Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 18
317
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FuturePeace
 






Originally posted by FuturePeace
im sorry but bones only take 8 -10 years to completely decompose in that type of environment.

If those are bones they must be bones made out of rock if you catch my drift



Maybe you might take a look at the Petrified Forest.


Trees that are rock.
How long does wood take to decompose?

www.bing.com...

Have a gander and read up on how they became rock yet still resemble tree.

en.wikipedia.org...


In Petrified Forest National Park, most of the logs in the park retained their original external form during petrification but lost their internal structure. However, a small fraction of the logs and most of the park’s petrified animal bones have cells and other spaces that are mineral-filled but still retain much of their original organic structure.




By the way they are laying around on top of soil.
Was a forest at one time.
Not any more.
No one dug them up or chipped them out of another stone.
They are stone.
edit on 19-2-2013 by azureskys because: forgot a link



Wonderful and amazing find Arken
I am allways anxious to see what you have discovered.
Thank you for sharing
edit on 19-2-2013 by azureskys because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by azureskys because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by azureskys because: added quote




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy
I´m really disappointed that you are manipulating the images to make it look more like what you want people to see. This is what would be called planting evidence in the court of law.

At least post the unedited image also and let people know that you are editing the images!

It is just rocks that you have photoshopped to look like vertebrae!


If you knew anything at all about photo manipulation, you would understand that all he did was adjust the contrast to provide you with a clearer image, and highlighted the points of interest so you would know what he was talking about. He didn't alter the rocks to make them look like vertebrae so stop hatin'.

Great job Op!
That first one is definitely an in tact spine.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
It's not so hard to believe that Mars once had life on it. The general consensus is that Mars once had an atmosphere and flowing rivers, until it's magnetic field lost strength and eventually solar winds blew the atmosphere away. If there was life on Mars is was probably seeded there by life on Earth, or perhaps the Earth was seeded from debris traveling from Mars. Either way our planets are extremely close, and if there was a point in the past where Mars was capable of supporting life there's a high chance life was seeded between our planets.

Honestly, these do not look like rocks to me. I'm leaning towards the conclusion that they are in fact fossils. It definitely doesn't look natural to me. Someone posted some natural rock formations on Earth which look similar to fossils, but there is still a clear and definite distinction between those examples and the images posted by the OP. This rates as one of the best finds I've ever seen on ATS I think. It has me fairly convinced that life was once on Mars. I just can't understand why there is such strong denial when seeding can perfectly explain this.
edit on 19/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Bennogob
 


Were you waiting for Phage to tell you what to think?


Methinks even Phage doesn't know what to think about this one.


That's never stopped Phage before from telling people WHAT they should think!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wulff
 


Phage was around here today and posted in several other threads, but avoided this one.

Maybe needs more time to build an attack plan?




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Over 200 flags and 150+ stars in a day! Good job Arken, really rallied up the troops and stirred up the pot with this one!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
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.
edit on 19-2-2013 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



This is not necessarily the case. In fact, I'm surprised to hear this hypothesis saying that it lost its atmosphere early on. It still has an atmosphere in fact, it's the magnetic shield that is gone. I get the feeling that some people are mistaking the early bombardment period for specifics on Mar's history, and water being on the surface. The era which you are pointing out is the so-called early-bombardment era, where the planets of the solar system experience bombardments from numerous impact events, hence why some planets that are less dynamic (Earth being the most dynamic of the crustal planets) are absolutely pock marked with craters, nothing to erode them. Now, if we were to assume that Mars didn't have much tectonic activity, combined with only small amounts of water (rivers, some small seas) then it would seem fitting for there to still be numerous craters on Mars, as there are.


Also, I have read numerous academic articles, including some from my grand parents and Uncle who are professors, ex-NASA that stated that some estimates show that flowing water may have been on the surface of Mars as recent as 1-2 million years ago.

edit on 19-2-2013 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I'm usually in the rock and shadows class myself, but these pics look like the best ones yet. One thing I would like to know. Did Nasa take any of this for their soil and rock sample analysis to determine what the composition is?
If they thought that it was bones, they had to get a sample.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Yeah, We can discuss what "maybe" has happened all day and all night long, well, all day and all night long eh?

I think that goes without even saying. ~$heopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 


I doubt this photo received anything more than a cursory glance at NASA. They receive these photos in the thousands at a time and they are uploaded directly to the JPL site. People think they scrutinize and scrub every photo, but that just isn't feasible. It would take an army of employees. This is why I feel NASQ needs to be made aware of this sort of thing. Maybe they'll send Curiosity back. After all, we are curious. So...DO YOUR JOB!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
If you knew anything at all about photo manipulation, you would understand that all he did was adjust the contrast to provide you with a clearer image, and highlighted the points of interest so you would know what he was talking about. He didn't alter the rocks to make them look like vertebrae so stop hatin'.

