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

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by solomons path

 

Can we have a third option please?

Maybe you would prefer to bring this guy back . . . ? He can take people cruisin' on the rover for kicks?

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by masta12d

Originally posted by Indigo5
Link to same rocks...different pic
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Also

Mastcam: Right
2012-11-25 23:09:56 UTC

Mastcam: Right
2012-11-25 23:09:11 UTC

Mastcam: Left
2012-11-25 23:09:38 UTC

Mastcam: Left
2012-11-25 23:09:08 UTC

at this link
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Um yeah so I went to the site JPL and took a look at the original. Now we all know NASA doesn't lie, but using my graphic design background for what it is..and say this here was photo shopped.


img.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

edit on 19-2-2013 by masta12d because: (no reason given)

Photo-shopped by NASA or the OP...?

Silly question mate considering it's NASA's own website.

Back to the point, are you honestly suggesting that NASA would photoshop it's own images?

May I ask for why and what purpose?

reply to post by Arken

very convincing. well done.

reply to post by solomons path


HAHAHA!!!
Well played, sir. Well played.


ETA: I must say, though, it's damn nice to see that Hog on an ATS thread page.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Link to same rocks...different pic
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Indigo, I noticed in your (Nasa's) image above that if you move all the way to the left of the subject area, there is another object that resembles one of the possible vertebrae.

That kind of throws a monkey wrench into my original opinion. Not really sure it's not just erosion now or not. Interesting though indeed. ~$heopleNation

yay more rocks......

Here is the problem. The first vertebrates didn't appear on Earth until around 525 million years ago. That means on this planet, which most probably had much better conditions for life, it took about 3.9 billion years for life to take the jump from unicellular life to something with a back bone. For all that time the most advanced creatures on earth were tiny one celled animals. On Mars,all indications are that it lost its thick atmosphere and oceans early in its history, before life would have had time to evolve into complex forms, and after 3.8 billion years, the planet was pretty much a cold dry desert with high levels of radiation. Unless life took a very different path on Mars than on Earth, and I doubt it, we probably wont find complex fossils on Mars. I wish we could, I hope we do, but its highly unlikely.

reply to post by Spacespider


I totally agree with you Arken. The idea or mere thought of possibly life on Mars at one time is exciting. I hold true to these photos that have been posted and hope to hear a follow up in the very near future. It is not impossible that another planet was inhabitated!!! cant wait for confirmation.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by Larry L
You're right. These images DO raise some HUGE questions. Most importantly of all though, is how NASA could POSSIBLY look at an image like this, and just move the rover along. How could any human, being the curious explorers we are, even imagine passing something by with that rover that 100% at least LOOKS like fossilised remains (especially something that looks like a damn near fully in tact bone structure), without moving closer to get some close-ups to at least check it out?!

I think It`s because they don`t see them. NASA engineers and the other folks that work there are hired for their analytical abilities.They are probably at the extreme end of the analytical,left brain, thinking spectrum, so even if these are fossils the NASA people will never see them, because their dominant left brain analytical thinking just can`t comprehend the abstract that " hey those things look kind of like fossils"
when they look at these pictures their brains say:
1. jagged: check
2. bumpy: check
3. same color as surrounding soil: check
conclusion: it`s a rock, move on.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

That's VERY interesting. Thanks for that post. I have always thought it really just should be regular people controlling the rovers to look at what they want to look at. NASA should just be building the stuff. They should be looking at whatever their salary payers (tax paying Americans) tell them to look at. WE are paying for the mission, not them. At the very least, we should hand pick the people controlling the rover, looking for interesting things. I would have basically a room full of the best relevant "'ologists" deciding what to look at. Geologists and Paleontologists would be the main guys. Probably some insect and plant life experts peppered in as well.

I would also LOVE to know why it is we don't see the actual real time feed when they're moving around or panning the camera. It HAS to be a live feed they're seeing when they move it before snapping stills. But we only seeing snaps....even in those videos where they inda "pan" around....it's just a video of all the stills. I'd like to see the wind blowing.....bugs could run away from the rover when it moves and we the people would never know because we're only seeing stills. The old rovers snapped images fast enough to show us video of clouds going by over head, the Phoenix lander had actual video. Why no full video from Curiosity? And even if there's no video camera, there still has to be a delayed but real time feed in the control room. Why can't we see video from that?

Conspiracy theorist or not, how can anyone not question NASA covering stuff up if you're really paying attention?

You finally got one!! I think this is LEGIT, seriously. GRAND FIND!!

S&F S&F

No strong suggestion here here, but here's ones of those mast cam photos that is of interest.
Just take a good look and you will probably see it.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



You can see though that a lot of the rock has cracked and broken in the past, wind and dust has smoothed much of the rock, worn it down to result in the rocks current appearance. Like taking sandpaper to wood.

reply to post by openminded2011


And of course the problem with what you suggest is there is no basis for you to say that conditions here were more ideal than on Mars.

Quite simply, we don't know. We can't use Earth's history as the de facto
basis for which we assume all life will evolve. It is so arrogant and ego centric as to be laughable.

reply to post by JayinAR


There is a certain truth in what you're saying about what we know, and what we do not know, in regards to Mars atmosphere. How do we really know if Human Beings could not breath there? = We don't, no theory is etched in stone.

Now, I have read almost everything there is to currently read concerning planet Mars and it's assumed very, very thin atmosphere that is unlike ours here on planet Earth, so I know the scientific theories layed out thus far.

However, There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with discussing such an interesting subject which ties into the subejct of this thread. Never allow some government payed yes man shill, robot tell yuh any different either.

We have first what NASA tells us, and then 2nd, we have our own ideas, and assumptions. I would like to believe that the answer lies somewhere in between? ~$heopleNation

herummpppfff, hurumfff.....let me say...if I may.... looks like critters that ran out of water....I see the skull attached....as if they were in a shallow pool right before.....right before......argghhghghhh

reply to post by SheopleNation


Well, one could look at it like that, but I was really speaking more along the lines of our lack of knowledge on EVENTS that transpired billions of years ago. We have NO IDEA why it took "so long" for multi-celled organisms to develop here on Earth.
Maybe Earth was hit by a series of meteorites that kept "stunting the planet's growth." Or maybe it was a a series of severe solar storms... anything.
Maybe Mars didn't face such complications.
In the end we just don't know.

And yeah, maybe the Martian atmosphere was ideal for all of that time until recently. Or for that matter, to this very day. Who knows? All we can go on is what we see and find. And those LOOK like fossils. Enough so that I feel they need a closer look.

Arken

Very interesting thread & I especially think the first photo does look
reptilian. I am always on the fence in regards to rock vs non rock
& I think you may be on to something, you found me Nessie! LOL!
In all seriousness I found the photos to be quite worth studying
& questions asked....these are best ones I've encountered as far
as actually being possible fossils.
Thanks for all the time you put forth to create a thread that has
brought intelligent conversation.

One thing I would like to say is the few times I have read your
threads or post (still fairly new), you have ALWAYS researched your topic, given
a nice presentation, been extremely polite & tolerant, full of compassion
& most of ALL your heart is so into what you're trying to present to all of us on ATS.
S & F!!!

Cheers
Ektar

Silly question mate considering it's NASA's own website.

Back to the point, are you honestly suggesting that NASA would photoshop it's own images?

May I ask for why and what purpose?

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

It was not clear to whom the member I was responding to was referring -- the OP or NASA.
extra DIV