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

Originally posted by thrashee
Actually, it's hardly an entrance. Stick around long enough and you'll realize that.

You speak as though I've only just arrived.

Man, I've seen this so many times before, trust me. People say they've found something, turns out to be nothing, a few children cry. But coming on here just to say "It's nothing at all" then mocking the people who think otherwise, is just counter-productive. Sure, I'm not saying let's promote stupidity, but I don't think this is one of them. It's pulling ideas together, which is great, and is a big part of ATS.

It could be anything, AND it is very possible to swing either way. Nothing is 100%. The only useful skeptic, is one with an open mind.

But go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and declare how wrong everyone else is.

Just for the record, I don't think this is anything special. I'm only interested if it can truely be proven, but still... I find it interesting to see other people's ideas and explanations.

But really, I shouldn't argue... you'll just knock me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Most likely a part from a failed satellite or lander, how about the UK's Beagle? Did that successfully land and we lost contact or did it crash?

I do tend to respect skeptics which try to elaboreta their point of view

As I do also tend to disrespect "skeptics" throwing away their "stones" ,mentioning "logics" and "The scientific way"...without any procreative argument on the subject
those are oversized bloats as far as I'm concerned


now,on the subject...
have seen this image before,quite interesting stuff,could be stone... but by proportions, curves and color of the object, it is by logic more likely to be a corroded piece of metal...

and this comes from a mind that is not indoctrined by "The scientific all-rocky way"


one who wants to see only rocks will see only rocks...,these are equally blunt to me as those who see thousands of alien faces on each mars photo...

but benefit of a doubt is ,after all, a trait of the true seekers, and certainly not bloats



so...I preffer to call this an Object of interest,probably metal...
not rock of interest "ex machina"

reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin


This is Anomic of Nihilism.....

On someone elses computer, can't remeber my login details etc.

Can we pleeEEEEAASEEee stop the constant whining about 'how its just a rock' and how we should stop all stop wasting our time et cetera.

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion! But NO ONE here is entiled to BELITTLE anyone elses opinion.

I haven't said it was ALIEN...AT ALL. I infact said that i don't want to call it alien.

I am MUCH happier for it to have fallen of the rover or maybe a failed mission!!

Yes, I said it was 'AMAZING!!!' , (not exactly sure what you mean by 'scare quotes'..never been 'scared by a quote myself, but each to their own)...

So if it is a rock...the WHAT A BLOODY AMAZING ROCK!!!

This ROCK would suggest some pretty INTEREST erosive forces, IT TELLS A STORY.

I can't imagine how this might have formed, that is why i posted it here.... to gain some insight from our FELLOW MEMBERS, GEOLOGISTS and BELIEVERS alike.

It is you people (not you personally, but the 'ROCK' screamers in gerneral) that sound like a broken record......

"Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK, its a BLOODY ROCK!!!"

Cool, thanks WE HEARD YOU!!

Now, can the rest of us please be allowed to get on with exploring how this might have formed (if it 'formed' at all).

Lets try to ignore the white noise people

"Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK,Its a ROCK!!!!!"

Ok guys!

IT'S PARODELIA!!!!

Period!

Case closed!

Christ! For the debunkers here, it seems you guys can't even comprehend this peculiar shape that resembles a monkey wrench and say it looks like a monkey wrench! Filter effects, poor resolution, camera glitches, just rocks (A monkey wrench on Mars? Jeez! ) and a zillion other explanations! No one said it IS a wrench or can prove that it is one. It just resembles one! So what's the big deal? Like this one...



By the way, didn't you guys know that even Anjolina Jolie is the result of paradolia? She's all in the mind! Lol!

Cheers!





[edit on 10-2-2009 by mikesingh]

MY 2 cents for what it is worth...
After viewing all the posts in this thread, and those tied to it. Some research outside ATS, I submit the following:

1) I doubt (strongly) it is a rock...
2) I lean towards the probability of it being junk! (Man-made Junk) More than likely one of the failed attempts of earlier mars expeditions. Spread across the landscape either after impact or while attempting entry.

