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

page: 32
317
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
I wonder if the full-resolution left-hand images will be deposited in the PDS library.

All the photos (and non-image data) are supposed to end up in the PDS.




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I haven't posted my opinion about these "vertebrae" because I was looking a rock that I have and that I show below.






When I first found it I thought it looked like a vertebra, so I picked it up and kept it. Looking more carefully at it I noticed that it wasn't really symmetrical and that it's block-like, without the holes vertebrae have, so I concluded that this is just an interesting rock and nothing more.

But I can't really be sure about it, as it may be a fossil that, for some reason, didn't follow the original shape of the vertebra it reproduces (if that's the case).

So, in this case, I have personal experience of finding a vertebra like rock and of not really knowing if what I found was just a rock.

Those Mars photos show what, to me, looks like strangely shaped rocks that can also be real fossils, although I think they are more likely rocks, as the area has more strangely shaped rocks that do not look like bones.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 


Yah...Honestly I looked at the mars spine and thought that rock on the right is the odd duck out...two rows of spineous process leading to that odd rock...well a Crock has two rows...find a crock skeleton and match that bone on the right...highlight the differences...dismiss the rock theorey...but the bone furthest on the right? It structurally aligns with the unique bone in a Crock skeleton on multiple features...Definetly got me hesitating on a quick dismissal as rocks.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I usually don't comment in these threads because it comes down to what you see and your opinion.
I don't like to debate I like to form my own opinion on what I percieve in Mars photos.
Fascinating to say the least.
What I want to know is why is it so inconceivable to think there might have been life on Mars at one time?
Why is it such a stretch to say there once was life on this planet?Just like the debate about life in the deep recesses of Earth,in caves,in the ocean where there is no sunlight and life manages to flourish?
Why?I don't get it?
Look around people life is everywhere and wouldn't surprise me one bit that there is life on other planets as well.
Why are we so special?

Without saying where these pictures came from I've asked people what they see,all of the answers were the same it looks like a spine or vertebrae,not one rock answer!...seriously take the next step people there is or was life on Mars!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by ImpactoR
 

Good pics. Yes, it seems when the dust is removed from the rocks they are all white or off-white. Lots of white rocks in Gale Crater.

Some posters mention that winds would have covered the rocks. Yet in the pictures from Curiosity it seems there is a lack of dust on the rocks - most of them have a very light layer actually. This has made me wonder where all the dust is, because supposedly the surface rocks have been sitting there for hundreds of millions of years, or ever since the water went elsewhere, whatever came first. So a fossil would be covered and uncovered at different times.

The kicker in this whole question would be if another such fossil/rock were found. Having this one example makes it a curiosity (and a collectors item!). But if another one appears somewhere along Curiosity's track, we may have to give Arken a pulizer prize for journalism in America and a rousing "Hip hip hurrah" in England. In Asia, he would get a statue and a palace, and in Italy, a free bottle of wine!

edit on 23-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
I used to go fossil and arrowhead hunting years ago with my father and the best time to do this without digging was after a rainstorm,anything that was just under the soil would come to the surface.We found many a fossil and arrowheads this way.
So I'm going to say it rain!I know all the naysayers will have a field day with that one but it would explain the dust issue and why the bones or fossils aren't buried,could very well be possible.It's a leap I know but it sure does explain a few things and maybe this is a reason for Nasa not acknowledging these as bones or evidence of past life maybe it would bring up too many questions that they don't want to answer.
I know there are some pictures floating around that shows what looks to be wet sand or dampness under the surface I just can't get them to embed.Nasa has at least acknowledged clouds in the sky and where there are clouds there is a possibility of rain.
anyway for all the naysayers out there it's just a theory...just thinking out loud



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


Strange isn't it, you get the feeling some people are actually scared to think there is or was life on Mars...I can't imagine why they would feel that way. Unless they are actively coming here it effects us not at all except to gain knowledge of our circumstances and the universe.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by ImpactoR
 

Good pics. Yes, it seems when the dust is removed from the rocks they are all white or off-white. Lots of white rocks in Gale Crater.

Some posters mention that winds would have covered the rocks. Yet in the pictures from Curiosity it seems there is a lack of dust on the rocks - most of them have a very light layer actually. This has made me wonder where all the dust is, because supposedly the surface rocks have been sitting there for hundreds of millions of years, or ever since the water went elsewhere, whatever came first. So a fossil would be covered and uncovered at different times.

