Rover spots the 'new thing' on Mars

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Yes, we do have buildings in Portugal, our economy is not that bad.

Now, if you guys really want to start a debate, take a look at this infamous photo the rover Oppurtunity snapped years back. It was taken off a rock outcrop from a potential old seafloor.



One of the fringe guys out there, Richard Hoagland (a big proponent of the "Face on Mars") that I try to stay away from, has been harping about this photo for years. I have to admit, he has an interesting point regarding this photo. He claims it's a fossilized crinoid - an old saltwater plant that grows on the seafloor.

Here's a picture for comparison -



Thoughts???

For those of you interested, he proceeds to come up with an explanation for the "blueberries", yet I'm not buying it. Here's the full page. This guy is out there, I'm warning you.

www.enterprisemission.com...

reply to post by Gorman91



This one's for you.
I borrowed it from here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lost Civilization Discovered in Sahara Desert

Just look at those photos.
I guarantee if you hadn't been told what they were you'd have droned on and on about them being natural formations.

Originally posted by dtrock78
Thoughts???

I never saw that thing on the rover photo as a fossil, to me it looks more like the "castles" I liked to build with very wet sand (it was more water with sand than anything else) on the beach, when I was some 8 years old.

Also, it doesn't look like any of the fossils I have seen, in which the fossil itself is slightly different from the surrounding matter, as in the photo you posted.

Another thing, fossils tend to appear in relatively large areas, so a lone fossil is not as common (as far as I know) as an area full of fossils.

The problem with the 'artificial' theory is that if these rocks are 'remains' you would expect to see them everywhere.

Or did the aliens build just one small wall on a huge empty expanse?

reply to post by thepresenttense



there just might be more interesting things in the southern hemisphere

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Well obviously that one little fossil didn't need a whole city for a house.

reply to post by ArMaP


haha sorry i came in on the end of that conversation ! thx for clearing that up mate.
2nd

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

Yes, we do have buildings in Portugal, our economy is not that bad.

Whereabouts are you in Portugal?
I spent the summer working in the bush near Tavira years back.
I was much impressed with White Port (I hadn't tried it before) but I generally lived on vinha de mesa branco (if that's how it's spelt). The cheap stuff that comes in caraffes

Originally posted by Aestheteka
Whereabouts are you in Portugal?

Almada, on the left bank of the Tagus river, right in front of Lisbon.

I was much impressed with White Port (I hadn't tried it before) but I generally lived on vinha de mesa branco (if that's how it's spelt). The cheap stuff that comes in caraffes

It's vinho (wine) de mesa branco, "vinha" mean vineyard.

To try to make this a little more on topic, if Portugal was in Mars, it would be in the Cydonia region.

I don't see what's so special about an apparent natural layer of rocks.
Early on (in the landing crater) this photograph didn't cause a stir and if you ask me it would be more likely (although it's not) to look like it was built by intelligent beings.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Check out the rocks on the left side, they are almost square!
I can see why Nasa didn't get excited about these latest images!

reply to post by Aestheteka


no, because they are clearly artificial in plan, with an orientation to the sun and wind patterns. All data points to it. Though clearly, this is no more advanced than a few savages were capable of. It's not some lost Egypt, like people claim of some parts of Mars. So you're playing with apples and oranges here.

You cannot do the same to a simple picture from space.

reply to post by Gorman91


And you can tell that from the top two photos, can you?
When did you have your bionic implants fitted?
Pull the other one.

reply to post by Aestheteka

Pull the other one.

OK but...then, who will be left "upstanding"?

I think I get "Gorman's" point, regarding the improbability (if this was the point....it certainly is mine, and it seems....many others') that assigning the limited view photos obtained from the Rovers on Mars, absent a full ability to properly investigate and excavate and otherwise assess the site means .... it is a huge jump, or incredible proportions, to a "Human" or even "Human-simulacrum" .... or any other extension of some sort of intelligent, sentient, tool-using species having existed on Mars......

...so as to have left ancient "artifacts" that are tangentially similar to what the science of archaeology on Earth might compare. Especially since, here on Earth, there are many, many other factors involved....not the least, that we KNOW Humans exist, as tool-makers and builders.


Point is, based on many (admittedly) preliminary scientific observations of Mars, so far (all robotic, and limited in nature of course)....there is a very strong consensus that the planet of Mars did not possess a biosphere that was viable and conducive to the long-term evolution of complex biological organisms......not in the very, very long-term time frames as were present here on Earth.

In other words....a sufficiently dense atmosphere of gases to allow liquid water to exist on the surface was very short-lived, and did not allow the sort of progression of life as is generally accepted to have occurred here on Earth.

A way to say it is.....Mars likely "died" billions of years ago. On the surface, at least. Or, perhaps, benefit of some doubts, it was only a few dozen million years ago? In either case, the biosphere that Earth currently enjoys (and has enjoyed for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years) on its surface has been possible because of many factors.....the atmosphere, and the magnetic field which helps to protect the biota from the damaging cosmic radiation that is ever present, in space....over the very long term.


