earth winds.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to BlasterR,
"There are problems with alot of the theories I am seeing too.. A fossil perched up on a rock on the surface of mars is not going to last over time. I would argue that erosion from constant wind and sand-blasting from the sand storms would have destroyed any real fossils a long time ago before anything would have had time to fossilize enough to better counter the powerful erosion acting on that fossil. We still might find fossils in martian rocks.. All I'm saying is that a fossil out in the elements like this is incredibly unlikely when you consider the forces of nature affecting the martian surface.

Considering the hypothetical scenario that this really is a fossilized martian creature, one might make the argument that the animal/creature died when the surface of mars was much richer in liquid water and perhaps even planet life. That would mean that sandstorms like we see today on mars would not exist. That could, perhaps, give a creature's remains ample time to fossilize.. But how likely would it honestly be that after millions and millions of years we would see some fossil on the surface of mars that has somehow survived millions and millions of years of sandblasting and wind erosion... Probably not so likely when you think about it. "


all well and true!

but we really don't know how long that has been sitting there, right?
what really tells us in that picture, of age?
when was water last there?


on mars it could be freeze dried and a few years old. if it's an eel.
some water cycle we don't know about?






[edit on 17-2-2009 by fooks]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mi2sense
 


Science is based on factual data, not benevolance. Without data, there is no science fact, just assumption.

Now we have 1 256 gray scale image...filled with stuff.

Take that 256 gray scale image of an area surrounded with similar stuff here on Earth.

Could you from just looiking at 1 256 gray scale image tell me the makeup of those rocks?

No you cant.

You and a couple others here seem to just shovel aside the scientific reason for those rovers being up on Mars, and why they have geological filters on that pancam, and want to declare my reasoning as bogus when I point and provide direct scientific data that there is no way whatsoever your going to tell anyone that this rock is indeed a rock and that object is also a rock when you have no clue what either is made of...because you rely on a 256 gray scale image and your benevolance rationalizing because mars is known to have rocks. Earth has rocks too..is that all there is?

Ya ok.

WHUTEVER!!!




Cheers!!!

[edit on 17-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes, that is a great thread, thanks for posting the link.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 


A closer look at the "wrench" on Mars is that it is more likely a pipe or wire cuter that you would pull to yourself. The thin handle likely had a wooden covering and it looks like it may have rivets to hold it. It explains the odd jaw on it.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You know... I love how this place can get so many flags on a thread rehashing pics already done and under a sensational headline...



Too be quite honest, i'm suprised myself


Its the same princible used in marketing, everyone LOVES a pretty picture


But seriously, gimme a break guys. I thought it was an amazing picture, and maybe i was a little bit excited when i made the post.

But hey, its my first thread in a long time and made a slight error in my judgement regarding my entrance


Still a damn fine looking object though


Cheers

AoN

Edited to add: Exellent link by the way! cheers


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
You and a couple others here seem to just shovel aside the scientific reason for those rovers being up on Mars, and why they have geological filters on that pancam, and want to declare my reasoning as bogus when I point and provide direct scientific data that there is no way whatsoever your going to tell anyone that this rock is indeed a rock and that object is also a rock when you have no clue what either is made of...because you rely on a 256 gray scale image and your benevolance rationalizing because mars is known to have rocks. Earth has rocks too..is that all there is?


It might not be a rock, RF. But it's absolutely reasonable to assume it is, regardless of scientific data (or the lack thereof).

We've been over this before. It seems you are attempting to argue from the standpoint of "Because you can't prove it's a rock, you can't disprove it's anything else."

And that's technically correct. We can't. However, in such cases, reason presumes. Let's pretend that we're NASA administrators (and to placate certain people here, let's assume NASA is not privy to any kind of inside knowledge or attempting to hide anything from the public). Let's say we see this picture. Would this warrant developing and launching a probe to Mars specifically to analyze this "rock", or whatever it is? Would several hundred millions of dollars of a price tag be justified on this photo alone?

I don't think so. I think the most we'd come up with is, "Hey, it looks rather interesting, but there's really no compelling reason to think this isn't just some funky natural formation of some sort."

I'm thinking it would take a hell of a lot better pictures than have ever been posted here on ATS to warrant such a mission. Some have been vaguely interesting, but quite honestly, most of them are obvious stretches of the imagination (one particular Moon photo even went so far as to label a "building" as a fueling depot).

[edit on 17-2-2009 by thrashee]

[edit on 17-2-2009 by thrashee]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


There was no need for a new mission, if NASA thought it interesting they just had to turn the rover in that direction and at least photograph the rock with the other filters and from other points of view. They could even use the RAT on it.

That is why I think that nobody thought it interesting enough.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


I happen to agree with you on this one Thrashee. We have had our knock down drag outs before if I remember correctly. But this time you are dead on.

