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

Seriously, I'm not willing to allow Black Op and Gov goons to nab anyone they want and get rid of the best websites.

We're going to have to be able to account for everyone, and rise up in huge outcries and if we locate them, break them out if necessary, if those huge outcries don't work.

I'm very very concerned about what happened to one of the best photo analysis sites on Mars, and Joseph Skipper.

I'm sure he'd have done a big piece on those bones.

We're talking about an illegal, unlawful legislation that is on par with the worst dictators in the world. Its illegal to enforce or carry out an illegal legislation. And we need to be on par with what is going on, be on alert and Serve And Protect.

Hi everyone!

It seems the guys at marsanomalies.com also picked up the topic (link).

There's also an article on this on Bubblews (link). Unfortunately, there's no reference to ATS or Arken, which I believe they could or should have included.

I don't know if this has been posted before, just wanted to make sure it's in this thread!

reply to post by jeep3r


You found that proboard, but his site doesnt work! And he won't answer emails.

Of course he would have covered it.


Fossilized Spine Found in Mars Photo

Edit to add: Very happy that you can get into his site, from that link. But you can't get in from a google search. Going to try other search engines.

This isn't skippers "research" site?

On this page, going to Joseph's link doesnt get you in.

www.marsanomalies.com...

Note, ixquick actually gives skippers site as the first link instead of google not giving the site at all, only giving a debunkers site relating that. But it still won't work.

Originally posted by SheopleNation

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

I get it...I see how folks can see vertabrae...and I have some understanding of spinal structures...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Detail cropped.


Under the assumption of spine...yes first glance it looks like vertabrae. You can even see a small "hole" roughly in the place where the Foraminal canal should be...where the nerve roots exit the bony structure. The Pelvic structure would be on the left and where the skull meets the spine would be on the right.

What works against this theorey is that the "vertabrae" do not appear consistent in design...even affording for erosion. I am no exo-biologist, but I'd expect there to be simililair structures amongst the vertabrae. Also...if you look closely, it appears to be 3 rows of "spineous process...the bumps along the spine on your back?

Again...alien creatures obviously would have different biology, but I am not seeing consistentcy within the structures we are seeing.

I think rocks and erosion. BUT would defer to more expert opinions by Orthopedic specialists, exo-biologists etc...Not convinced by the average joe though that simply shouts "Spine"...I am not seeing it, but open to being convinced otherwwise by more informed opinions.

I think rocks and erosion.

Yes, but the erosion is not by wind or water, but by plasma and electrical forces. Malta has a lot of surface features that defy conventional explanation too, but ion winds can sculpt rock, even granite, in a very short time. I don't think NASA will do closer examination, and if they don't, it would be the third time they have skipped looking at features that would confirm electric and plasma action, which they do not want to do as it would lead to having to consider electricity and plasma as the formative mechanism for what has been seen on the surfaces of planets, moons, and asteroids. They can't get away with it forever, but they sure as heck will hold out as long as they can. I think they'd even go so far as to say it was fossils before they would admit to electrical causes.

reply to post by ArMaP


I was talking about the rock the official rock that is not the "fossil". The reason is it looks like it was blurred and not natural blur from the camera focus. I stated why I thought it on one of my posts no need to repeat myself.

reply to post by Indigo5


There is no rock that looks like spines. Sorry. Grow up.

reply to post by Arken

I've always said "it's just a rock" when looking at other anomalies, but the more I look at these photos,
the more they look like fossils. There's also the big metallic thing photo: what is that? It's shiny. The photos
coming out of Gale crater look like nothing else I've ever seen, except on Earth. Sure, erosion can make
some strange-looking rocks, but where have I seen things like this that were rocks? Nowhere. Always before
there were "kinda sorta" pictures, but now there are "looks exactly like" photos. Do I trust the government
to tell us the truth? Of course not. What was the first thing Curiosity found? A piece of plastic! And then they
spent a week puzzling over that, finally saying it must have fallen off the rover. A billion dollar machine and
pieces fall off? Yeah right. I think we should have some explanation of these things.

Originally posted by Arken

From when the bones are YELLOW LEMON?
Even a child can recognize that it was highlighted in yellow lemon.
But I'm agree with you: In this case the colorization was not necessary at all: Clear Enough in NASA colors!

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

23 pages to admit it, excellent. Missing the point? Unlikely, the point is that the question was asked several times without reply. Of course it was obvious that the images had been coloured/altered. It was just something that needed to be cleared up from the start to avoid it getting messy (Like it did)



BTW am I right in thinking that rocks on the surface of mars are essentially getting sandblasted? I'm a betting man, so if I was handed a few million and asked to bet between Rock or creature bones from Mars, you bet I'm going rock. Am I wrong? Hope so

reply to post by kingmonkey


I saw that post. What do archaeologists do when they see rocks? They go and study them to conclude whether they are fossils or rocks. Observation alone cannot deduce anything from afar. That's my point. You can't say either way in this case.

