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.

 

Found on Mars: a limb with muscle and bone

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
After intense study of all pictures in the OP, I have determined it is a coffee can, not a cross section of a human limb...

That makes a lot more sense to me anyway.




posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Who or what cut it off?
Why is it standing upright?
How was the cut off leg able to stand upright?
What (in the first link) is that water-pool (darker area) doing there?


edit on 23-4-2011 by Regenstorm because: typossssss



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I replied to such a question many years ago:

"By the way, some experts claim the Mars limb could be artifacts
produced by the Rover's RAT tool. Yes, it was possible at first
glance. However, the RAT tool could not, and never, produce
anything like those seven roundish muscle fascicles, each about 500
microns across. Moreover, the panoramic image of the Mars limb (fully
labelled for a limb's cross section) was taken before RAT was applied
to the Mars "limb" on the ground. "

See above reply displayed three years ago at
groups.google.com...

By the way, geologists know almost nothing about fossil tissues, which have been studied by only a few people in this world. Such people include Karen Chin, Mary H. Schweitzer. Check them up on Wikipedia.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I have seen many photos of RAT prints:copy & paste the URL:
www.flickr.com...@N00&q=RAT Gusev Crater
www.flickr.com...@N00&q=RAT+MI&m=text
www.flickr.com...@N00&q=RAT

None of the impressions/drillings/prints made by the RAT resembles the rinds of fascia tissues found in these photos:
www.flickr.com...
www.wretch.cc...
www.wretch.cc...

I repeat: Above three photos were imaged BEFORE RAT was applied to the Mars ground to scrape the ground in preparation for taking microscopic images in my Figure 6 and Figure 7.


edit on 23-4-2011 by linliangtai because: fixed link



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
"By the way, some experts claim the Mars limb could be artifacts
produced by the Rover's RAT tool. Yes, it was possible at first
glance. However, the RAT tool could not, and never, produce
anything like those seven roundish muscle fascicles, each about 500
microns across.
That is sand dug by the rover's wheel, not rock, so it cannot be a fossil.


Moreover, the panoramic image of the Mars limb (fully
labelled for a limb's cross section) was taken before RAT was applied
to the Mars "limb" on the ground.
Do you have any reference to the time the RAT was applied?

The photo I posted before showing what looks like the RAT being applied to the sand was taken before the photo you posted as showing the "fossil".



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I will try to recreate the sequence of the photos.

1 - On Sol 1861, the Front Hazard Camera took this photo (in fact, there are two photos, the hazard cameras take stereo photos)

Photo 2F291581504EFFB0OAP1214R0M1

No "fossil" visible.

2 - On Sol 1863, the Navigation Camera took this photo (again, there are two photos, this is also a stereo camera)

2N291756808EFFB0OAP1951R0M1

No "fossil" visible.

3 - The first Microscopic Camera photo that shows the "fossil" was also taken on this Sol, 423 seconds after the photo from point 2

2M291757231EFFB0OAP2976M2F1


4 - The photo that shows the arm with the RAT over the "fossil" area was taken 289 seconds after the previous photo.

2F291757520EFFB0OAP1110L0M1


5 - The Panoramic Camera photo that shows the "fossil" was only taken on Sol 1866, 72h44m41s after the previous photo.

2P292019401EFFB0OAP2555L2C1


So, unless fossils appear in less than 10 minutes (or if I am wrong
), that's not a fossil.
Also, fossils are not made of recently loosened sand, they are made of rock, although it may be a soft rock.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
OK, you are right about the sequence of above photos. But let's not concentrate on the effect of the Mossbauer or the feature of the outer rinds in the fossil. Let's concentrate on the cell/tissue levels, as they are the real indicators of fossils. You said "That is sand dug by the rover's wheel, not rock, so it cannot be a fossil." It could not be simply sand dug by rover wheel or sand pressed into cell/tissue structures by Mossbauer. The two rovers have dug up numerous sand minerals on Mars during their 7 year travel and Mossbauer had pressed numerous times onto Martian ground.
If they could do what you said, why were there no similar structures near the muscle cell/tissue? They would have produced numerous similar structures, whatever the structures were, along the way, on every site where microscopic images were taken. No chance.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
It could not be simply sand dug by rover wheel or sand pressed into cell/tissue structures by Mossbauer.

I think you are doing it the wrong way.

I don't think you should say that it cannot be sand dug by the rover's wheel pressed into cell/tissue structures, that way you are starting from the end, looking at something and saying "this is cell/tissue structure, so it cannot be sand".

Look at the area and what do you see? You can see that, regardless of what may be there, that is sand dug by the wheel that was not turning, with no tracks in front of the rover but behind it, so the logical conclusion is that it was made by the rover. The fact that there are many photos (and animations) that show the wheels digging the sand also supports that idea.

Now, in the microscopic camera photos you see things that you interpret as cell/tissue structure, so I think you should look for other things that confirm or deny that hypothesis.

First, what other signs should be present for that to be a fossil of cell/tissue structures? Are there any photos of fossilized cell/tissue structures to compare these with? Are there other characteristics that should be present, besides shape?