This is also exactly what I was trying to address in my last post. We see all these really wild ideas and speculation but it takes away from the much simpler questions we should be asking. Occum's Razor still applies on mars. My very first post was more focused on emphasizing why this could still be a very simple rock on the martian surface. IMO, We should be focusing on why it couldn't be a simple rock rather than why it could be something with a much more complex explanation.

It's good to keep an open, skeptical mind but I also haven't really seen anybody say why this couldn't be a simple rock.. There are all kinds of bizarre rock formations on earth that have perfectly normal explanations. There are probably bizarre rock formations all over the martian surface we haven't seen yet. Maybe this is one of those.


Originally posted by ArMaP
Also, the erosion may not affect the side we are seeing, from what I have seen, winds on Mars blow usually from the same direction (in each place, not in the same direction all over Mars).

And don't forget, although the winds are fast, the air is much thinner than what we have on Earth, so the capacity of transporting heavier particles is much reduced, giving more of a polishing to the rocks than the sandpaper like effect of Earth winds.


But think about this for a moment. The gravity on mars is less than that of earth. This means that larger particles would actually be more likely to be carried aloft than on mars with 50mph winds than on earth with 50mph winds (just as an example) even though the pressures are different. Those larger particles should, theoretically, rapidly accelerate the rate of erosion on any rock on the martian surface.

We know that the winds on mars can get extremely high and that these winds create immense duststorms literally covering the entire planet. Perhaps these massive planet-wide duststorms are partially caused by the fact that the wind can pick up heavier dust particles and more of them when you compare those same dust storms to those on earth. This would almost exacerbate the rate of erosion too even though the wind may be unidirectional.

I ran across this piece after doing some research.. It shows different slide sets that are shown as examples of various types of erosion.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

From the same link..

Section 5. Wind Erosion Features (slides 17–19)
There are other prominent wind erosion features on Mars in addition to the dark streaks. On Earth, when erodible rocks and sediments are exposed to a strong unidirectional wind, they are sculpted into streamlined shapes that have been likened to inverted boat hulls. These wind-shaped hills are called yardangs, a term derived from the Turkistani word yar, meaning steep bank. Terrestrial yardangs range in size from a few meters to tens of kilometers and are best developed in arid areas where they would not be destroyed by running water.


Perhaps such a unidirectional wind erosion on mars could create bizarre looking rock formations after all. Who knows. All I'm saying is that even though the natural forces at work on mars are much different than they are on earth, some of the same basic principles still apply to both worlds.


Originally posted by fooks
all well and true!

but we really don't know how long that has been sitting there, right?
what really tells us in that picture, of age?
when was water last there?


on mars it could be freeze dried and a few years old. if it's an eel.
some water cycle we don't know about?


That's exactly one of my points though. If this thing has been really sitting there for millions of years, how would it still be laying like that? How could it even be there a tall in this shape? There is no way to tell the age of the object exactly, but there is in a way. If it is a rock (which it likely is) then it is probably extremely old since most rocks generally are. I know this may seem like a very general and simple assumption but it is one that makes sense.

Logically speaking, it is extremely likely that wind erosion has, over time, helped shape and form the rock into what it is today. Hence, why it looks so odd and out of place. Erosion is not always so cut and dry. Over extremely long timelines we can see how varying rocks, formations, and topography on earth react under prolonged erosive forces like water and wind. We know that all kinds of bizarre formations can result from all this prolonged erosion. There is no way of knowing what kind of bizarre formations might result on mars from all this erosion because those forces are much different than on earth for a variety of reasons (some of which I've already touched on).

When you look at some of the really odd shaped rocks surrounding this one that stands out in the OP's photo, you start to realize that the erosion acting on these rocks has, over time, affected them all in similar ways (hence the similar odd appearance) and that the odd rocks we are seeing are only there because the erosive forces on this area of mars affects all those rocks the same.

But how did that one bizarre looking rock get there? There are alot of different explanations. One explanation is what I talked about in my first post.. The rock could have been part of a larger sedimentary rock layer that was eroded by water on the surface of mars millions of years ago. If so, it could have technically been fractured off of this sedimentary layer and put there by water long ago. We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that regardless of the original shape of the object prior to the erosion, it is definately being eroded now and that these erosive forces on mars are going to affect these rocks in pretty violent ways over time. Erosion is the key here because that is going to affect the appearance of any rock exposed on the surface like that even though we don't know how long its been there.

All things to think about. But my overall point to all 3 of you guys is basically that when you look at this thing as a rock, things at least start to make alot more sense. And let's face it.. That's the likelihood anyway. There just isn't any way to validate any speculation about the object other than what we know.. And that is that all of these forces, martian gravity, erosion, wind, sand, martian atmospheric pressure, even ancient water on mars created and/or affected the shape of this object.

We are still learning alot about martian geology. There just isn't any logical way that I've seen to invalidate the possibility of this being a simple rock..(even though rocks, themselves, are not necessariliy so simple).

-ChriS


[edit on 18-2-2009 by BlasteR]




top topics



 
81
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join