It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:50 AM
reply to post by Arken


I'm extremely skeptical, but those pictures are hard to gawk at. From a layman's point of view, it looks like this could be the real deal. I'd put my money on the fact that it's not real, but that's just because when something looks too good to be true it often is.

Nice post OP.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:57 AM
reply to post by hellobruce

Thank you Hellobruce for this correction.

I didn't do my homework correctly... In fact i should have said that he was the laughing stock because he got his maths wrong!

Kindest respects


posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:54 AM

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.

It's just a theory that first vertebrates didn't appear on Earth until around 525 million years ago. It just means we didn't find them yet. Earth went through some big changes from the first supercontinent to today. As far as we know, there could be fossils and the whole cities buried miles under the ocean floor

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

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:56 AM
I'm Always very excited when I see a post like this one on ATS. To be honest, I would be thrilled if they would announce something this big. It would mean i could say 'I told u so' against so many people. .... but I'm afraid that won't be happening that fast, we all know Nasa. :s

There is also a side of me that's not buying the Mars story. From the first rover to the last one, people have seen many things on pictures that resemble parts of ships, equipment, animals, habitats ... and now fossils or bones. Just like on earth.

This raises my question: Is that rover really on Mars? Maybe it is, but is the footage not taken on Mars?

If you think of it, it would answer alot of questions in a simple way...
I'm not accusing Nasa of anything, its nothing more then a 'doubt' that is lurking around in my head for a very long time now.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:01 AM
Another thing, if the rover isn't really on Mars, does that mean that the Mars Recon Orbiter pictures of the rovers on the Mars surface, and the pictures of the Mars rover landing sights are also faked? Could it mean the launch itself was an actual fake? I'd like to see the Mars question ANSWERED once and for all. I know we can build a rover to accomplish this mission, but why waste more money on Mars? Why can't we visit some place else, check that out, and maybe go back to MArs whe our elected public servants get the budget straightened out!

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:04 AM
Fossilized baby dragon on Mars :

Some of those things do look like fossils but it's impossible to tell from our seats.

There certainly are many strange formations on Mars.

I think the ratio of rectilinear or smoothly-curved surfaces to natural debris is too high.

All the best,


posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Arken

It is probably possible to get higher res pics of those anomalies, and i would be surprised if NASA does not have them already. The question is, when will they release them?

Being such a religious country as the U.S is, it might have something do with "national security" that they still have not confirmed officially all their findings of life on other planets. Because that would possibly start some panic in those bibletards... when they realize their religion is just another lie.

That is evidence of bones alright.
But, why should it affect the Bible religion?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

If I may interject, I don't see how absolute proof, if it could be obtained, of merely a fossil on Mars could destroy the particularly dogmatic Abrahamic religions, but it could go a decently long way in showing that Earth humans are NOT, in fact, the "pinnacle of 'God's' creation," and Earth itself is not anything resembling the center of the universe (what a concept). I believe it could be a great first step in a series of reality checks that would either destroy or at least remove the political influence and power of religions, if any kind of such proof is possible.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by Arken

Arken Thank you for this find. THIS feels real to me!

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:50 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:55 AM

Maybe when you show respect you will read the thread and then make an educated comment.

Until then all you can do is make things up.

Not compelling reading at all...

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by JayinAR
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!

I wouldn't be to sure about that. NASA is required to view and scrub out anomolies before any official release to the public. I'm sure you remember congress past a law that its illegal to advertise smoking. So if the find an old empty pack of smokes they would need to airbrush it out so they don't get fined.

Seriously though, before you assume they're not aware I'd have someone check out that photo. To me that rock looks very much tampered with in the original. Either that or is suffered from some interesting water erosion as you can see rings at its base. Also the colors looks blended with a simple blur tool.