Mars, whist certainly in what is been called the "Goldilocks Zone" in terms of its orbital distance from our Sun, and thus a potential candidate planet for viability of life "As We Know It" is, unfortunately, just not the same as Earth....lesser mass means that it evolved differently. The inner structure of its layers, and whether or not it has a molten iron core, will also be of interest, to understand its lack of a strong (compared to Earth's) magnetic field....

....Et cetera......

( I could link sources, but there are so many.....it is worth the personal journey of scientific discovery, and the satisfaction that that will provide, to embark on that journey......)

reply to post by Aestheteka


of course not. But I can from the aerial ones. Of course, if I had some actual high quality images on the ground, maybe I could see. But I can't, because you sent me poo-quality surface images.

The aerial one though you can tell.

To link it back to this thread, these are not civilizations, these are more likely fossils. There's all the evidence in the world that Mars had life, and maybe still does. But to assume that means civilization is nothing short of silly.

reply to post by Gorman91


Aha! But those 'poo-grade' photos were what were officially released concerning the evidence for the extinct Saharan civilization (we'll ignore the ground radar/areial geodesics ones otherwise I'll start introducing similar footage from Mars...).
We, (you, I, and the rest of the great unwashed) are only privy to similar poo-grade images from Mars, such as the bricks - although that was a lot better than the Saharan stuff. We are unable to state either way whether such formations are artifical or natural.

Come on, bend a little.
You don't KNOW that there wasn't a civilization on Mars. You have no proof whatsoever that there wasn't, only conjecture based on what NASA has told you.
Damn it, I know I said I wouldn't, but - Mars Inca City





And if you really believe the moon is what we're told it is....

NASA moon rock sting nabs terrified granny

reply to post by Aestheteka


Your problem emerges on the first moment of mentioning satellite photos of Mars. Nothing seems to look like civilization yet. In fact, I've not yet even seen someone try to approximate scale and location of site nor anything really that sophisticated. Have the stuff I see is usually things that would be underwater back when Mars had water.

We, (you, I, and the rest of the great unwashed) are only privy to similar poo-grade images from Mars, such as the bricks - although that was a lot better than the Saharan stuff. We are unable to state either way whether such formations are artifical or natural.

Untrue. I get always-updating quality images right out of google Earth. Quality images that are good enough to see the rovers on. The one I just viewed to see what scale it is at is 82 cm. IE, something a mere 32 inches would be visible. So good that I think I spotted what might have been one of the failed USSR probes to first land on the surface a few months back. Have to make a post about that, now that I recall.

Any thought of your so-called poo quality images is nothing more and nothing less than your own laziness to go find it. Here's a screen shot of the sheer volume of images I have at my disposal.

img210.imageshack.us...

You don't KNOW that there wasn't a civilization on Mars. You have no proof whatsoever that there wasn't, only conjecture based on what NASA has told you.

And secrets rarely stay put. Those that believe that the government is like a god, able to control everything, are nothing short of delusional. If he government could have that sort of efficiency and results, we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Simply put, secrets never really exist. They come out some way.




As for the Incan city, why do you consider this proof of civilizations? Looks closer to an impact marker. Let's go have a look of scale, considering you clearly didn't do your homework.

I put the image through Adobe illustrator. Data says the image is 117.8 x 117.94 KM. Scaling down a line drawn on the vertical side, I reduced it to the size of one of those squares. The biggest one on the right side is 3.678 km in the vertical axis, or 2.3 miles. This would place the whole complex on a diameter of 50 miles

50 miles of a city.....


Do you have any idea how utterly silly that sounds? You are telling me that a civilization, one that died, built a city on a diameter half the size of long island, with buildings miles in scale? with no clear and visible roads?

I mean, do you understand how silly that sounds?


How about you go look at some flipping hi res images of the site in question, and see how clearly not a city it is. Hell even Nasa uses the popular title as inca city. Clearly though, it's just sand dunes. But hey, even I admit it looks like plants down there. No civilization though.


www.uahirise.org...

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

viewer.mars.asu.edu...



Some city, eh?

Like I said. Do you're own homework. HD images exist, you're just being lazy.



Now as to the monolith, I could consider that evidence. But not as life from Mars. Simply something passing by, leaving a monument for others to see.

reply to post by Aestheteka


Oh my gosh!!!!

You fell for this video???:

Oh dear, oh dear.....just listening to the soundtrack, as it begins? It's like what every experienced pilot (like myself) thinks every time a very, very poorly done Hollywood movie tries to depict the "reality" of air-to-ground, or air-to-air radio-communication procedures and dialog. (Or, "dialogue" for other speakers of the English....)

THAT YouTube video, when it opens, and listening to the soundtrack??? Total, TOTAL BS!!!

It was dubbed in, that opening bit.....and, then when it did the seque to Aldrin's interview??? Completely took his points raised out of context!!!

That video is a hash job, and a joke.

reply to post by Gorman91


So you are suggesting that an alien civilization would work to the same scale as a human one?
Genrally, 'gods' from various world mythologies tend to be 'giants'

Tracks on Mars.

More tracks:

reply to post by Gorman91


Here are a few more anomalies which suggest both life and civilization on Mars:

Doorway structure

Timber!!!!