Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Most Interesting Mars Picture I've Come Across.

page: 16
234
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Helious
Nothing about that picture has anything to do with geology.

You do know that, even if the picture showed just an inch of ground, that would be geology, right?



Please provide me one picture from a natural rock here on Earth that is similar to this picture. Obviously, you have seen plenty of them to so casually dismiss it as completely normal geology so I would like to have a look as well!

OK, see if think these are close enough to the picture from Mars.
These are from the Death Valley.





Eureka Valley
Death Valley
Death Valley



The "material" looks the same? What do you base this on?

My eyes, what else could it be?


The thickness looks the same? As opposed to what, rocks sitting on soil? Huh? Either we are not looking at the same picture or I think you should qualify what you saying a bit more so I can follow you.

The apparent thickness of the "plank" looks the same as the apparent thickness of the other slab-like objects that look like petrified mud.


A: What material looks the same? You have a flat object that looks nothing like a rock, laying under a partial covering of dirt that has no discernible texture as compared to anything around it, other than it being covered in a loose covering of soil.

To me that flat object looks like the other flat objects around it, with a smooth upper surface covered in dust.


B: What about the shape does the rest of the landscape lead you to believe it is perfectly natural and normal where it is? What else do you see around it that leads you to believe it is not out of place since I'm fairly certain it looks intensely odd to 99% of the people that look at it.

All the other flat objects around it.


C: Thickness? The way it breaks? Thickness as compared to what exactly else in that picture are you basing that on? The way it breaks? It breaks like a piece of plywood coming off the surface of loose soil because it became partially unburied.

Compared with the other flat objects around it. The way it breaks is shown on the edges, and if you say that plywood breaks like that then I must ask you to show me a piece of plywood that was broken (not cut) and the broken edge looks like that.


Just saying bro, not trying to attack you or anything but to say that naturally blends in with the rest of the picture and the rest of the surrounding "geology" well...... Thats a little sketchy.

I'm not responsible for what other people think when they look at that picture, but I do know that, to me, all of that looks like natural geology, and not much different from what happens on Earth.


And just for the record, I'm almost posative they found Saddam hiding under one of these that probably looked just like that!

They found him on Mars?


PS: the photos from Earth may show more rounded edges because of water erosion. There are no signs of it on the Mars photos.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Ok, another strange anomaly, taken from the same drill site as the main OP pic, full link here:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



Doesn't section C look like a sculpted/carved baboons head?



Also, once again it's facing from the top right towards the bottom left of the picture. And are we expected to believe that there once was a miniature race on Mars, or are NASA being dishonest with the size ratio here?

This was the site where Curiosity made it's drilling debut, wonder why they picked here first?
edit on 26-1-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
There TRULY are tons of anomalies on mars ! And if the only authorities on ATS are skeptics it TRULY one of the biggest mistakes that ATS has ever done at ATS. I promise!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Perfect carved circle



Nice find.


As we have some photos from the right and left camera we can get a somewhat 3D version of those areas, and this rock is one of those cases.

I will try to make an anaglyph tomorrow.




Hoaglands theory on the same species being responsible for Mars and Pumu Punku is an interesting idea also

Responsible for what on Mars, rocks?


And it's Puma Punku.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Typo and you still knew where I meant



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Yes, but other people, seeing the name for the first time, would get the wrong idea.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
There TRULY are tons of anomalies on mars !


That's the thing... You are basically proving right here that the whole thing is an unhealthy dose of pareidolia. We don't see many reports from Arizona regarding "anomalies". There are some, but for some strange reason, you insist that Mars if full of them, while Arizona is not.

I've traveled a lot on foot through desert-like mountain terrain environment. You see amazing rocks there, some regular in shape as if machined, some having interesting colors. At no point I was compelled to think that all of this was due to some species leaving artifacts behind. Somehow, when a pic comes from Mars, every curious looking rock is interpreted as a part of hyperspace drive or a statue of Martian goddess. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Yes, but other people, seeing the name for the first time, would get the wrong idea.