In case it was missed I will repost it.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by masta12d

Why would you think it would take an army of employees to scrub these pictures? You know how many I could process alone in a single day? It's not that they go in an alter an entire image. It's as simple as dragging a blur tool to make an unnatural formation natural. Of course to think these photos presented by the OP to be genuine animal fossils one would have to assume that NASA doesn't alter their photos huh? Ah the plot thickens. Why blur a single rock yet leave a carcass.....

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by masta12d

If NASA or JPL are covering something up, and I have no reason to think they are other than the blurring on lots of the pics and the lack of clear focus and clarity on zoom-in close ups, one of their employees will someday whistle-blow by posting on a thread like this. They would have to post with clear and new evidence and links that what they're claiming is true, and that they do work on the project (even if they have to hide their identity, which is harder than people think when you do verbal or word placement forensics). Better yet, someone who is just retired who wants to relate his or her experiences and report on some of the things they've seen or done (do NASA and JPL make people newly hired, or those retiring or leaving, sign a non-disclosure form? I'd guess they do but haven't had anyone with knowledge of their employment practice confirm that) can post on a thread like this and probably get their information out to at least a portion of the public.

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

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Justoneman
i havent read the thread yet, Did Phage come by and let us know we are nuts yet? I mean he has not ever said, to my limited knowledge of everything he has posted here, that pics like these have real things like a spine or a skull. He pooh poohs everything I have seen him talk about. Making me think SHILL all the way when he is silent on these or comes out against what your eyes see and your brain tells you is probable.
edit on 20-2-2013 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

Phage could easily disprove these pics with very little effort and some simple common sense. That said, who really gives a flying ....... How long did it take before it was accepted earth revolves around the sun? How many people thought they would sail off the edge of the world? How many people died because there was a genuine belief most women were witches? What side of the coin do you think Phage would have fell on during those times? Uh huh.

Yet people on here are incapable of making an informed decision themselves and chose to rely on someone else's ability to disprove anything they don't want to be true or doesn't have the courage to stick there neck out and be different. I already know Phages response to just about any topic.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:13 AM
Double post.
edit on 20-2-2013 by masta12d because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by skalla

I was explaining why, perhaps, that one meme photo that was posted a few pages back said something to the effect, "I think I found a fossil on mars." It LOOKS like flint rock. Yes, I know about flint. It is a type of quartz crystal and is found in either chalk or limestone deposits.

I appreciate the lecture, man, but we have more flint rock in the Ozark riverbeds than I can shake a stick at. And as someone else said, you cannot just say, with certainty, what something on Mars is, or is not, by looking at a photo.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:18 AM
Amazing! A famous 'musical' quote comes to mind...

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one," he said. "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by pacifier2012
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....

Maybe those giant penises were sort of a stonehenge for ancient martians.
Who's to say?
You might be right, it's very plausible that it's just rock.
I'm just saying you shouldn't dismiss something based on assumption.
Keep an open mind, stay curious.
How else could we have found out that there is life in 'unhabitable' environments.
Because of inquisitive open minded scientists, we are now in the know of certain 'extremofiles' that exist right here on earth. Thus expanding the biospace here on earth.
Who's to say under which conditions extra terrestrial life is able to thrive?
Or what conditions on Mars cause erosion and such.
I'm not a scientist so forgive my lack or misuse of jargon. But I hope that despite that, I made my point.
Thanks for the input though

Oh and could you give me the source of the images of those giant penises on Mars?
Made me curious

With an open mind anything is possible.
So if proof can be found that there was intelligent life on Mars, it's perfectly plausible that those martians worshipped giant penisses.
Having an open mind is so much fun

edit on 20-2-2013 by z00mster because: Spelling

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:42 AM
Arken, why have you clearly coloured the photos of the bones to make them look less like rocks? I don't buy that NASA coloured them, this is the OPs doing, because if we look at the pictures on the NASA site itself, and not Arken's, these formations look EXACTLY like rocks, and fit in with the surrounding area perfectly.

I won't go so far as to say the thread is a "hoax", but it certainly seems he is being disingenuous here.

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in