Ancient Mars, page 34

Pages: << 31 32 33 34 35 36 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 190 times

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 11:52 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, I just do not see anything that really looks like a recognisable fossil on Mars, on that thread or anywhere else.

Hmmm need to get you out on a field trip so you know what fossils look like in nature

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 02:07 PM by Topato

Fixed the pictures from my last post:

What ya think? Ancient architecture and fossils along with a NASA cover-up? Or random crap that isn't anything?

edit on 5-4-2011 by Topato because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 04:03 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

I live in an area with many fossils, any time they dig a hole to make a building hundreds of fossils appear, that's how I got mine.

Too bad most of them were thrown away, some people do not like rocks.

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 04:07 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by Topato

It's mostly bad interpretation of images that were changed (but not by NASA

) to make it hard to see how things really are.

I will try to find good versions of those photos.

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 04:11 PM by Blue Shift

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
No, I just do not see anything that really looks like a recognisable fossil on Mars, on that thread or anywhere else.

Hmmm need to get you out on a field trip so you know what fossils look like in nature

Just because something looks like something, that doesn't mean it is that thing. That's probably the biggest problem. It would be nice if there was a good cross-section of the "fossil" to see if maybe it had concentric growth rings, or traces of cell structure. That would be the clincher. But we ain't got those things.

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 08:02 PM by LandonFromKY

reply to post by Skyfloating

I have been looking at close-ups of mars lately on Google Earth and i have came up with an observation.....There are cracks (if you will) That look to be dried up river beds, also they continue (most of them) and empmty out into what looks to be a dried up Lake bed. SO i think that there indeed was ancient life on mars, but until there is inconclusive evidence my theory wont be proved, but i hope that it is right, i think that will be pretty awesome

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 11:16 PM by Topato

reply to post by Blue Shift

Or we do. Or more accurately said, NASA does.

Not the common folk though.

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 01:31 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by Blue Shift It would be nice if there was a good cross-section of the "fossil" to see if maybe it had concentric growth rings, or traces of cell structure. That would be the clincher. But we ain't got those things.

edit on 6-4-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 01:39 AM by mardukiscoming

I have seen alot of photos from the various Mars missions,but the one of the evenly spaced objects blew me away.That most definitely does not occur in nature.Great thread.

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 02:31 AM by linliangtai

reply to post by alphaMegas

"....are they already in that fossilized form when they were blasted from Mars atmosphere?"

I think so.

"and the similarities of those nano-cellular structures you studied between us humans and martian only indicates that we are one and the same? "
Yes, Earthlings and Martians are the same humans/animals/plants. There were highly developed human civilizations on Mars before the extinction event. There were no survivors.

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 03:03 AM by alphaMegas

reply to post by linliangtai

so us and "them" are the same...
thats a good start...
btw, have you read/seen my u2u?

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 09:49 PM by linliangtai

reply to post by alphaMegas

I did not see your images of giants. Where are they? By the way, I have seen many images of Earthling Giants of 10 feet tall or higher. But I did not study the subject, because real evidence is hard to find.

reply posted on 6-4-2011 @ 10:25 PM by alphaMegas

reply to post by linliangtai

sent you only my favorite martian. others to come.
i dont know if the term "giants" will apply because it seems to be the norm amongst them...
maybe when compared to us we can call them giants.
giants is a term somehow connotated with mythical descriptions.

but in your previous thread you wrote "there were no survivors"?

while in my images they abound, how can we reconcile?

reply posted on 7-4-2011 @ 06:33 AM by linliangtai

Theory of Panspermia disproved; aliens are not our ancestors.

NASA scientist Dr. Richard Hoover recently shocked the world by discovering alien microbes in meteorite Ivuna. The meteorite actually originated from Mars because mammlain red blood cell remains have been found in the meteorite, as evidenced in the following two figures:

Figure 1: shows mammalian red blood cell remains in meteorite Ivuna,imaged by Dr. Allan Treiman
www.wretch.cc...
Source of above image: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Figure 2: shows Dr. Richard Hoover’s Fig. 1d containing mammalian red blood cell remains in meteorite Ivuna
www.wretch.cc...

reply posted on 7-4-2011 @ 06:40 AM by linliangtai

reply to post by alphaMegas

I am new here. So, please advise exactly how I can see the images you sent.
By the way, modern humans are very different from ancient humans, let alone Martians.
For example, Abraham in the Bible is said to have lived nearly 200 years on Earth.

I will come back after I see your image.

reply posted on 7-4-2011 @ 09:22 AM by linliangtai

reply to post by linliangtai

New edition:
Theory of panspermia disproved; aliens are not our ancestors.

NASA scientist Dr. Richard Hoover recently shocked the world by discovering alien microbes in meteorite Ivuna. The meteorite actually originated from Mars because mammlain red blood cell remains have been found in the meteorite, as evidenced in the following two figures:

Figure 1: shows mammalian red blood cell remains in meteorite Ivuna,imaged by Dr. Allan Treiman
www.wretch.cc...

Source of above image: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Figure 2: shows Dr. Richard Hoover’s Fig. 1d containing mammalian red blood cell remains in meteorite Ivuna
www.wretch.cc...

reply posted on 7-4-2011 @ 09:09 PM by linliangtai

Added on April 8, 2011:
Reasons that falsify the theory of panspermia

Meteorite Ivuna contains cell remains of mammals, which, unlike bacteria, could not possibly survive travels between planets, between solar systems, between galaxies. Over 100 meteorites have been confirmed by NASA as originating from Mars. In fact, most meteorites originated from Mars as explained at:
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

The theory of panspermia is further disproved in my following post on human origin: wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

reply posted on 7-4-2011 @ 10:34 PM by Cassius666

Originally posted by multichild
reply to post by Skyfloating

There is only one way to look at that theory really, and that is they came to Earth and either took over from the neanderthals, or they cross breed and we are part them and or part mars person.

They wouldn't have managed to get to Earth from Mars and then become cave men.

So it would tie in with them arriving on Earth about 8,500 years ago which co-incided with the pyramids, and then you got to ask your question would mars have deteriorated that much in 8,500 years to how it looks today from what it was.

1000 years

YouTube Link

10000 years

YouTube Link

[edit on 8/9/10 by multichild]

Its funny how the romans built bridges tanks in WW II used and Arenas where rock stars perform to this day, yet none of our structures would last very long without regular maintainance.

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 10:52 AM by linliangtai

reply to post by linliangtai

Some people say the original origins of meteorites include the Moon, Mars, the comets, asteroids, asteroid belt, Venus, Earth, interstellar dust, etc.

I said most meteorites contain fossils of mammals, so the only original origin of meteorites should have been Mars.

What say you?

reply posted on 9-4-2011 @ 11:21 AM by ArMaP

reply to post by linliangtai

Have you analysed most meteorites?