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.

 

Um... Martian Hermit Crab?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skallagrimsson
It is close by where the sample has been taken and the arm/equipment may have touched and moved the stone.

If it had been out of reach, I would have looked for other explanations.


Of more interest is the ice in the bottom of the sample hole...

Phoenix science team also deliberately moved a rock dubbed "Headless" using Phoenix robotic arm:
Phoenix Lander Successful in Moving "Headless" Rock


The robotic arm on NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander slid a rock out of the way during the mission's 117th Martian day (Sept. 22, 2008) in order to take a look at the soil underneath the rock, and to see at what depth the subsurface ice was under the rock. The lander's Surface Stereo Imager took this image later the same day, showing the rock, called "Headless," after the arm pushed it about 40 centimeters (16 inches) from its previous location.

www.universetoday.com...
www1.nasa.gov...
The rock in question is not the same, but in my humble opinion, some interaction between the lander and the rock occurred: maybe during its touch-down, its deployment, or incidentally during some attempt to dig: as said, it's just my humble opinion.

The video showing a Mars landing is part of Alternative 3

Nick Austin, who was editorial director of Sphere Books when Watkins' adaptation was commissioned and published, writes that the book was the "best chance I’d ever be likely to get to participate in a hoax of truly Guy Grand proportions — the best thing of its kind since Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast."

Austin writes that he was both delighted and disturbed by the Alternative 3 controversy, and adds that the reasons "a clever hoax, openly admitted to be such by its creators, should continue to exercise the fascination it so obviously does the best part of a generation after its first appearance is beyond my feeble powers of analysis and explanation." [1]

An article by Loy Lawhon reports that "everyone involved with the Alternative 3 documentary admits that it was fiction(.)" [2]

One unsourced account reports that the producers of Alternative 3 "announced that the entire thing had been a joke." [3]

A more detailed explanation of the hoax is featured in a study of conspiracy theory subculture and literature, Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003), wherein Michael Barkun devotes a few pages to Alternative 3.

Barkun writes that "Alternative 3 was clearly a hoax — and not only because it was intended for broadcast on April Fools Day. The interviews with supposed scientists, astronauts, and others were far too dramatically polished to have been spontaneous, and in any case, the episode's closing credits named the actors who took the roles of interviewees and correspondents. Though artfully produced, the show's counterfeit documentary style could scarcely have been expected to fool many. As an Anglia TV spokeseman put it, 'We felt viewers would be fairly sophisticated about it.'"

Bakun notes that television and newspapers were "swamped" with inquiries about Alternative 3 and that Anglia Television's sale of the book rights to Leslie Watkins caused the tale to spread far beyond the United Kingdom.

www.museumofhoaxes.com...
www.thule.org...
www.imdb.com...





posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well I had a lovely error that erased all my writing so F*** Firefox.

Let me just point out some facts that I mentioned:

-the land is flat

-winds are too weak to move anything

- it is not rolling downhill. The only change in topography would be as a result of the lander landing

-if it is made by water moving, than this means mars has active water activity and humans can stay for a long time

-there are no earthquakes on Mars. The term "dead Planet" also means geologically. This also has implications for life because unlike Earth, the first life forms on mars would have 0 disturbances from anything or anywhere in a cave.

-Mars has evidence of water basically being everywhere, so there's plenty around for underground caves and for life.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
This is pretty normal...


Normal?
It only happens on one place on Earth and no one has seen them move?

And the conditions THOUGHT to be responsible, a wet salt flat and winds... are you stating those are 'normal' on Mars?