P-U-M-A P-U-N-K-U



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wulff

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Great finds. The picture that shows panel on ground no way is that natural just no way. If thats a real Mars picture then all i can say is you have shown definitive proof of an artifical object on Mars and therefore strong circumstantial evidence that Nasa is lying at point blank to the taxpayers who fund them.
edit on 24-1-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)


Well they already pulled off the biggest hoax of the 20th century when they said man had gone to the Moon, so to pull off another hoax is just a walk in the park for them.


Oh come on, don't start with that "we didn't go to the moon" crap on this interesting thread, once the pictures showing the sites with the astronauts foot prints should have shut up every uneducated 'scientist' on the planet! As was stated before, if it was faked to what purpose? To beat the Russians, right? So, why would they do it more than once and take a chance on getting caught?
Get OVER IT, we went to the Moon... Nasa hides stuff from us (like WHY they risked so much to go to the moon) but please, please don't get started on this!
This thread is about strange shapes found on Mars.. the OP said NOTHING about cover-ups!! Enough said!


Dont know what photos of Astronauts footprints you are referring to but you obviously swallowed their hoax, hook, line and sinker! So where is your proof that they actually went to the Moon then?
The so called "Moonrocks" they brought back?...They were found in Antartica, just like the Martian Meteorites were.
How do you explain the obvious fill lighting in many of the official NASA Apollo pics when the only light source available was the Sun?
How do you explain the doctored reflections in the Astronauts visors that show incorrectly placed reflections of the horizon for the camera angles?
How do you explain how the LM's rocket plume didn't leave a single mark in the dust under the LM when in reality it would have blasted a crater under it?
Explain how the LM's undercarriage remained totally clean and pristine when in reality it would look dirty and coated with both melted and unmelted moon dust blasted out by the rocket plume?
In fact, why dont you try and explain how NASA managed to get any photos back in the first place, especially ones in such good condition when radiation fogs film and the basically standard unshieided Hasselblad cameras used would have been continuously exposed to the Solar wind, Solar X-rays and Gamma rays for the entire period they were outside the LM on the Moon?
I wont hold my breath!
edit on 26-1-2013 by ProfessorAlfB because: a



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 



Originally posted by magma
What's up the attitudes in this thread.

I think op has done a good job in bringing some intersting photos for us a to have a look at.

Why are people so highly strung....


We're on a conspiracy site where 'out there' fringe topics are frequently discussed, skepticism is needed but total head in the sand denial is not.
The OP has put in the hard yards, spending hours sifting through a library of photos which I'm sure most people couldn't be botherd to do, I'm just completly amazed at some of the people here in absolute denial and going straight for the 'it's a rock' conslusion.

What if it's at a base of a river bed?
What if there's fossils around it ?
What if it's something else, something that cannot be replicated, and something that could lead to more questions?

I rarely see skeps accept the 'what if' theory.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by crackerjack
reply to post by magma
 



Originally posted by magma
What's up the attitudes in this thread.

I think op has done a good job in bringing some intersting photos for us a to have a look at.

Why are people so highly strung....


We're on a conspiracy site where 'out there' fringe topics are frequently discussed, skepticism is needed but total head in the sand denial is not.
The OP has put in the hard yards, spending hours sifting through a library of photos which I'm sure most people couldn't be botherd to do, I'm just completly amazed at some of the people here in absolute denial and going straight for the 'it's a rock' conslusion.

What if it's at a base of a river bed?
What if there's fossils around it ?
What if it's something else, something that cannot be replicated, and something that could lead to more questions?

I rarely see skeps accept the 'what if' theory.



What if the moon really is made of cheese. Accept the what if!!! Why would anyone in their right mind accept a what if? This is how it works for normal rational people. Evidence is presented. Evidence is evaluated. The simple explanation is found. If no simple explanation is found, you then move on to less and less simple explanations until the answer is found.

You hear a crash and run into the kitchen. You see your brother standing on a chair in front of the counter where the cookie jar was, holding a cookie in one hand, and the cookie jar broken on the floor. Do you think man my brother broke the jar reaching up for a cookie, or do you think aliens from the planet Snorg shot a laser beam at the cookie jar and broke it just as your brother was taking the cookie out? Come on man, ACCEPT the what if!!


