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

Hi all,

Throughout this thread many people have debunked and said rocks, rocks, rocks and more rocks…

Taking into consideration that NASA may or may not be withholding hard evidence of the possibility of invertebrate life existing at some point or another on Mars, let’s just try and be open minded to this discussion and think about the following :

Quite a few posters have suggested that it is not possible or that they do not believe that the” fossils” could have ended up at the surface without really proving this, so here is my first point that I would like to make :

There has been scientific proof documented by An Yin, a planetary geologist and UCLA professor of Earth and space sciences who analysed satellite images from THEMIS (Thermal Emission Imaging System), on board the Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and from the HIRISE (High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment) camera on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. that tectonic activity has taken place on Mars.

Thus meaning that any eventual fossilized remains of plants or vertebrate life may eventually be pushed up to the surface :

“Until now, Earth was thought to be the only planet with plate tectonics. But a huge “crack” in Mars’ surface — the massive Valles Marinaris — shows evidence of the movement of huge crustal plates beneath the planet’s surface, meaning Mars may be showing the early stages of plate tectonics. This discovery can perhaps also shed light on how the plate tectonics process began here on Earth.”

Quoted from the following : www.universetoday.com...

Second point :

You may or may not believe that life (whether it be micro-bacterial, invertebrate or non-invertebrate) existed on Mars at one point in time during it’s existence, but however, I personally do.

And this is one of the reasons why :

Minerals found in the subsurface of Mars, a zone of more than three miles below ground, make for the strongest evidence yet that the red planet may have supported life, according to research "Groundwater activity on Mars and implications for a deep biosphere," published in Nature Geoscience on January 20, 2013.

Which can be found here :

www.sciencedaily.com...

These are only two points that I would like to put across to certain debunkers and I am sure that if you dig in deep and also open up a little more your mind, you can find more evidence pertaining to the fact that life did once exist at some point or another on Mars.

And a little anecdote to finish off :

Didn’t Christopher Columbus made a laughing stock of himself by claiming that the Earth was not round

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Originally posted by lnfideI
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.

Such erosion effects have been noted widely on the face of the planet Mars...not just this snippet of what could or could not be attributed to mundane erosion. The planet is regarded as unknown and all we normal people have to go on is photos from a mission that is million miles away. Such is the case, nothing presented is definitive nor conclusive regardless of what the OP asserts.

That said, they are interesting nonetheless and warrant further investigation.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
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.

And you know what... Id have to agree with you on that even when part of my mind screams otherwise The only way to be 100% sure is to go there ourselves or get the Rover to go up to it, circle it and take as many pictures as possible, and maybe even try and dig it out.

But that aint happening

So there will always be conjecture and conflicting opinions on things like this probably long after we all end up as bones ourselves, not a bad thing really, something to while away existance. We just have to try our hardest not to start throwing our poo around at each other like animals because of it... and it can be hard not to sometimes I openly admit (Metaphorically that is, i don't actually... err never mind).

Congrats once again Arken. Great finds. They really, really do look like what could be bones indeed.
Especially the relatively intact backbone.
Good eyes you have sir.

reply to post by JayinAR


hiya Jay, just for ref, i have a mahoosive pile of flints collected from all sorts of sources (different countries, foraged and collected from quarries) about 10 metres from me, ready to be turned into spearpoints and various blades. at the risk of being called a rocktard again, that rock is in no way at all flint, not a chance in hell i'm afraid...... shape and texture, even allowing for erosion and lack of pic definition are way wrong, and then there is the fact that flint forms in chalk - obviously the area of the photo contains no chalk. it's a nice rock though one of many in this thread

There are rocks on this planet that look like giant penises. So are you saying there used to be giants on this planet that turned into rocks and only one thing is above the surface now?

You will see what ever you want to see....