Also, I think you should do the opposite, look for those signs of cell/tissue structures in places where you think they should not exist, that would help to understand if what you are seeing is a common thin on Martian ground or not.


The two rovers have dug up numerous sand minerals on Mars during their 7 year travel and Mossbauer had pressed numerous times onto Martian ground.
If they could do what you said, why were there no similar structures near the muscle cell/tissue? They would have produced numerous similar structures, whatever the structures were, along the way, on every site where microscopic images were taken. No chance.
I didn't say that did anything, I only said that what you are looking at is sand and that is print of the RAT (or, to be correct, the ring in front of the RAT). I don't know if there are other sites where they captured similar photos, I haven't looked for that, but now I will, although I do not exactly know what I should be looking for.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
To briefly reply, I have studied many images of minerals (weathered, chemically eroded, etc.) on the micron-level (search google images with "mineral SEM"), and none of the images resemble my Fig. 6/7. That means the structures were not geological in origin.

Second line of evidence lies in the black strips between/among each "muscle tissue--fascicle". Those strips form a patten unseen in minerals. Those strips in a muscle organ were actually connective tissues that wrap around/separate each muscle tissue. Those wrapping tissues form a pattern in a muscle organ. That pattern is not seen in minerals.

The following is another muscle organ/tissue imaged by rover with microscopic imager for your comparison:
www.wretch.cc...



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I am about to flagellate myself. How can so many who are supposed to be interested in alien life be so tied up with this story when threads like this
www.abovetopsecret.com...
are being sent into oblivion because they are maybe not controversial enough these days.



I despair. FWIW.

ETA: The title of thread I linked to should have included the fact that 1,000's DID witness. I am not derailing this topic, just be nice to see some commonsense shown. Somewhere, someplace, sometime.
edit on 25-4-2011 by annella because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2011 by annella because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 


Did you include loosened sand in your studies of images of minerals?

If you did, did you include Martian sand from the rover's photos?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Still using your own "wretched" blog as a source, eh?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Just want to point out to the OP'er that a limb IS made up of muscle and bone, so the thread title is as silly as the ' evidence' provided within.
Please get some help. From somewhere?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Please note there was no loosened sand in the figures, microscopic or panoramic, because the spot had been abraded by RAT before sol 1863. Any loosened sand kicked up by the wheel had been scraped clean by RAT.
NASA does not allow microscopic images to show loosened sand. The panoramic photo was taken after loosened sands were all brushed away.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by annella
 


So, you expect dead limbs to still have muscle and bone after 3 billion years. Your limb will not.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


"Are there any photos of fossilized cell/tissue structures to compare these with?"
No, not really. However, the following link shows a fossilized muscle fiber found in a turd:
www.wretch.cc...

The fiber was in longitudinal, rather than transverse, section.


edit on 25-4-2011 by linliangtai because: fixed link



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Please note there was no loosened sand in the figures, microscopic or panoramic, because the spot had been abraded by RAT before sol 1863.
I could not find any reference to the use of the RAT on that site (site 136), and using it on loosened sand would be a strange action, why would they brush (they could not grind it) sand?


Any loosened sand kicked up by the wheel had been scraped clean by RAT.
From what? When you brush a beach what do you get? More sand!


NASA does not allow microscopic images to show loosened sand.
Could you point to a reference to that rule? Thanks in advance.


The panoramic photo was taken after loosened sands were all brushed away.
You cannot brush away sand from sand. The rover was moving over sand, but because one of the wheels got stuck it dug the wheel in the sand. If they used the RAT to brush the sand it would show the results of the use of the high-speed brush that we can see in all places it was used.

A question, if you don't mind: did you ever saw a fossil in it's natural environment?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
NASA does not allow microscopic images to show loosened sand.
It looks like they do allow it.








Many times they use the RAT just to press the sand to get an idea of its consistency.

Edit: I was wrong, they do not limit the use of the RAT to rocks, they also used it on the ground, as seen in the following photos.


In a colour version you can see that the dust was scattered around the area, something we do not see on that other photo in which you say the sand was "dusted".


edit on 26/4/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Well, this geologist here says it's definitely a fossilised cross section of an alien leg! Clearly!

I had a look at this person's other pictures, I like the frog and mermaid lady one. There really is a rock that kind of looks like a frog. I've seen a lot of rocks, and sometimes they do look like things. In fact, I own a piece of malachite shaped like a penis. If I had it with me I'd take a picture of it and post it online as proof of an alien conspiracy, etc etc.

I'm actually impressed that someone would examine all these rover pictures looking for all the cool resemblances to things. Up the coast from where I used to live there was (and I assume still is) a volcanic plug that looks like a giant face. It's like seeing shapes in the clouds.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

The "muscle organ" measures only 5-6 millimeters across. Most sands are larger than that. Moreover, the "loose sand" of "muscle organ" contain orderly arrangement of " about 10 muscle fascicle tissues", each of which contained muscle fibers. Tell me what mineral could that be.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join