Great job Op!
That first one is definitely an in tact spine.


Yes but that was to much to begin with, the same way in the thread months back about that rat on mars, it was about 3 individual rocks grouped into one mass by 'highlighting', all highlighting does is make the brain see a pattern where in reality there more than likely isnt one... which is disingenuous. You could highlight all sorts of things in a chaotic picture like the surface of mars and make many theories about what the highlighted 'stuff' could be.

A simple circle or square around the points of interest with an untouched full original resolution control picture for reference is all that you should use.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



People think they scrutinize and scrub every photo, but that just isn't feasible. It would take an army of employees.


You think they would send up a rover to Mars and don't scrutinize and scrub every photo?

It's fairly difficult to get a rover to Mars. I'm sure there are staff in place to look at the photos. It's feasible and it's likely.

JPL Mohawk guy would give you a serious
about right now.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


The original pics have been posted. They look the same.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
ignoring the fact that visually there are rock formations everywhere (on earth too) that look alot like bone (in primary school we used to dig up 'dinosaur bones' from our playground... looked just like it)


why only vertebrae?

other bones are larger and would stand the test of time better. there is no reason legs would be buried but vertebra not



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


What I am saying is that they are uploaded directly to the site. Of course they look at all the photos, but they don't go over them before we get to see them. Least not according to them.

I guess I should have been a little more clear.

ETA: Maybe eventually every photo will be analyzed thoroughly, but with photos numbering in the thousands and more coming in, I am sure this process will take YEARS. For now, I would almost wager that these photos have just been glanced at.
edit on 20-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Thanks, Arken. What I find both amusing and bemusing are the comments from people here that seem so rigidly determined to force themselves to "believe" that these are "only rocks", i.e., that they refuse to accept the possibility(reality!) that life will establish itself and evolve similarly to what we have seen here on Earth.
To think that NASA will publicize anything that may fall outside the "Earth is a unique exception"paradigm they cling to is patently absurd. NASA is a false front for our real government space "program", giving us, in reality, NO information from all the publicly financed programs it has conducted.
We have been systematically shielded from dramatic and fundamentally significant discoveries and advancements in physics and astronomy(to name only two areas of scientific endeavor).
If we would accept NASA's "worldview", rocket propulsion is the most advanced technology we have developed, Einsteinian physics are the final word on the subject, and there is no known life, intelligent or otherwise, beyond our Earth. What complete and utter nonsense!
It's time the people of this country rise up and DEMAND a disclosure and accounting of the R&D we've funded for the last 70 years. The technological information currently in the hands of a few government and private corporate interests the WE PAID FOR needs to be given to the American people.
Sounds outrageously inane and naive, doesn't it? Really? What will it take for us to demand access for what we have subsidized? What are we afraid of? If we believe in our Constitution, we must act. The destruction of our planet is happening before our eyes, and we can stop it.
Or do we want to be the future Mars, with beings from Neptune(or some other moon or planet) quibbling about whether rocks on Earth may or may not be fossils?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



ETA: Maybe eventually every photo will be analyzed thoroughly, but with photos numbering in the thousands and more coming in, I am sure this process will take YEARS.


I'm guessing if they are online, they have been looked at... thoroughly.

I looked at every pic on Sol 109 and it took me about 20 minutes.

What I'd really like to know is why they think JPG format is "full resolution"

edit on 20-2-2013 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Slann
 


NASA has given us NO information?

NASA believes rocket technology is the pinnacle of human technology??

Come now. Get real.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

A simple circle or square around the points of interest with an untouched full original resolution control picture for reference is all that you should use.


Then look for it yourself...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

There are others at the original source. Draw your own conclusions.

The OP was highlighting the points of interest, but in that image above, and the original in the OP you can see the anomalies.

Fossils are rocks... and without actually being there, we are left with visual interpretations, and these particular anomalies are quite compelling as they do appear to be fossilized bones, very much like vertebrae. No one can prove this now, and it needs further investigation.

Despite the dismissals here, this is at least a fascinating find.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I must say, I am probably one of the worlds biggest skeptics when it comes to images of Mars terrain that have features that are similar to objects we identify as fossil remains on Earth.

However, this....... I am a bit flabbergasted... I see 3 "J" looking objects in a row, they look like bone, and I am trying to come up with a scenario where erosion could produce 3 such similar looking objects and duplicate that effect and also look very similar to vertebrae that we know so well from our own experience. It is surely the most intriguing image I have ever seen from what the rovers have captured.

If I were a NASA/JPL scientist, I would insist that the rover be tasked to sample that, just for the sake of maximum curiosity, and that is the name of this rover, is it not?

.






top topics



 
317
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join