I see desperate need for some to 'want' something to be found that isn't there and when it isn't "oh conspiracy' at large by NASA>

It's so pathetic.

reply to post by Spacespider


Have you heard of the crossing elliptical orbits theory?
Earth and Mars had crossing orbits, until a bump and run evened things out.
Johnathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, predicted Mars moons and orbits several hundred years before telescopes revealed them to us.
Would explain where the antediluvian flood waters came from, and The drying of Mars.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by JayinAR

 

hiya Jay, just for ref, i have a mahoosive pile of flints collected from all sorts of sources (different countries, foraged and collected from quarries) about 10 metres from me, ready to be turned into spearpoints and various blades. at the risk of being called a rocktard again, that rock is in no way at all flint, not a chance in hell i'm afraid...... shape and texture, even allowing for erosion and lack of pic definition are way wrong, and then there is the fact that flint forms in chalk - obviously the area of the photo contains no chalk. it's a nice rock though

one of many in this thread

How can you, with certainty, claim such knowledge or a rock; via photograph; millions of miles away? I get what you are saying but to claim the opposite is just as ignorant as those claiming it is something else entirely. All we have for study is a photograph. No spectroanalysis, no hard data; only this. We can speculate and allow our imaginations take the best of us but in the end, it is what it is; which is up in the air. It could very well go both ways at this point.

Originally posted by rawcatryde
reply to post by Spacespider

 

Have you heard of the crossing elliptical orbits theory?
Earth and Mars had crossing orbits, until a bump and run evened things out.
Johnathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, predicted Mars moons and orbits several hundred years before telescopes revealed them to us.
Would explain where the antediluvian flood waters came from, and The drying of Mars.

A path we have taken, from both planets perspective, since before humans have recorded it. What is your point here? We have crossed orbits timeless accounts; why would this one be special?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


precisely because a particular rock type is referenced. the comment i replied to is re a particular photo and considering the conditions that have to exist for flint to form, it is impossible for this to be flint. where is the chalk that is the only material that it can have it formed in? if you want to discuss flint, go do some research on the matter first.

Originally posted by 1Providence1

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by 1Providence1

 

why highlight images? it just puts prejudice into the eye of the viewer and removes credibility from whoever did the highlighting.

I disagree, but I can see how one may see it this way. Most of us here are just arm chair amateurs anyway; not much point in getting super gung-ho about how right we think we are in regards to the topic at hand.

I think the best scenario would have been to post two images, one with, and one without the highlighting. That seems to be the best way to go about putting the OP's vision, and a non-bias view in perspective, no?

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

i definately disagree with you. if the op could spot them with such certainty without highlights in the first place then what purpose is served by adding bias and drawing the observer's eye to a shape that is actually artificially created by the highlighter.
as said earlier, it lends prejudice, which if the evidence is so great, then therefore it must be unneccessary. why not allow the viewer to see it without artificial additions at all? as other posters have said earlier, why not just draw a box around the area of interest? and why not just admit to highlighting in the OP for sake of accuracy.... some posters here clearly feel unhappy about the fact that the images have been highlighted, especially as this was not made clear from the off. arken's lack of comment on this clearly looks bad to some posters here too.

I thiought you might find this interesting and relevant as to why perhaps NASA's trained spotters fail to spot what we find glaring obvious...

Study: Most radiologists don’t notice a gorilla in a CT scan

A recent study found that a vast majority of radiologists failed to notice a very large gorilla that researchers added to a medical scan.

It does, however, suggest that specialists could easily miss other red flags when they’re on the search for one specific indicator.

So perhaps the NASA spotters are not looking for backbones, and therefore fail to spot them. Where as Arken is looking for bones and so he finds them.

PS: I did a Google search and I think the OP story is spreading!

I don't remember how long it takes, but it takes some minutes for a radio signal from Mars to reach Earth, so even if they had a life feed it would have a big delay.

An average of 14 minutes, 6 seconds will be required for signals to travel between Earth and Mars.
Curiosity can communicate with Earth directly at speeds up to 32 kbit/s, but the bulk of the data transfer should be relayed through the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Odyssey orbiter.

Data transfer speeds between Curiosity and each orbiter may reach 2 Mbit/s and 256 kbit/s, respectively, but each orbiter is only able to communicate with Curiosity for about eight minutes per day.