3) As much as I would like to believe there is something here not natural or man-made, I am more inclined to settle on #2

If and when we are privy to "proof" of life on Mars or any other planet I can't help but feel it will be profound! ie: Knock our socks off, monolith or building type PROFOUND. It will be at that point in time, and our lives, that the skeptics and naysayers will have to deal with their own narcissism. And we as a world will have to deal with facts that we are not "alone", and we truly have to accept our position in the universal "food chain"

Disclosure; I personally doubt we are alone in the universe, and I doubt we are alone in the solar system and believe there are some things for which the ET hypothesis is the best fit.

I also get annoyed when someone proposes an extraordinary hypothesis with basically no evidence that could not be explained by something far more prosaic. It does nothing to enlighten the subject. And I don't like tabloid type headings because I always know I'll be disappointed.

The OPs find is interesting and should be proffered as such. The ET artifact hypothesis should be considered and I thought that was the purpose of forums such as this. I simple offer my opinion that it is a very weak hypothesis.

I have just read through all 9 pages and I am just surprised that this seems to be new for a lot of you, this has been around for ages along with pictures of cogs and dolls and shoes and all sorts, it's all over the web and loads of stuff on Utube just do a search on something like Mars Artifacts, they all have been discussed at great length before, in fact I have seen more pictures if Artifacts on Mars than Buildings and Artifacts on the Moon.
What is it? Haven't a clue, I know what it looks like, some say it's a Martian, yup! a mummified eel like creature left in a dried up sea or lake bed. All I do know is that it and objects like it certainly need investigating.
Here's just one of many sites devoted to it
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...




[edit on 10-2-2009 by ChewBacky]

I think I saw a reptilian Freemason in that picture! er...no. Twas just a rock

Actually rocks can bend under ductile deformation below crust at 20-30 km deep. This happens quite often on Earth's surface and makes folds and other structures. However we can see in this rock an angular bend which is quite rare except on uncommon fold hinges. Also the lack of any other folded pieces can lead to metamorphic rocks or highly deformed ones being discarded.

This particular anomalous rock could be part of some kind of outcrop of sedimentary rocks. There is another rock at the right of the weird one with holes, it looks like a basalt or some kind of volcanic rock. [perhaps if this is a meteor crater is a non-fe meteorite fragment].
In the rest of the image angular shaped fragments are diseminated and they seem to be more recent bed sediments exposed due to impact crater and then meteorized. Extreme temperature changes during endless day-night cycles could develop odd fractures like this one.

Rediculous.

You people will make a thread out of anything.

can you guys instuct me on how to post a picture?...not sure, bit of a n00b...lol.

thanks in advance.

eX



[edit on 10-2-2009 by existenz]

Originally posted by thrashee

You understand that you're asking for a negative proof, right? This is nothing short of "God exists", "Prove it", "Well, prove that he doesn't."

Quite the contrary. You call it negative proof, we call it simple data to further enhance the opposite point of view. If you want to call it negative proof that a skeptic must provide, that only tells me that your behind the 8 ball wondering if you can hit it into the corner pocket with no que ball or stick. In other words, your far behind the game and need to play catch up.

Originally posted by thrashee
Granted, I understand that you are addressing a more casual environment where such things can merely be discussed rather than debated. But that's why I stated that if the OP presented the info while making no particular claims, or simply stating beliefs, then the situation is entirely different. This OP clearly did not do that, and thus here we come wanting proof.

No doubt, I too want to see some data to say this object is not an a-typical rock formation. Which is where I came in and stated, and proved, that just 1 gray scale image without its proper filter applied, and even with that 1 filter applied, does not give us any more information other than what is contained in that single 256 gray scale image or UV Blue filter image. With the other geology filters, we could see this object's compositional differences with the other things in the image and do a comparison. But unfortunately, we dont have those other filter datasets. We only have the 1 gray scale image with its UV Blue filter. And that filter isnt even a geology filter!

