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: 19
319
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I found the name for what I was thinking of with what these most likely all are.

Ventifact

All I see in these Mars pics are heavily eroded and broken ventifacts... somewhat like these. Good possibility for the 'spine' like protuberances among other things.








Its also very interesting that you can get ventifact like meteors laying on the surface of mars. Which would go a LONG way to explain the imbedded silvery 'hammer' people where umming and ahhhing over a month or two back... ie a small heavily wind eroded iron meteorite being exposed from the rock it was buried in.


Originally posted by ausername
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.


Yes, I can see the 'objects' just fine in the untouched image. But by highlighting the 'bones' a subtle hint of yellow the altered image is pushing your brain into seeing what possibly isnt their, yes the rocks are still there but your mind suddenly sees the 'spine' more easily... the thing is, that is misleading. Its saying 'this is what you should see' rather than 'can you see it?'.
edit on 20-2-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 



I see 3 "J" looking objects in a row, they look like bone


As a lot of other folks have seen. I see a pile of interesting looking, eroded Martian landscape.


In the picture below, I've highlighted an area in red that I believe to be carved into the ground rather than sticking up out of it, that would make that particular section on the left less of a vertabra and more of a hole in the ground.





posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Just wanted to say for those saying the OP's images look better than the NASA ones and accusing him of editing them......I don't see much of a difference aside from ones he notes editing unless I'm missing something. But as an FYI, on NASA's website, with alot of browsers when you hit the link to the full image and it comes up, it displays some slightly lower resolution version but if you click on that image it will just switch to a higher rez version without changing the page. That's how it is on 2 of 3 of my browsers. Some automatically show the really good version, some just show a large but lower rez version until you click on it. It's strange. So if the NASA link you follow doesn't look good, try clicking on it and see if it changes.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Hello Friends

I have made few changes to Mars photographs

I Hope you like them







mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...






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



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The pictures certainly are curious, but there is one fundamental flaw to theorizing that they are fossils. Mars has tumultuous weather and sandstorms, promoting erosion the likes of which does not occur on Earth. This means that any such fossils would likely be eroded beyond recognition if they lay so near the surface; I don't doubt the possibility that the pictures are of fossils, but it is highly unlikely.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by charlyv
 



I see 3 "J" looking objects in a row, they look like bone


As a lot of other folks have seen. I see a pile of interesting looking, eroded Martian landscape.


In the picture below, I've highlighted an area in red that I believe to be carved into the ground rather than sticking up out of it, that would make that particular section on the left less of a vertabra and more of a hole in the ground.





My point is that the object is so interesting, it should be studied. It is interesting enough to task the rover to sample it and it is just my opinion that it should be done.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


And the information regarding NASA's SEOP(Space Exploration Outreach Program) from 1989-1990? What happened to it? You really think we've been spinning our R&D wheels(at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars) since the 1960s(to be conservative) and all we have to show for it is the Saturn V?
The B-2 bomber uses electrogravitics principles that were patented by T.Townsend Brown in the 50s and 60s.
Wake up!



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Great post and there is life everywhere



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Very good theory and it is plausible, however the fossil theory is also still possible due to lack of evidence on both counts.

The "fossils" could be explained away but the other anomalies, the ones I'm more interested in can't so easily be explained away


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


I've been searching for NASA's transcripts from their most recent "big discovery" announcement but no luck so far. Reason being is because during the press conference one of the scientists said basically that Curiosity photos are uploaded in almost real time to the jpl site. If that is the case, then no, these photos are not scrutinized before we have access to them. It's late though. I'll check some more tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malfeitor
The pictures certainly are curious, but there is one fundamental flaw to theorizing that they are fossils. Mars has tumultuous weather and sandstorms, promoting erosion the likes of which does not occur on Earth. This means that any such fossils would likely be eroded beyond recognition if they lay so near the surface; I don't doubt the possibility that the pictures are of fossils, but it is highly unlikely.