The kicker in this whole question would be if another such fossil/rock were found. Having this one example makes it a curiosity (and a collectors item!). But if another one appears somewhere along Curiosity's track, we may have to give Arken a pulizer prize for journalism in America and a rousing "Hip hip hurrah" in England. In Asia, he would get a statue and a palace, and in Italy, a free bottle of wine!

edit on 23-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
I used to go fossil and arrowhead hunting years ago with my father and the best time to do this without digging was after a rainstorm,anything that was just under the soil would come to the surface.We found many a fossil and arrowheads this way.
So I'm going to say it rain!I know all the naysayers will have a field day with that one but it would explain the dust issue and why the bones or fossils aren't buried,could very well be possible.It's a leap I know but it sure does explain a few things and maybe this is a reason for Nasa not acknowledging these as bones or evidence of past life maybe it would bring up too many questions that they don't want to answer.
I know there are some pictures floating around that shows what looks to be wet sand or dampness under the surface I just can't get them to embed.Nasa has at least acknowledged clouds in the sky and where there are clouds there is a possibility of rain.
anyway for all the naysayers out there it's just a theory...just thinking out loud




At around -75 Celsius, a volume can hold 0.03% of 7 millibars = 2 microbars worth of water, which is about the typical content of Mars's atmosphere. (It is more complicated than that because the amount of water vapor and atmospheric pressure vary a lot from place to place, just like on Earth). At about this temperature, the relative humidity reaches 100%. So when it gets cold, Mars has precipitation.



They say it probably does not take the form of all out rain but frost and snow is more likely but that is a theory not fact.

www.npr.org...



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Your rock is an interesting specimen.

Can you remember the location where you found it?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


Strange isn't it, you get the feeling some people are actually scared to think there is or was life on Mars...I can't imagine why they would feel that way. Unless they are actively coming here it effects us not at all except to gain knowledge of our circumstances and the universe.


I'm not so sure dude. People are probably more hesitant admitting that big boney creatures once roamed Mars, rather than the possibly of life in a primitive form. Huge difference

Its ridiculous and laughable that those who think these are just rocks are then branded as narrow minded. Personally I think these are sandblasted rock, the microscopic life could be living beneath those rocks for all we know. Or they could be bone? I think highly unlikely.

What I don't get here is the hate on NASA, who don't forget are THERE!! In what is an amazing accomplishment, and then the hate to others apposing views.

And while i'm talking, I don't like people that state things as fact on here when they are clearly not. It makes them look desperate to push their ideas and beliefs, especially when they are not fact. Getting annoyed? I'm narrow minded? No, I hope this is bone, but I hope someone comes out with something soon.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TWILITE22
So I'm going to say it rain!I know all the naysayers will have a field day with that one but it would explain the dust issue and why the bones or fossils aren't buried,could very well be possible.It's a leap I know but it sure does explain a few things and maybe this is a reason for Nasa not acknowledging these as bones or evidence of past life maybe it would bring up too many questions that they don't want to answer.

The problem with that idea is that there aren't any signs or water erosion, something that would be noticeable if there was any rain.


I know there are some pictures floating around that shows what looks to be wet sand or dampness under the surface I just can't get them to embed.
All the photos I have seen that showed what some people said was wet sand didn't look like wet sand to me, so I hope you are able to at least point to one of those photos.



Nasa has at least acknowledged clouds in the sky and where there are clouds there is a possibility of rain.
No, clouds do not mean rain, as anyone that lives in an area where there isn't any rain for years can tell you.
Also, if you look at the many photos of Mars clouds you will see that they look like the high atmosphere clouds we have on Earth, and those do not bring any rain.


anyway for all the naysayers out there it's just a theory...just thinking out loud

That's what everybody should do.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by arianna
Can you remember the location where you found it?

If I'm not mistaken it came in a truckload of red sand for some construction work. I don't have any idea where the sand coma from.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnionHead

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


Strange isn't it, you get the feeling some people are actually scared to think there is or was life on Mars...I can't imagine why they would feel that way. Unless they are actively coming here it effects us not at all except to gain knowledge of our circumstances and the universe.


I'm not so sure dude. People are probably more hesitant admitting that big boney creatures once roamed Mars, rather than the possibly of life in a primitive form. Huge difference

Its ridiculous and laughable that those who think these are just rocks are then branded as narrow minded. Personally I think these are sandblasted rock, the microscopic life could be living beneath those rocks for all we know. Or they could be bone? I think highly unlikely.

What I don't get here is the hate on NASA, who don't forget are THERE!! In what is an amazing accomplishment, and then the hate to others apposing views.

And while i'm talking, I don't like people that state things as fact on here when they are clearly not. It makes them look desperate to push their ideas and beliefs, especially when they are not fact. Getting annoyed? I'm narrow minded? No, I hope this is bone, but I hope someone comes out with something soon.


Well first off I am not a DUDE...second if what I said does not pertain to you why respond at all?