Originally posted by thrashee
Finally, what wider scale are you expecting? Are there not two categories of explanations here? (Either it's intelligently made, or it's a natural formation of some sort.)

I just explained that, and in 3 other posts before this, as to the "wider prospective" that we need.

Originally posted by thrashee

If you attitude is that you dont have to provide squat..well neither does the believer. Dont expect them to when you wont. Thats how its played.

I know it is. And it's patently absurd to play it that way. It's the reason why I am so strong in my demands for proof. The burden of proof is not magically absolved simply because you think your audience to which you're presenting your own claim isn't reciprocating. They don't have to. Imagine being a scientist and walking into a conference with this stuff, and then turning around pouting, "Well I don't have to back up my claim because you guys won't give me alternative theories!"

Why? Why is it obsured for a skepitc to provide some collaborating data? I see plenty of skeptics that DO provide collaborating data to support their ideas and statements. So I dont see why that is a problem for you or certian others who simply hide behind excuses of shifting burden and copping out on providing something more to the discussion that can actually help those who think they see one thing, may in fact start to see something else after the added data is examined and compared.

Theories require data. Data requires theories. It goes hand in hand. Either side of the isle cannot simply just say "this exsists or that doesnt exsist so take it or leave it" and expect it to be cannon. Science does NOT work that way, nor does investigative research, which is basically what this is all about. Researching to see what exactly that is in the OP photo.

Again I have provided the core reason why it cannot be proven to be either a odd shaped rock or an actual artifical object, and that is using actual scientific data, not conjecture or opinion or speculation. We simply do not have the necessary data to be conclusive either way.

Originally posted by thrashee

Ive seen the best skeptics get shot down so fast simply because they have that attitude of their word is God and that is that, never providing anything "relevant" to the data other than their opinion. The believers however, do go to the extent of providing something to show, to read, to think about..ie data.

Where is all this shooting down?

I refer to the over 15 years of participating in many forums. It does not mean that I personally shot them down, if you read what I posted, I said "I have SEEN the best skeptics get shot down". That in no way implies I personally did so, but rest assured, I have danced with alot of them and always came out on top in the end.

Google is your friend...plenty of those forums still exsist and have archives. Anomalies Network is one of them, one amongst hundreds.

Originally posted by thrashee
Any skeptic worth his or her salt understands this most simplest of principles regarding burden of proof. And it's not just a logical construct, but a scientific one as well. You don't march around making hypotheses and then state you don't need to support them because no better theory has been proven. Doesn't work that way. Maybe you think it does here on ATS, but that's simply allowing for and encouraging stupendously ignorant OPs.

So ATS is specific and caters to skeptics that do not need to provide anything other than their own personal opinion? Hardly friend, hardly.

To deny ignorance you need to be knowledgable, and in order to be knowledgable, you need the data to back up that knowledge.

I can sit here and make claims left and right, and not a single one of those claims would mean a bowl of beans without data. A skeptic who claims that someone else's claim is not real or untrue, without providing any collaborating data to back that up, has no basis to make such a statement or even be considered at all.

In other words, a skepitc who provides nothing but mouth is unworthy of even being paid attention to.

Originally posted by thrashee

Without data, or without enough conclusive data, it cannot be proven either way.

It doesn't have to be, primarily because of the burden of proof issue, and secondly because while you may not be able to definitely prove an answer, you CAN rationally examine the possibilities in order to determine which is more likely.

There is no burden of proof issue. Believers have always posted something, a picture, a theory, an example, something to use as their backup to attempt to prove their belief. However, and quite unfortunate, that is not always the case with the opposing point of view.

For a skeptic to claim that something someone has posted is untrue or unreal...it is expected for them to show WHY it is untrue or unreal. And if a skepitc is so sure of their statement, there is no reason why they cannot provide that data to back up their claim. Saying something isnt real or untrue is a claim, just as someone saying this is real and true, that too is a claim.