I would counter that argument by saying that Earth erosion is MUCH more forcefull. It has an extremely much denser atmosphere, violent weather with wind driven rain. This is why most of our craters are lost forever where there are hundreds of thousands still preserved on Mars. Additionally, even with our violent erosion, as compared to Mars, we still find fossil bones sticking out of the rock, exposed on the surface in many places, most notably in the badlands areas of Utah, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I think it is impossible to tell whether those are rocks or bones in the photos(at this point anyways). But is it really so hard to believe that if there were dinosaurs roaming are planet hundreds of millions of years ago, it wouldn't be possible for dinosaurs to be roaming the next planet over? Or that their bones wouldn't be showing due to erosion and found by the rover...like they have been found laying around here on our planet in present day. Seems possible to me, even probable..my money is on them finding bones of animals, even dinosaur types of animals. Time will tell.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 




My point is that the object is so interesting, it should be studied. It is interesting enough to task the rover to sample it and it is just my opinion that it should be done.


I do respect your opinion.

I spent a lot of time looking at this today.

When you do that... It's not all that interesting.

I mean... any thread that gets people to research this stuff I think is good in it's own way.

But this evidence, at the end of the day, is not any more interesting than any other Mars anomaly thread I've seen.

It was presented in a good fashion... so I'll give Arken at least that credit.

But, when you really look at it up close, it is just a pile of rocks... unfortunately, and I would not expect NASA to sample it.

I would not want any of my tax payer dollars dedicated to sampling this perceived anomaly.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



I've been searching for NASA's transcripts from their most recent "big discovery" announcement but no luck so far.


I could be wrong, but I think this was it...

Source



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
There will always be those who blindly deny. Ignore them.

I find this vertebrae "anomaly" to be quite striking. I have some people over at the moment and brought them in one by one to look at the JPL image. I asked them if they say anything interesting anywhere in the image. Every one of them said the same thing - skeletal remains of a spine/vertebrae.

I'm not saying that that is what we are looking at beyond all doubt, only because I can't go out to Gale and look for myself. But regardless, the "anomaly" in the image could very well be what it appears to be. Everyone's entitled to believe as they see fit. I believe we have something.

Thanks OP!



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Looked over the photos provided and I see rocks. I see rocks that could be interrupted as fossils, bt could never confirm with 100% certainty they are anything but. They are surely an interesting formation and hopefully after whatever current mission Curiosity is on, it will investigate. To say that paleontologist, based on merely a photo, will conclude the same OP is stretching the limits of valid science in my opinion.

They may indeed be intrigued, as we all are, but they cannot with integrity, confirm your conclusions; conclusions that have a degree of bias towards assuming a hidden element. You are bordering upon seeing what you want to see to confirm your own conclusions based on your own bias; at least the way I see it.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
This is amazing and thanks for the original post.

When I read the replies about erosion ect, I can not help but ask myself, just in one locale in a wide landscape?

Those spines, if natural erosion patterns, should be seen around, littered around, not just on one spot, don't you think

I don't know much about mars or space, but I am a bit of a cadet if you catch my drift.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
Arken,

I normally do not reply much on your threads as I almost always fall in the 'rocks rocks rocks' category and never really have more to add to those comments. I always S&F them though as I find that you always take time and make great presented threads, even if most of the time I see them as cases of pareidolia.

But this time, you've outdone yourself !!! Your OP raises questions, making harder to fall in the rocks rocks rocks category... Awesome awesome work !!!

Can't say they are not rocks but I really can't say that they are either. I feel that those finds will leave the mainframes of ATS and hit other mainstream medias. Very well done !!

An S and an F and I wish I could applaude you...and more than once !!!


Thanks for you comment and kind words. I'm glad to catch your attention.


Unfortunately, like I said several times, I'm not so skilled like many other members like Zorgon, Mike Singh, Internos, Slayer69 etc... more smart and skilled than me on prepare detailed threads. I'm not to prepare the "table" (thread) with "crystal glasies and silver forks".
When I am "hungry" I put on the table the "meat piece",... raw...



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Great post!Thanks alot. They really look likebones, most of them anyway. Ill be awaiting the announcement




top topics



 
319
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join