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: 27
319
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Gorman91
....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.

Fossils may not form on the surface, but they can reappear on the surface after being formed, and, as fossils, they will not turn to dust if exposed.

I know because I have see it many times where I live, sometimes we kicked a rock just to find that it was a fossil of a shell (the most common here).


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Argentino
What makes us all sure that this is really Mars?

No visible recent water erosion. Lack of clouds and the ones that we can see do not look like the clouds we see on Earth.

Those two things are enough for me.


PS: I have seen more than once people presenting photos from Earth as if they were from Mars, and the difference is noticeable.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Arken
 


Except, those real bones were under the Earth for millions of years.

Your mars photos are on the surface....

....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.


This is on earth and from marine animal..



They are more rock than bone now.

Fossils are rocks, and they are often found on or near the surface, some where the animal died on the surface, in other cases buried for thousands or maybe millions of years and exposed at the surface after the earth over it was eroded away.

Personally I am on the fence with what is in the OP, there are good arguments for and against.

But the images (original) are compelling.

The difference is that we can't simply send a qualified expert over to this site to examine the find, and investigate it. If we could, then there would be no arguments either way here. We'd already know what this is or isn't.

It's on Mars! NO one here can know with absolute certainty what it is in the OP, or what it isn't.


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



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Eerily reminiscent of the scene from Star Wars A New Hope where C3PO is walking past the bones of huge creatures in the dunes of Tatooine. Strange. Did/does Lucas know something? I mean, they found what they call "Data's Head" on the moon but it actually looks like C3PO's head. Saturn's mysterious moon, Iapetus has ridges around the equator --much like the Death Star trench. And now, we have fossils on Mars strikingly similar to those depicted in Star Wars. Hmmmmm....



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 

I also thought that the first vert. was a rock casting a shadow which looked like part of the object, but looking around the area the shadows are not that long. So on that alone I think it may not be a shadow of a smaller rock.

The personal attacks on the OP by newer users are picking up, a good sign I'd say. This thread is as interesting today as it was yesterday, and it shows no sign of letting up. I just assume it will be one of the discussion points on this weekend's ATS Show (how can it not be!!!). On a media point, do the people in the ATS office itself do any drumming up of media attention? It's just a matter of time before one of the major media folks decides this is an "exclusive" and maybe actually interviews Arken. Again, I'm not saying it is a fossil, and it still is probably a bunch of rocks only because the odds favor "rocks". But some very good and credible people have voiced their opinions of this thread that there might be something to the fossil argument, so it won't hurt ATS or the Mars Rover mission to have the media grab hold of this one.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I have a fosselized scallop shell. Much bigger than the scallops get now. If it was whole the shell would measure somewhere around seven inches across. It is blackish blue in color, not the white or brown and white it would have been if it was still just shell. The right top edge is chipped off. I got it on the shore of the James River in Surry Virginia. Lots of fossels there. Thats the thing to remember, a bone or a shell is not white or even light in color when it becomes a fossel. Its usually very dark in color. I also have a fosselized shark tooth. It too is black. or charcoal color really.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Arken
 


Except, those real bones were under the Earth for millions of years.

Your mars photos are on the surface....

....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.


This is on earth and from marine animal..



They are more rock than bone now.

Fossils are rocks, and they are often found on or near the surface, some where the animal died on the surface, in other cases buried for thousands or maybe millions of years and exposed at the surface after the earth over it was eroded away.

Personally I am on the fence with what is in the OP, there are good arguments for and against.

But the images (original) are compelling.

The difference is that we can't simply send a qualified expert over to this site to examine the find, and investigate it. If we could, then there would be no arguments either way here. We'd already know what this is or isn't.

It's on Mars! NO one here can know with absolute certainty what it is in the OP, or what it isn't.


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


This appears to be a river bed so the formation of this type of fossel was by mineralization where the living material was replaced by minerals over ages. That is the sedimentary type of fosselization. There are frozen fossels of wooly mammoths in glaciers, there are dried specimens in arid areas and even some preserved in peet bogs but we are talking about the mineralization type which is the type that becomes rock. That takes place under water. In the photo you present the river is long gone but the fossel is left behind. The fossel did not form on the surface of that desert.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Argentino
 


Thats another conspiracy in and of itself. Why dont you start a new thread?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Heres what i see.



The material at 2 is clearly attached and a continuation of the material area at 1 and since no noticable break or difference seperates material at 2 and the remaining material encompassing area 3 it has to be one mass the same as (and in this case it is also a part of) the material to the right of area 2 that goes out of my picture.

Which for me indicates its simply exposed wind or water eroded rock similar to all the other areas like it within the original image, such as the larger rocky area (not included in my pic) some way north and to the right of the 'spine' where all discussing.