[edit on 21-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Nice find.. hermit crab.. frankly, one can argue whether or not something can survive on mars all they like. I am looking at some blatant facts. NASA has realised they cannot just up and filtre everything red anymore. Did anyone notice the blue-ish skies in the original? Then there are clouds over the martian poles. That too is generally indicative of SOME sort of atmosphere. There have been pictures showing greenery on martian cliff faces. Plants usually indicate oxygen, methain, nitrogen, hydrogen, and many other gasses needed to make a breatheable atmosphere for human standards. Tertiary, water discovered (or finally admitted) on mars. everyone knows that.
Now for the find in the picture. I could believe the rock tumbled, if the trail wasnt relatively the same width from starting point to the point it is with few deviations probably due to sand particals in the way. If you look closely at the front of the 'rock' you can clearly see the sand is almost being pushed away. Yes. this CAN be attributd to something moving the 'rock' out of the way but there is another problem with that. What tracks were around that rock?
and my final point. Has ANYONE bothered to look at the rear of this rock? in the shadow.. look really close, and it seems like there is a tail of some sort coming directly from what appears to be 'under the shell'

Thanks for the great find. there are endless possibilities as to what it could be, but until we debate this through, and look closer at some of the points made by us all.. I shall refer to it as a rock.
cheers.
Stan



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


God I hope so. Because it's ideal for farms.

Imagine. Actual flood plains?


Now this area doesn't look that interesting, but it WOULD be where the mighty Martian sea would be( right click and select view full image)




[edit on 21-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
So, the arm with the scoop bumped a rock and moved it.

I just don't see this as newsworthy. Wishful thinking and daydreaming perhaps?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassiopeia
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Yep looks up hill in the main photo aswell

kinda looks like a trilobite as well.. very strange



I'm sorry but it doesn't look anything like one of those! It couldn't look any less like it! It looks like a rock!




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassiopeia
reply to post by Gorman91
 



This is more what i like what i meant earlier






Ohhhhh!



Nope sorry, still nothing like it I'm afraid.

You should have gone to spec savers.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
This is pretty normal...


Normal?
It only happens on one place on Earth and no one has seen them move?

And the conditions THOUGHT to be responsible, a wet salt flat and winds... are you stating those are 'normal' on Mars?



[edit on 21-6-2009 by zorgon]


Ok I concede... a more rational explanation has already been given above too...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos



The video showing a Mars landing is part of Alternative 3

Nick Austin, who was editorial director of Sphere Books when Watkins' adaptation was commissioned and published, writes that the book was the "best chance I’d ever be likely to get to participate in a hoax of truly Guy Grand proportions — the best thing of its kind since Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast."

Austin writes that he was both delighted and disturbed by the Alternative 3 controversy, and adds that the reasons "a clever hoax, openly admitted to be such by its creators, should continue to exercise the fascination it so obviously does the best part of a generation after its first appearance is beyond my feeble powers of analysis and explanation." [1]

An article by Loy Lawhon reports that "everyone involved with the Alternative 3 documentary admits that it was fiction(.)" [2]

One unsourced account reports that the producers of Alternative 3 "announced that the entire thing had been a joke." [3]

A more detailed explanation of the hoax is featured in a study of conspiracy theory subculture and literature, Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003), wherein Michael Barkun devotes a few pages to Alternative 3.

Barkun writes that "Alternative 3 was clearly a hoax — and not only because it was intended for broadcast on April Fools Day. The interviews with supposed scientists, astronauts, and others were far too dramatically polished to have been spontaneous, and in any case, the episode's closing credits named the actors who took the roles of interviewees and correspondents. Though artfully produced, the show's counterfeit documentary style could scarcely have been expected to fool many. As an Anglia TV spokeseman put it, 'We felt viewers would be fairly sophisticated about it.'"

Bakun notes that television and newspapers were "swamped" with inquiries about Alternative 3 and that Anglia Television's sale of the book rights to Leslie Watkins caused the tale to spread far beyond the United Kingdom.

www.museumofhoaxes.com...
www.thule.org...
www.imdb.com...




I agree on the part that it are actors who gave the interviews. But was it to protect the real witnesses for their lives? The Astronaut has for instance striking similarities with good old Buzz Aldrin.