3rd

Getting annoyed? I'm narrow minded? No, I hope this is bone, but I hope someone comes out with something soon.


where did you get all that from MY post?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Thanks for everyone's contributions on this thread. There have been
some very valid points made on both sides & very educational.... therefore this
continues to be interesting & I will continue to enjoy reading...
just need some popcorn for tonight's show!
Congrats Arken your thread is on the ATS Live
show TONIGHT!


Cheers
Ektar



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 





Every paleontologist, even with low skills, can confirm that there are Bones.

That's a pretty absolute statement you made there.

How can you be so sure of this?

Have you talked to "Every paleontologist, even with low skills" to confirm this?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
There lies the problem with pictures of a place none of us can get to.All we have to go on is an agency
that gives us nothing.So it come down to interpretation of what we all see.
I trust what my eyes are telling me and what I see in these pictures are fossilized bones.
No one is right no matter how many times you get an outside quote from Nasa because I don't think they are giving us the whole story,not by a long shot.

Have you ever wondered why Nasa doesn't involve the public?Why don't they take the tiime to have a question and answer session about the rover and the pics being sent back?Why not answer some of the questions or give feedback on these anomolies?What are they afraid of?no they give us enough(for some people,not me)to shut us up thats it,or basically a pat on the head.

I also don't believe for a second they spent all that money to send a rover there to find microscopic life,not when there is so much more to see and if they did what a waste of time and money.How strange to only look for something that can only be viewed under a microscope?Is that all the people want from a mission to Mars?Is that all it takes to satisfy some people?Isn't there more interesting things to see there?,I would imagine there is because it doesn't look so desolate to me.

Thank god for members like Arken who take the time to scrutinize the Mars photos for anything other than microscopic life.

Phew I feel better now



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by impaired
 


Just recieved an e-mail from a Paleontologist Professor: 99% they are FOSSILS!


He want know, for the total confirmation, where he can find the area where I made this discovery, to dig the site.... because he don't know and do not recognize what kind of dinosaur it could be.....
edit on 22-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)


Okay... I gotta ask: which paleontologist and who are they affiliated with?

The only reason I bring this up is that while I *have* seen that kind of enthusiastic response from fossil finders (many who are good and valued by real paleontologists) and I've seen it from dig leaders, I have NOT seen that kind of response from those who have a job title of paleontologist.

Digs are expensive and a lot of trouble and a lot of manpower. Generally they're very cautious and so I'm surprised that someone would leap all over it without asking the first question that every PhD paleontologist (in my experience) asks:
"Where, exactly is this thing."

The other odd thing is that they'd say they "don't recognize what kind of dinosaur it could be."'

Again, if I saw just the picture my first question would be "where" and then "how big." To identify a mysterious set of "vertebra" as a "dinosaur" is so very out of character (because there's millions of things with fossil vertebra that aren't dinosaurs.

So where'd you send it? I wonder if it's someone I know.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
We'll be discussing this subject on ATS Live Tonight.

More info here - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

I found another martian skeleton. On this photo the skeleton of martian creature is represented in the red circumference:



edit on 23-2-2013 by ramacharaka because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2013 by ramacharaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


What religion would that be? I kinda am hoping you say Christianity so I can teach you about irony.
(see...only a ignotard would think that there is a religion that believes in the "literal" meaning of the Bible and even those fringe "denominations" and groups and the few uneducated self taught fundamentalist, can't point out where it says in the Bible that life never existed else where.)

Take better aim....because most of us Bible lovers love ET, science, and the rest of God's creations in the Cosmos.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TWILITE22
There lies the problem with pictures of a place none of us can get to.All we have to go on is an agency that gives us nothing.

They give us the photos.



I trust what my eyes are telling me and what I see in these pictures are fossilized bones.

Everybody is trusting their eyes, our brains are what makes us interpret what we all see in different ways.


Have you ever wondered why Nasa doesn't involve the public?Why don't they take the tiime to have a question and answer session about the rover and the pics being sent back?

No, I never wondered about that, do you know why? Because, from what I have seen, they only do that after the main science phase is over. After all, all that money was spent with a specific purpose, so they must follow the original plan.


Why not answer some of the questions or give feedback on these anomolies?

Which questions? What "anomaly hunter's" questions would they answer? All? They wouldn't have enough time for that.


What are they afraid of?

Why should they be afraid of anything?


I also don't believe for a second they spent all that money to send a rover there to find microscopic life,not when there is so much more to see and if they did what a waste of time and money.

That's not the purpose of this mission.


Thank god for members like Arken who take the time to scrutinize the Mars photos for anything other than microscopic life.

As an atheist I don't thank god, but I thank Arken and all the people that spend their time to find what they think is out of place and bring it to us all to see.



Phew I feel better now

I'm glad my post gave you the opportunity to write all of the above.



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





new topics




 
317
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join