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.

 

Mars Concepcion' Crater Anomalies. An Intelligent Designed Object and A Skull

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
To be quite frank, had you not circled the formations in question I would not have seen any signs of an "intelligently designed skull" or face. In fact, I even pulled up the larger, original, photo and couldn't even find what you were talking about without cross-checking the cropped photos you put circles around numerous times. Even still, I can't see that face that you're talking about, even with it being circled.

I do think it is quite a stretch to state that these were intelligently designed; however, I'm not here to argue whether or not there may have been intelligent life on Mars at one point or another in the past. But, it's knee-jerking reactions like these ones that really debilitate the argument for possible intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, be it now or in the past. It's simply more fodder for debunkers to laugh at those of us who know sentient life forms exist elsewhere other than Earth, painting a picture that every shred of "evidence" we find is bunk, such as this.

All I can say is, at least you obviously have an open mind and are on the lookout for the truth
You will find it one of these days.




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I do no waste time on on pondering whether or on there is other Life in the Universe....or in the way things really are...to our limited mental capabilities....Multiverse.

I do not ponder because I know there is life out there and perhaps in all the crevises and in betweens. I KNOW. What I do not know....as pertains to this topic....how long did life exist on Mars. Some may think my statement is a jump to a foregone conclusion without data....but I run in a quasi-state differencial of so called social circles.

Reguardless of what Ultra-conspiracy buffs may think....neither the Super Rich or the Masons....well except one of them....or even the President of the United States....has a real understanding of what is really known....and this is by design.

So....when you see a project getting cancelled to gather this data or furnish these samples from whatever planet or body....don't get upset that is got cancelled....Get upset that they spent a lot of money BEFORE they cancelled.....a project ot probe to collect data about something we already know. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by duhdiggitydan
To be quite frank, had you not circled the formations in question I would not have seen any signs of an "intelligently designed skull" or face. In fact, I even pulled up the larger, original, photo and couldn't even find what you were talking about without cross-checking the cropped photos you put circles around numerous times. Even still, I can't see that face that you're talking about, even with it being circled.

I do think it is quite a stretch to state that these were intelligently designed; however, I'm not here to argue whether or not there may have been intelligent life on Mars at one point or another in the past. But, it's knee-jerking reactions like these ones that really debilitate the argument for possible intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, be it now or in the past. It's simply more fodder for debunkers to laugh at those of us who know sentient life forms exist elsewhere other than Earth, painting a picture that every shred of "evidence" we find is bunk, such as this.

All I can say is, at least you obviously have an open mind and are on the lookout for the truth
You will find it one of these days.

................................................................................................
Hello duhdigg, thanks for the comments, and you did have a bit to say! I would say if you can't see the skull, and you can't see the other fancy design feature, then "somewhere Houston, we have a problem". These objects are not hidden, and are very visible. Really clear that neither involves rock, except the fancy designed piece is laying on a rock. But the debunkers do get to have their say, regardless of the finite detail of the post, but that just doesn't change the OP!!!


My "face comment" was simply talking about the eyes, nose and mouth of the skull.

If we let the debunker crowd's comments have any influence on what we do relative to our research of anomalies, and reporting, then we will waste a lot of time. The debunkers will exist until all of the "truth" is revealed, so, their debunking acts may be short-lived, if all of us can continue to work for the full release of that truth!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rdunk
 


Just wondering if you've thought this through with total logic, yet?

Has it ever occurred to you that if, and that's a big if...there was indeed a "skull", and/or some "technological device" in the Rover Opportunity photographs....do you honestly think that:

A) The photos would have been released to the public? Or (and);

B) In the case of actually being 'true' (doubtful, for reason 'A' above), then wouldn't NASA have trumpeted this sort of find loudly and clearly? This would have been an impetus for a tremendous boost in funding for the agency, and would have the best news they could ever hope to find, and report, in order to spur more missions, to include renewed manned mission interest.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

......................................................................................................

Hey ProudBird, logic has nothing to do with these and most anomalies. They either are, or they are not. Has nothing to do with the what and whys of the anomalies being there. Every real anomaly that you see in a NASA photo, is one that got through the screen. NASA/ASU/JPL or whoever, they just have common people doing their work, and are just as subject to miss something the automatic smoothing programs might have missed, as researchers are, at being unlikely to find what was missed. Works both ways. Those people are just there to get that government paycheck, like everyone else. Besides that,you don't just take a quick look at a Mars photo, and "really see" what is there in the first place. One can look at a photo multiple times, and not see all there is to see, even including proper magnification.