Source: Rover

What would be really great, is if we'd stop sending rovers that do exactly what all the over rovers did before them. These are pictures, basically, from a really good web cam. Are there any pictures that have a part of the rover in the frame, for perspective, like you know, we used to get from the ORIGINAL Martian lander Viking II.
What would be really SPECTACULAR, have a rover with, 2 eyes, 2 hands, and 2 legs that could walk over, kick it and say 'Yep, that looks exactly like a bonefish skull', or 'Hey, that looks exactly like the distributor cap from a 51 Willy's station wagon'. The only difference between this rover and the old ones? it's more expensive, and works twice as crappy! after all the government did build it! A human being could walk over, pick up the suspected artifact and say 'Bingo, this ain't no rock' or 'Ugh, I'm sick of rocks and I jst want to go home'.
I guess now they're talking about another 'Mars' rover. Insert money in toilet and flush!. Hopefully, the next Mars rover will have 1) A pair of hands 2) Isn't designed by 'Science guys' 3) Has more than just a really good webcam 4) Has the capability to hit the ground running without needing 10 billion people in some facility just to move 3 feet
5) Does a bunch less sciensing and a lot more 'roving' 6) has a HUMAN driver. I think we could do a lot better, answer the question about Mars (Is Dead, Was Dead, Always will be Dead) and move on to some really cool places in the Solar system, that actually might have life, say, Europa.

Originally posted by rawcatryde
reply to post by Spacespider

 

Have you heard of the crossing elliptical orbits theory?
Earth and Mars had crossing orbits, until a bump and run evened things out.
Johnathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, predicted Mars moons and orbits several hundred years before telescopes revealed them to us.
Would explain where the antediluvian flood waters came from, and The drying of Mars.

I had that theory myself for a while..
The idea of life "moved" somehow from mars to earth
And remembering the moon had a questionable past, perhaps it was that collision that created the derbies that went into earth orbit and later form as the moon we know today

Originally posted by CarbonBase
What would be really great, is if we'd stop sending rovers that do exactly what all the over rovers did before them. These are pictures, basically, from a really good web cam. Are there any pictures that have a part of the rover in the frame, for perspective, like you know, we used to get from the ORIGINAL Martian lander Viking II.
What would be really SPECTACULAR, have a rover with, 2 eyes, 2 hands, and 2 legs that could walk over, kick it and say 'Yep, that looks exactly like a bonefish skull', or 'Hey, that looks exactly like the distributor cap from a 51 Willy's station wagon'. The only difference between this rover and the old ones? it's more expensive, and works twice as crappy! after all the government did build it!

A human being could walk over, pick up the suspected artifact and say 'Bingo, this ain't no rock' or 'Ugh, I'm sick of rocks and I jst want to go home'.
I guess now they're talking about another 'Mars' rover. Insert money in toilet and flush!. Hopefully, the next Mars rover will have 1) A pair of hands 2) Isn't designed by 'Science guys' 3) Has more than just a really good webcam 4) Has the capability to hit the ground running without needing 10 billion people in some facility just to move 3 feet
5) Does a bunch less sciensing and a lot more 'roving' 6) has a HUMAN driver. I think we could do a lot better, answer the question about Mars (Is Dead, Was Dead, Always will be Dead) and move on to some really cool places in the Solar system, that actually might have life, say, Europa.

You do realize what you're asking for isn't physically possible in the field of robotics yet, right? "They" can't send a cyborg Robocop because it doesn't exist.

reply to post by DaTroof


I was thinking about more along the lines of that robot thing they have on the space station, it's like a human torso with hands and steroscopic vision. I can't remeber what it's exactly called, but I'm pretty sure they could do a MUCH better job of building a rover, because it seems to me, if ou keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, well, it's just INSANE! And I do know for a fact, the can, and have built VERY sophisticated, autonomous, drone like devices that use AI. I think they just build one mission, to answer the question, and if it takes Humans to go up there. SUPER! I'm sure the Human race could build a space ship that actually could do some serious traveling around the solar system. We do have the talent and technology. Fuzzy pictures of indistinct objects with no scale just isn't cutting it anymore!

Originally posted by Rodinus
Didn’t Christopher Columbus made a laughing stock of himself by claiming that the Earth was not round

No, he did not. People knew the earth was a sphere from back in 240 BC
scienceblogs.com...

reply to post by hellobruce


gah! you and your bloody factoids!

etc etc etc

bringing rational thought to this thread, how very dare you!