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.

 

Fossilized Spines and Vertebrae of Big Creatures in Curiosity Sol 109!

page: 12
319
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Labrador Retriever
 


How could it?

Fossils are rocks!

So, both those arguing that these are fossils and those that are arguing they are rocks could be equally correct.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
And then there are those who think that Curiosity is not getting the best of us... or one do still live as caveman and never think outside the box..



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
IM from Texas,and i know bones ,when i see one...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Alright, before the news media arrives in force and Arken is given ticker tape parades in New York, Paris, and Moscow, how about the pic with the "skull and teeth"? That's really a fun one, just lying there with teeth. Has anyone zoomed in on that or have any thoughts? This thread is going all ga ga over the "find" of the "spinal column", so I want to know if the "skull and teeth" are just illusions or could be as fun as the Spinal Tap pic.

EDIT: And Arken, just for the record, why don't you go into a full explanation about the colouring you did on the pics? The yellowing. Just to explain it so people can't pick on that to discount any of this (I'm not saying these are fossils, but in the one in five hundred chance they are, this is a historic thread and, if that occurs, before it gets wider coverage I for two think you should put out full disclosure on the tinting. Thanks.)

edit on 19-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Labrador Retriever
 



Could Curiosity's instruments discern the difference between a rock and a fossil?


I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure they could use this


ChemCam is Curiosity’s coolest bit of science gear, shooting laser beams that deliver a million watts of power for about five one-billionths of a second. The rover analyzes the resulting glowing plasma to determine what elements and molecules make up its target.


ChemCam

I'd guess that they didn't find the visual likeness to a spine interesting enough to wander over and sample it.

If they sampled everything that had some likeness to a fossil, they wouldn't have time to do anything else.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I replied to your post because after about a half hour of reading all the posts in this thread, "I had a thought", and then I came to page 10 and there it was, your comment about taking this to the MSM, that was incredible because thats was I was thinking, thats been happening a lot lately.



I want to thank Arken for his persistence, if we didn't have people like him then we may never see threads like this, Thanks Arken.


I love reading all the threads about MARS, I've seen so many strange things in the pictures that I've lost count, I believe that NASA goes to certain places to explore NOT because they think that something is there, but because they KNOW something is there.



I will send the link to this thread to a few news stations and see if I get a response, maybe something good will come of this.




Peace



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The only thing I would like to point out is that as I look through countless pictures of dry lake beds from right here on earth, I fail to see any water creatures sticking their bones out of the dirt. Instead all I see is cracked earth. When lakes dry up here on earth due to climatic patterns I'd assume those that died from it drying up would be on top and the first to decompose and disappear. Why would this be any different on Mars? Wouldn't shellfish be the most noticable fossil on the lake bed? Why would a Mars Dino be sticking out in multiple places? It just doesn't make sense nor does it feel right. I understand the climate is different, but how different was it when Mars began it's death spiral? And regardless of that how much difference would we see in the fossilization of Mars creatures vs. Earth creatures?

I'm leaning towards not real bones......



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba
reply to post by lambchop
 


Well, what's needed for fossilization?

1)The organism must be buried quickly. For this to happen, the organism normally must die in abnormal conditions such as in a flood, volcano eruption or an earthquake. Otherwise it is near impossible for an animal to be preserved;

2)The organism must be kept from normal decay. If the animal is exposed to oxygen or bacteria, they will quickly start to decay;

3)The organism must be buried in matter that is leached with mineral-rich waters where carbonates are precipitating. These minerals will replace the original tissue, so that a stone remains in the shape of the original tissue.

Also, too many naysayers are just saying "I'm afraid they're just rocks..." How do you know? Give me one solid reason why you think that. Case in point:

Alligator Coprolite fossils

If these were shot on Mars, all the rocktards would naturally be shouting the same thing. If you want to prove they're NOT rocks, give a good reason. There are plenty of explanations/pictures so far to support the possibility of fossilization, but nothing but nonsensical posts arguing the negative.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)


There was an archaeologist, or 'rocktard' to you, on earlier with the opinion that these are not fossils.

Apart from that there doesn't seem to be anything more convincing in this entire thread.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Quite easily. Interested parties can link this thread to both NASA and their local News Agencies, just as I suggested, and if it is deemed important enough to warrant further investigation, NASA can do so.

Were you genuinely curious about how we can take the investigation farther or are you just using my post to make a "point", that very few people here seem to agree with?

Like many others have said, I am usually firmly in the "it's a rock" camp, but not this time. Those pics look enough like fossils to warrant further investigation, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Looks like a bunch of rocks and by colorizing them gives he alusion of something more.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Arken,

Awesome find and great thread!

It's about time we find something along the lines as this. I sure hope its confirmed they are indeed bones.


People need to know this is not the only inhabitable place for life. Some of us need more proof than others as common sense just won't do. lol



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Wow....nice work on these photos...I am sure those skeptics will cry rocks rocks rocks!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Like many others have said, I am usually firmly in the "it's a rock" camp, but not this time. Those pics look enough like fossils to warrant further investigation, in my opinion.


They "look enough", but where's the logic. I just don't understand that we think the dead giveaway for Mars harboring life or once harbored life is the remainents of Dinomaurs.....

The rocks look unusual sure, but to have so many bones sticking out of the ground and all being animal bones? The only way I could see that is as someone stated earlier, died from a abnormal event like a serious earthquake coupled with some serious liquifaction to quickly bury them. Then millions of years later some supermassive F10 DustDevil came through and swept the dirt away and exposed these sneaky little creatures. Unlikely. The most likely explanation is some type of unique weather pattern/event due to thin atmosphere and other oddities that cause unique and different types of erosion.

I am typically a firm believer of the fantastical but I just can't get past the common sense test here. You know, if it looks like a rock then it's probably a rock.

No offense to the OP, in fact I love these threads but I think we are taking a very, very big leap here.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 


Happens here on Earth all the time. See the OP for examples.

The "leap" I see here is that assuming a fossil with a spinal column must be "dinosaur" bones. Did you deduce that yourself?
edit on 19-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 

To all the skeptics, atheists, and non believers alike....I really believe that Gen 1:1 should be about God creating the Heaven and the Earthssssssssss. Finding life on Mars or the dark side of the moon would only be more proof of life, not denying the Bible is wrong in any way....Only the elitists in the highest areas of most organizations as ell as religions would deny these "bones" on Mars for fear of loosing the only grip they have on their flocks



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
knowing NASA they never will make statements about these anomolies ..
we all know that...But for once they should!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Finally, a Mars Curiosity picture, that is extremely curious indeed! Most of the time, its people nitpicking little bits of a picture, and this time, you have come across something very interesting. Great find. Flag



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hold on, is this embrace ignorance? I have a problem from the title, as if stating fact that these are the bones of a creature from mars. Isn't that a little ignorant? Then people wonder why others backs are up from the word go.

Fact is there is more chance this being rock than anything else. I honestly believe NASA will find something in time, but to find bones on the surface? I don't see it, hope I'm wrong.

Lastly, op has been asked several times if he modified the colours in the image and hasn't answered the question, we know the answer but how can we move on until he admitts it himself. Its niggling away at me, clarification would be excellent.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This is an incredible find.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
hope Armap will throw in some optional wisdom..?




top topics



 
319
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join