What if it's at a base of a river bed?

What if it was? Water has been gone for far too long. Mars can not support life. Any actual archaelogy even if it was possible to have existed would be buried. The what if is meaningless.

What if there's fossils around it ?

There aren't. So who cares about the what if, it's meaningless.

What if it's something else, something that cannot be replicated, and something that could lead to more questions?

It can be replicated. They are rocks. Plenty of rocks on Earth that look like something else. So the what if is meaningless.

What ifs are great for fantasy land, they have no place in science or reality. Solutions with less and less probablility do. You work from the solutions with the greatest probability first, you do not jump to the least probable solutions.
edit on 27-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Hey ArMap:

What do you make of these smooth cylindrical-looking rocks? I count 3 or so. I am especially curious about the one that is at the bottom-center of the image (using the scroll bar):



Sol 164 - MastCam 100.
edit on 1/27/2013 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by magma

What if it's at a base of a river bed?
What if it was? Water has been gone for far too long. Mars can not support life. Any actual archaelogy even if it was possible to have existed would be buried. The what if is meaningless.


What if there's fossils around it ?
There aren't. So who cares about the what if, it's meaningless.

Meaningless ??? Could you please explain why such things are 'meaningless' ? I don't think it's meaningless as do alot of other members, that's why we're on here expanding our minds.

Regards,
Crackerjack.


edit on 27-1-2013 by crackerjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I truly believe there is a lot more to Mars than most people would like to admit and/or believe.

So, for all you critics and debunkers...” do you believe there is life in our galaxy that may or may not be more intelligent than our own”? If you say yes, how can you easily say there isn’t anything on Mars that would indicate life? Is it because NASA told you so, or are you scared and in denial that maybe there is something out there other than us?

If you are scared, than that’s ok! It’s quite the mouthful to take in.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
What do you make of these smooth cylindrical-looking rocks?

I noticed at least one of those in the image from the opening post.

I think the most likely is that they were formed by accretion of mud or other material while they were rolled along the ground, either by water or other liquid (although that would make it harder to get more material, as it would be wet and wouldn't get glued that easily to the forming cylinder) or by wind (which is not very likely with today's Martian atmosphere, as it's too thin to move anything heavier than those minuscule sand particles).



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by crackerjack
What if it's at a base of a river bed?

One of the reasons for the choosing of this place to land Curiosity was the fact that everything pointed to a "wet past", probably as a large lake.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
So, for all you critics and debunkers...” do you believe there is life in our galaxy that may or may not be more intelligent than our own”?

I believe that's highly likely, but, as all other beliefs, it's not based on real facts.


If you say yes, how can you easily say there isn’t anything on Mars that would indicate life?

Because I haven't seen any in all of the thousands of photos I have seen. Neither signs of present or past life.


If you are scared, than that’s ok! It’s quite the mouthful to take in.

I'm not scared of anything.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Perfect carved circle


Hoaglands theory on the same species being responsible for Mars and Pumu Punku is an interesting idea also
edit on 25-1-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


It looks to me to be more likely a fossil as the channel it is found just off of sure looks like it carried running water at some point but obviously that is superficial speculation.


You are correct, it could well be a fossil...Considering that Ancient life has ALREADY been found on Mars!
Remember the worm like bacterium/s found in that Martian meteorite that was found in Antarctica?
Strange how that news seems to have been swept under the carpet!:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Oh and BTW, did noone else here notice the dead leaves and that twig under the large overhanging rock on the left of frame of the original pic?...Bit of a give away, dont you think?
edit on 27-1-2013 by ProfessorAlfB
edit on 27-1-2013 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Remember the worm like bacterium/s found in that Martian meteorite that was found in Antarctica?
Strange how that news seems to have been swept under the carpet!


That's because it has never been conclusively proven that those are organism fossils. en.wikipedia.org...

"The scientific consensus is that morphology alone cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection. Interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation."

We don't even know that organisms of such small size (nanobacterium) can really exist. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
that cube is a little strange, quite shinny as well





new topics

top topics



 
234
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join