The bottom pic just shows in white where i see the more major changes in planes and forms or contours. The cyan lines are just to indicate a few of the rocks nearby.

Its also interesting looking at the original NASA pic that the entire image is striped vertically, which im assuming is possibly part of the compression technique used. And in some areas especially more detail heavy places such as the 'spine' you can clearly see where a strip of the image abruptly becomes another... this could mean their are artifacts or even missing pixels (even if their are only say 1-2 pixels missing vertically between each 'strip') in the original image that are causing issues and making people seeing breaks or separations or even teh wrong shapes where their shouldn't be any.



All my pics are made from cropped screen grabs of the zoomed in areas while in PS so there is no anti-aliasing of the original images pixels.

Edit:- One other thing id say is its easy to point out the odd in a cropped part of an image, but if you look at the 'spine' in the context of the entire photo its form and shape isnt really all that different shape wise from everything else in the picture. Then again that would simply get the 'well thats because the entire picture is full of fossils' response from some...
edit on 20-2-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61560
I have a fosselized scallop shell. Much bigger than the scallops get now. If it was whole the shell would measure somewhere around seven inches across.

I had one of those too, some 10 inches wide, but it was white.


I also have a fosselized shark tooth. It too is black. or charcoal color really.

So have I, a Carcharodon Megalodon tooth, but it's not black, as you can see below.



(In the photo it looks a little bigger that the real 11.5 cm)

Both were found some 300 metres from where I live, in Almada.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by Arken
 


I was looking over the raw images and came across a small light in one, it could be nothing but I found it interesting nonetheless, any ideas? Look to the right side middle.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


Do you know Arken, it's strange that you noticed this...well it isn't that you noticed it, but that i found very similar, but very much larger (mines bigger than yours :lol
examples under a rock in Sol 108 and other imagery..apologies, but i tend to answer posts that catch my eye directly, and totally unprepared..please give me a while and i'll point you to the exact image i saw them in.

Wonder what they are?

Skeptics will probably say weathered holes in rocks letting chinks of sunlight through, or abberant mineralogy...while possible, i'm not convinced that is the case, while i don't know what is causing the bright white 'blobs', i'm not ready to accept any old explanation, in order to arrive at a speedy explanation.

Give me a while, i'll find the image and edit this post.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Gorman91
....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.

Fossils may not form on the surface, but they can reappear on the surface after being formed, and, as fossils, they will not turn to dust if exposed.

I know because I have see it many times where I live, sometimes we kicked a rock just to find that it was a fossil of a shell (the most common here).


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Thank you Armap, while not necassarily reinforcing the ancient fossilised bones theory, but at the same time not rubbishing it, and acknowledging how fossils can rise to the surface over aeons.

You sir, are a gent, and more importantly in my opinion...HONEST, whether that honesty may infinge on your personal beliefs or not. (a true mark of honesty IMO
)

Hope you don't mind Armap, as i know you have a deep interest in Geology, so I recommend that every member attract Armap's attention when trying to distinguish or identify odd looking rocks from ancient fossils or machinery, whether on Earth or on one of our Solar planets...he'll tell you straight..he might not be right all the time, who is, but at least it will be educated and honest.

Cheers Armap, nice one.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


And that's the problem in a nutshell!

We can't just go ourselves or organise an expedition to the location.

Is there not a mechanism where we can just order NASA to send Curiosity back to take a detailed look at the areas of interest?

I know they have things they want to look at and so on, but if they won't, it kind of makes a mockery of a 'public, and publicly funded space programme' does it not if the public don't get a say in even a few minor aspects of the mission they've paid a lot of money for?

It would take many voices saying the same thing, and perhaps an institution or two or three...but why not?

Americans are paying for it, after all, shouldn't they have a say in how their money is being utilised? I think they ought to...and this is as good a candidate as any. It's close by, it's within range, it's been here before and the mission is updated on the fly...it's perfect for a public outreach / PR campaign opportunity!
(NASA...you might get a few dollars more next year if the public show more of an interest...if you get my drift!)

C'mon NASA, let's settle this one, one way or the other.

If it's the remains of aquatic life, fantastic..but really, no big deal in the grand scheme of things...if it isn't...it's not far out of your way to go and so what? It's PR!



edit on 20-2-2013 by MysterX because: Errors and added comment



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by ausername
 


And that's the problem in a nutshell!

We can't just go ourselves or organise an expedition to the location.

Is there not a mechanism where we can just order NASA to send Curiosity back to take a detailed look at the areas of interest?