Originally posted by thrashee

ps...Its not shifting the burden of proof. Its simply asking you to provide evidence to support your position. Using that old worn out excuse is just that, an old worn out excuse that is nothing more than a copout, an easy way for you to escape the task of providing something more than just an opinion.

Hehe, burden of proof is not an excuse; it's a logical construct for debates and discussions, as well as a fundamental part of the scientific method. You can view it as a cop out if you wish, but this only demonstrates that you're not really grasping the entire concept of claims, evidence, and proof.

You use burden of proof as a one way ticket to give yourself a quick exit to the task of proving your point. Its an old worn out playing card. What is very ironic is that instead of providing evidence to the contrary, one just throws out rant after rant, repetitive use of old excuses such as burden of proof, and wastes alot of time and energy doing so, so much as to actually believe that people will just give up and become tired of the repetitive replies. Welp...got some news for you...there are plenty of people out there, including here at ATS..that will go the distance and be happy to provide data they feel is necessary to support their claim.

Talk is just talk..but data is debatable substance. Without the data, there is no substance to the statement.

Originally posted by thrashee
And I've presented far more than an opinion here. I've given you a free lesson in logic and rational thought

Really? The only thing I see here is an opinion against someone who has provided far more data and logic than you have this entire thread. Again, read from the first page to here, seeing just exactly how much data and logic there is compared to the lack of data you have provided.

You have made reference to relevancies of what we know is on Mars. What relevancies? Where is your data showing us these relevancies? I only see words, text on a screen. No links, no articles, no images, no data....nothing. Hardly logical, hardly conclusive, and hardly scientific.

Makes for intereseting debate on what is data and what isnt tho..I give you that much.



Cheers!!!!

Hmmm would be wonderful if absolute proof could be given on anything but one thing I am certain of especially as there appears to be major secrecy going on about all this stuff, is that it just will not happen.
But because no one can give absolute proof does not mean that they shouldn't continue to post anything and everything that is found for us to make up our own minds about and now being fully aware of what ever it was that was posted, maybe there will be proof further down the road, maybe there won't.
But I want to hear and see about anything of interest so keep it up guys and gals.

Striking resemblance to an Egyptian Asp...

Second line.

reply to post by zorgon

I pity you then... but don't knock those that do

You're not only seeing things but reading things that are not there.

I *knocked* no one so save your pity for someone who needs it bucko.

And believe me, if I can see the face of Nixon in a potato I'm not lacking in imagination - but I refuse to admit to seeing *wrenches* and artifacts on Mars when all I see is a bloomin rock.

right back at ya.

peace

It looks like a dead fish, gone hard.

Well found eagle eye.

Look at the location: A crator.

maybe it is a fragment from a very large iron meteorite?

it doesnt look Really that artificial to me. it does look like i dead eel though

some comparison:








[edit on 10-2-2009 by MR BOB]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by MR BOB]

It's certainly very interesting.

I'm another who sees rocks when these pictures surface. Yes, they're interesting, but they're rocks casting shadows and combined they just look like *insert object*.

This, on the other hand, doesn't seem the same in my estimation.
It certainly looks "manufactured", rather than a natural phenomena.

And I have to say I disagree with the proposition that it's man-made and from a failed mission. Surely, to come across a piece of man-made junk from a previously failed mission would be so unlikely as to be almost impossible.

Interesting, but I doubt we'll ever find out what it was. It's unlikely the PTB will ever admit that there have been hundreds of civilizations throughout millions of years in our solar system, either visiting or inhabiting.

On the Skipper website there is an entire article devoted to this picture.

He contends that it is likley the fossil of a large eel type creature. Look at eels and such and t is ery similar. There is an interesting ' skull' type form behind itas well.

It is OBVIOUS that the government obscures the pics using copmputer programs designed to eliminate artifacts that make to much sense...thus we get partial pics. I recommend all of you visit his site...I don't have the link ready but just google: mars anomalies Skipper....and see a lot of good stuff.