And where and when did they recorded the landing? Remember, it was an English broadcast from 1977 with a low budget and back in those days a helicopter ride was very expensive and there are no deserts around in England so the only way to obtain the footage was to go abroad, the nearest desert is in Africa. And why show life when the mainstream scientists claim that there is no life? It makes the video even less credible for the mainstream public.

So I have reasons to believe that the picture is showing the same critter.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

I think zorgon hit it on the head. It's showing a rock that moved due to the disturbance of the lander arm that is used to dig up soil. If you look at the main picture, there are dig points nearby.

Surprised you didn't show us the "footprints" as well....at about 2/3 of the way to the right, closer to the lander...


[edit on 21-6-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
its a rock...that fell down an slight embankment. if you look at the features of the rock and compare them to the trail it left. you can see exactly how it rolled to its current position.
---
if it was moving by its own accord, there would be a pattern to the tracks. there is no pattern.
---
keep reaching.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by epitaph.one
 


It's a flat surface.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


That rock looks like a large tadpole covered in dust...reminds me of those prehistoric litle bugs you put in water and they accualy come alive and grow, without the legs though! Interesting pic...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
It seems to me thet mars might be reviving itself. If there was life, it has been stagnant for a while and now starting to reveal itself again..I must do more research though before I say anything more.

It looks just like Triops covered in dirt! Juat google it youl see what i mean, you can buy these prehistoric bugs at toy shops! they accually come alive in water, I bought one for my boyfriend little brother but he never used it!

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 

I agree.....
That's what I said pages & pages ago.





posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 



i saw the "tail" too!!! i pointed it out to BF...i sit here and read for hours and then tell him or show him what i find.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by miss_sky
 


Perhaps this is not a crab but something more along the lines of a mussel or a snail.

This could be the snail's tail or mussels foot that we are seeing in the image.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
You know I love how people say any other explanation except life on mars is rational... Because you know... Earth is the only planet that could possibly support life. Because you know... Animals aren't resilient enough to live in harsh environments or anything... Animals cant adapt.. Nope sure can't!!

I laugh at this hole life on mars is nonsense stuff. Now we are debating ice and rainwater on a planet that isn't supposed to have water except in frozen arctic pockets. Now you're telling me it might rain there, but life cannot survive... I understand this is a moving rock that rolled whatever, but I have seen some other evidence that was actually pretty convincing. As you might have guessed the turnout was pretty well comprised of life on mars equivalent of swamp gas and weather balloons. Why is the concept of martian life so far fetched?

If you look at existing desert life here on earth you will find that creatures can survive in very barren, harsh, waterless environments pretty efficiently. Who is to say life could not have adapted to the martian environment?


During Mars' rainy periods, precipitation rates probably averaged between 1 meter and 2 meters a year, similar to Earth's average annual rainfall today.


Straight from NASA's mouth. source

Rain = Surface water. Surface Water = Life? Its possible, although unproven. However, In order to prove / disprove life on mars I(as well as any of you) would have to actually take a hike on martian soil and find it yourself. At this time that approach is impossible. Does that mean life doesn't exist there? Nope.. Does that mean we should dismiss the possibility? If you are ignorant... Whether it does / does not exist I think we should stop with this whole martian swamp gas bull.

I think the best example of this is this thread.

Thingy moving on mars thread

I especially love the figment of imagination response. I understand sat pictures of rocks that are identified as installations and stuff are pretty far fetched, but movement closer to the surface is not to be ignored or dismissed so easily. I love how people dismiss things almost immediately without really putting logical thought into it. A lot of you will notice that in the thread I just posted many people come up with less than logical explanations to a perfectly logical piece of evidence that is presented very well.

I'm not trying to convince you there is life on mars because frankly I don't know. However i do believe the subject deserves more merit and much more attention and does not deserve instant dismissal.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I didn't see the tail, but Zorgon's other photos that I are posted on page 2 kind of show no tail.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Gorman91]




top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join