They miss them, because we find them. We also find a lot of stuff they did find, and they have tampered with it to the point of non-recognition. Some of the Mars photos even show rocks with numbers on them. Only can assume that is some type of NASA doings!!

Of course, this question gets raised all of the time, as a common debunking philosophy approach, in an attempt to "juggling a poster to see the debunking light". Nope, logic won't cut it!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdunk
reply to post by ProudBird
 

......................................................................................................

Hey ProudBird, logic has nothing to do with these and most anomalies. They either are, or they are not. Has nothing to do with the what and whys of the anomalies being there. Every real anomaly that you see in a NASA photo, is one that got through the screen. NASA/ASU/JPL or whoever, they just have common people doing their work, and are just as subject to miss something the automatic smoothing programs might have missed, as researchers are, at being unlikely to find what was missed. Works both ways. Those people are just there to get that government paycheck, like everyone else. Besides that,you don't just take a quick look at a Mars photo, and "really see" what is there in the first place. One can look at a photo multiple times, and not see all there is to see, even including proper magnification.

They miss them, because we find them. We also find a lot of stuff they did find, and they have tampered with it to the point of non-recognition. Some of the Mars photos even show rocks with numbers on them. Only can assume that is some type of NASA doings!!

Of course, this question gets raised all of the time, as a common debunking philosophy approach, in an attempt to "juggling a poster to see the debunking light". Nope, logic won't cut it!



The typical conspiracy quote NASA this, JPL that, if they really wanted to hide things guess what they wouldn't release the image yes it's that simple.

You think its just common people working on images
what are you?

I will have a guess you are some young guy late teens maybe early twenties who thinks he is onto something and that you are great with images.

Well some of the people who are replying to your posts (arianna's posts, arken's post and a few others on here) are either professional , semi -professional or very keen amatuer PHOTOGRAPHERS we have seen post like yours for years on this site and others!

Myself I am old enough to have watched Apollo landings from 11-17 on tv , the face on mars when first shown on tv and to have used a manual SLR camera ie film not digital, manual focus and exposure and to have developed and print my own pictures things that a lot of image posters on here DONT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT!

Here is a typical example

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Image caught on a webcam the OP doesn't understand how the things works re exposure times and objects speed gets confused and we end up with another failed ufo post.

You do exactly the same with rocks here is a another example.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read through that thread the floating object is a good example of people on here being confused by what THEY THINK they see!

So far rdunk you have NOTHING NEW!
edit on 8-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rdunk
 


Oh dear......


They miss them, because we find them.


A bit of an exaggeration, dontcha think?

In case I wasn't clear before.....IF a photo showed anything of the sort that some keyboard warriors out there think they have "found"? Well, IF it was not supposed to be public (as if there was a real "conspiracy" of some sort to conceal this info), then.....it would never have made it out to be viewed by the public!

Ergo: It IS viewable, and there is no accompanying NASA press release to shout "We Found A Skull On Mars!"....so, logically, it's just a rock. Admittedly, a very interesting specimen of Nature, and erosion, but still just a geologic (or, "areologic", for Mars) formation.



Some of the Mars photos even show rocks with numbers on them.


Oh dear (again). That last claim, well....I'd be embarrassed to write that, frankly.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
NASA does on occasion...screw up....as far as cover stories for when actual E.T. craft come within close proximity to either the shuttle or the ISS. All Astronauts have been briefed and procedure and protocol is welded into their brain.

The only time you hear a former astronaut talk about the realities of E.T. is as they get very old and figure they want to get it off their chest before they die.

people like Cooper and Mitchell.....if they had any vested interest in either still working in space or needed a job in an Aerospace co.....would never say anything.

But here is the real way to see that they know E.T.is known by them and NASA....ask them a question at a book signing......or ask higher ups who were once Astronauts but still run programs....say Crippen. Ask and look in their eyes....you will get your answer. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

........................................................................................................
wmd_2008, I feel so sorry for you.You are such a skeptical debunker, replying to your comments is a worthless gesture. But in this case, I am going to make a comment, to show you, and everyone else, just how wrong you are here, as are you wrong with most all of your comments that I see.
...................................................................................................................................................
wmd_2008 Quote: "I will have a guess you are some young guy late teens maybe early twenties who thinks he is onto something and that you are great with images".
...................................................................................................................................

* First, my guess is you don't really mean that anyway - just another debunking tool, trying to get under someone's skin, which I have seen you use before - won't work with me, nor hopefully anyone else here anymore.

* Secondly, your "guess' is just pitifully wrong! Monty Stratton (subject of the movie "The Stratton Story", staring James Stewart and June Allison) was my Little League baseball coach for three years, starting in 1951. So add'em up!!