What I find unusual is that JPL doctored the images to make the objects in question blend better with the scenery. Why would they do that at all?

Now, Labrador says that JPL uses different color filters to learn more about the geology of Mars. That's true. He provides links to a gallery of hundreds of images. But, I have not seen yet, a single image of the rover having taken a shot with individual rocks on the ground appearing different from the lens tint, like that of the OPs. If you can show that to me it would clear a lot of things up.

reply to post by Unity_99


Ya thats definitely is a spine










mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

There's a few things to consider:

- Beware of antropocentrism.

Just because life on earth has a spine, it's not said life on any other planet would have one. Even more, it's even possible we wouldn't even recognize life as life, if it stared us in the face. This is a minor one, and it's possible trough transpermia that life in our solar system pretty much would all look more or less the same.


- GRAVITY. (less easily dismissed)

It's possible life might have existed on mars, and there might be fossils left of that, BUT. Mars has a lot less gravity, and that's never changed.
Therefor, the bones likely weren't as thick as those from creatures on earth, considering bone density is something held in check by earths gravity. Send people into space, and their bones weaken and eventually break.

I'm neither pro, nor con.

The pro's are:

- fetal position
- seems to have a consistent creature like structure. Ofcourse this could also be our pre-primed mines trying to find patterns :-)
- If it's cold blooded, which a repile is, it's consistent with the survival in harsh conditions. On the other hand, note that you'll find little reptiles in cold regions on earth.


If NASA thinks it's a possibility, it's normal for them not to comment untill they are certain. If they cry wolf too many times, noone would ever believe them again. Therefor i wouldn't say NASA is a conspiracy, but just a very prudent organisation.

That's just my two cents. It either is a fossil, or it's not. spoken like a true scientist i guess ;-) Time will tell.

Click here for more information.

Also just for giggles

Foraminal canal where nerve root exits...on image and crockadile skeleton...also double spinous process.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Indigo5

 

There is no rock that looks like spines. Sorry. Grow up.

Just because someone disagrees with you in no reason to act like a ......Rock?

BTW - It's only agianst T&C if you think these are something other than rocks....

Originally posted by GaryN
Yes, but the erosion is not by wind or water, but by plasma and electrical forces. Malta has a lot of surface features that defy conventional explanation too, but ion winds can sculpt rock, even granite, in a very short time.

That's a good pointer and I think the argument has not been mentioned up to this point. It reminds me of the findings, or better, assumptions by Robert Schoch. In this article about a devastating plasma or solar event in the remote past, he describes how solar outbursts and x-flares might have caused the dramatic demise of ancient civilisations on earth.

In this context, Mars could have been subject to such forces as well. But as usual, conclusive evidence for something like that to be considered by the scientific community is still missing. So probably, we'll have to wait until it happens (again?) here on earth, before we realize what it could do to a planet. But if this should, for any reason, be a real possibility ... I think that would cast a new light on why NASA is having a hard time discovering past life, because they'd have to explain the demise of such organisms and that's where it could become really interesting and provocative!

reply to post by Indigo5


As one Ex GF said to me when we broke up I've seen bigger, no seriousely though nature and the act of erosion can work wierd and wonderfull effect's such as those you may find in antarctica's dry valley's I am persuaded in the direction of a vertabrae fossil due to the following observation's,.

As can be cleary seen in the stack's that you have posted there is clear sedimantary striation between the layer's of aluvial deposit that later hardened one atop another over million's of year's, also these layer's compress those below them making them harder (with reference to there base material and particle size of course) in comparison to those above.

The exterior of weathered rock's in condition's such as have prevailed for many million's of years on mars (predominantly wind erosion) are usually concave or rounded, assuming the "Vertabrae" were such that had fallen over and then been weathered they would be extremely unlikely to take on these characteristic's - Sharp defined mixture of surface vectors, Repeating shape's - hole's in uniform location's and even size of vertabrae (if the stack fell sideways the different layers would weather at different rate's not uniform or even),.
Frost cracking can occur but the mean temperature remain's below zero so it would have to be carbon dioxide ice and that doese still not explain the uniform shape's.


While I understand the fear that the concept that life may have existed on mars may engender in some people I feel it is a forgone conclusion that we are being kept in the dark and there was indeed life there.

This has nothing to do with life on Mars, this is no evidence.....what you see are the remains of a cable conduit.

Great find Arkon.

PS maybe thats why the Pope retired...

I see what could be bones, but we can never know for sure. I am not going to sit here and say so absolutely that they are just rocks in those photos because that would be foolish. I want to believe that those are bones. Bit would certainly make me feel less lonely as a human being if this turns out to be true. However, as I said before, we can never know for sure.

Send it to the Colbert Show, they would probably run this as news.
Haven't read the thread yet so...may have been said.