I know they have things they want to look at and so on, but if they won't, it kind of makes a mockery of a 'public, and publicly funded space programme' does it not if the public don't get a say in even a few minor aspects of the mission they've paid a lot of money for?

It would take many voices saying the same thing, and perhaps an institution or two or three...but why not?

Americans are paying for it, after all, shouldn't they have a say in how their money is being utilised? I think they ought to...and this is as good a candidate as any. It's close by, it's within range, it's been here before and the mission is updated on the fly...it's perfect for a public outreach / PR campaign opportunity!
(NASA...you might get a few dollars more next year if the public show more of an interest...if you get my drift!)

C'mon NASA, let's settle this one, one way or the other.

If it's the remains of aquatic life, fantastic..but really, no big deal in the grand scheme of things...if it isn't...it's not far out of your way to go and so what? It's PR!



edit on 20-2-2013 by MysterX because: Errors and added comment


Since when did the U.S. powers that be ever give a damn about what the tax-payers actually wanted? Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
edit on 20-2-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Since when did the U.S. powers that be ever give a damn about what the tax-payers actually wanted? Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

Do you know that you can ask NASA to use the HiRISE camera aboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to take a photo of any place on Mars? You just have to tell them why you want them to photograph that area in a convincing way.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Double post, sorry.

edit on 20/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Since when did the U.S. powers that be ever give a damn about what the tax-payers actually wanted? Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

Do you know that you can ask NASA to use the HiRISE camera aboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to take a photo of any place on Mars? You just have to tell them why you want them to photograph that area in a convincing way.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Well, maybe the owners, administrators and moderators at ATS can come up with a nice letter that all of you can sign, and then put it on a thread for all of us to sign as well (although real names may not work, maybe the petition/letter with a link to where to send it to). But with all the admins, mods, and owners united in asking for a closer look at this, it might be a tip-in.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by easynow
 


Why won't NASA navigate the rover back to some of these areas where all these strange things are being seen and get better images ?

Because they already reviewed it and it and it did not warrant further investigation?

Lets suppose for a moment (though) that they are "fossilized vertebrae" proving life. Don't you think Nasa scientists would have noticed that? Every inch of every photograph is scrutinized for exactly such things. If they thought it was something out of the ordinary for that geologic strata then they would have looked closer. If it was "OMG fossils proving life on Mars" and they wanted to hide that for some mysterious reason, the photo would never have appeared in public.




Really? What if they did take a close look but kept the pictures from the public?
How many weird anomallies never had a close shot?
Remember that green man's statue (or whatever that was)? It was so great but we never had a close up.

My theory: for every anomally Nasa has a good explanation, but no extra pictures... The lack of those pics reinforces the conspiracy side. My two cents



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by Arken
 


I was looking over the raw images and came across a small light in one, it could be nothing but I found it interesting nonetheless, any ideas? Look to the right side middle.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


Do you know Arken, it's strange that you noticed this...well it isn't that you noticed it, but that i found very similar, but very much larger (mines bigger than yours :lol
examples under a rock in Sol 108 and other imagery..apologies, but i tend to answer posts that catch my eye directly, and totally unprepared..please give me a while and i'll point you to the exact image i saw them in.

Wonder what they are?

Skeptics will probably say weathered holes in rocks letting chinks of sunlight through, or abberant mineralogy...while possible, i'm not convinced that is the case, while i don't know what is causing the bright white 'blobs', i'm not ready to accept any old explanation, in order to arrive at a speedy explanation.

Give me a while, i'll find the image and edit this post.


Took longer than i thought and had to post again, but here's the white spot i mentioned..and another couple of mysteries to get our teeth into.

The image is 0108MR0683059000E1_DXXX.jpg, from Curiosity Sol 108, and the original can be found here: Curiosity image link

Here's my edited version, all i've done is added some arrows and numbers in brackets to show areas of interest and resized to make it postable here:


(1) Is the white 'blob', whatever that is..since we're talking about it, i thought that should be first.

(2) Is (to my eyes) an unexplained oval shadow...can't see anything on the image that would account for it, maybe another member could shed some light on what's causing it?

(3) Now this one might be big...it seems to be a deliberate area of obfuscation. Look for yourselves, i'd be interested in a realistic explanation for it. It's not like any shadows on the image, it has feathering around it's edges, and..well, i've noticed one or two other digital photographic anomalies with the original that i won't mention yet...but it just screams that something is being covered under that brown smudge.

What do you think Imaging experts?

Arken, the white area under the small overhang, (1) on my image, looks a lot like the one you posted, but larger. What do you think they could be?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Yes, but not generally unless they have to or have already offered to, and yes i do.

Oh, and what Armap said too.




top topics



 
319
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join