* Thirdly, you descend from trying to guess my age, to trying to analyze what I think and how I think. You are really grasping at straws in trying to get a debunking toehold with me and these anomalies.

I tell you straight Wmd, you might as well move on, because nothing , and I mean nothing you say to debunk, will I ever consider seriously, nor pay any attention to. And that is meant, to be, regardless of whether you are debunking my posts, or someone else's post.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well struck a nerve have I, you could claim to be that old but the truth is I will never know for sure but lets have a little look at your claim I cant debunk anything.Well lets look at this post from another guy like yourself who cant look at images and see what's really there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He posted this picture claiming this (white) rock in the background was floating above the surface




So I said

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Arken
 

Nice theory about the floating object its a pity the shadow doesn't back it up, the light is from right to left what you think is its shadow would not be directly below it!
That's the shadow of the terrain closer to the camera than that object take another look!

This is what he came back with later in the thread.

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

This like a deflector... closed

And when open cast shadow underneath the object


BUT of course if he actually had a clue about what he was looking at this is what it really looks like. Rock is located about 1/3 from right side and halfway up the image.



Another problem you have in common is you dont get the highest resloution images to work with or you zoom to much and destroy what detail was there!

As you can see the white rock is in the distance with another rock in the same line of site closer to the camera.

You see you have a lot in common with (him) and others on here you think you see things but what you think you see is NOT what is actually there, now if you are as old as you claim it may be your eyes aren't as good as they were, but you are only here a few days none of your stuff is new but more importantly it's NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS EITHER!

So I will continue to look at your threads just for a
and to see if you ever manage to IDENTIFY something correctly!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Hi your skull doesn't look quite the same from another angle!!!




From the OP



Now where is that horse

edit on 9-12-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Nature makes straight lines in rocks, I really wish we would find something I do but it's like looking at the clouds and making images our brain does it.here look at the giants causeway


The giants causeway is a unique form of basalt that cools into hexagonal columns The rock in the area where the blueberries are is sedimentary,,, formed under water. The blue berries are hematite nodules and are all over the place up there. Sedimentary rock cleaves in layers and is brittle (sandstone, shale) It is not known to break into squares or rectangles though on occasion limestone can. There is no limestone in that area

What I find REALLY interesting is the link the OP provided as source,,,

What I find interesting is this statement from NASA

Mars Rover Examines Odd Material at Small, Young Crater

Weird coatings....


Weird coatings on rocks beside a young Martian crater remain puzzling after a preliminary look at data from examination of the site by NASA's Opportunity rover.


Confirmation that the "Blue berries" were named after muffins...


soft, sulfate-rich sandstone holding harder peppercorn-size dark spheres like berries in a muffin. The little spheres, rich in iron, gained the nickname "blueberries."


Coated rocks with the fractures filled in...



"There's dark, grayish material coating faces of the rocks and filling fractures in them. At least part of it is composed of blueberries jammed together as close as you could pack them. We've never seen anything like this before."


marsrover.nasa.gov...

Now see? had the OP not posted that skull picture and had you not pointed me to it, I would never have seen this really cool article from NASA on weird stuff on Mars that even THEY cannot explain...

They further state...


Opportunity used tools on its robotic arm to examine this unusual material on a rock called "Chocolate Hills." In some places, the layer of closely packed spheres lies between thinner, smoother layers. "It looks like a blueberry sandwich," said Matt Golombek, a rover science-team member at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,


A chocolate and blueberry sandwich
Gotta love those NASA scientists... they provide so much entertainment


So NASA confirms what I said about it being sandstone... which does not tend to break into smooth blocks with 90% corners, So when I see 'rocks that have 90% angles, odd notches right next to ones that show curves and symmetrical markings I want to study them like these from his other thread



To me a lot of pieces on mars look like bits and pieces of ancient shattered and scattered building



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I CANNOT WAIT to see what the newest Mars "Observer" will send to us.

Of course, I mean the "Curiosity" lander.

Can't wait.....(did I say that already??):

Mars Curiosity Lander

BUT, when we Humans actually go to Mars? I vote for this spot, as a best place to land first:

en.wikipedia.org...

Because, due to the depth and thus the atmospheric pressure.....it is "feasible" that a Human could survive, on the surface, and only with the oxygen supplementation...on the surface, and without full pressure suits.

This is plausible.....or, even WITH pressure suits, but not nearly as sophisticated as a full-on vacuum pressure suit.

This is BIG, BIG BIG people!!!! Presuming of course, we actually get there (to Mars) in the first place.

I VOTE for a mission to Hellas Planitia!!!!


edit on Mon 12 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join