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.
Originally posted by arianna
I wonder if the full-resolution left-hand images will be deposited in the PDS library.
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.
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)
Originally posted by TWILITE22
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, clouds do not mean rain, as anyone that lives in an area where there isn't any rain for years can tell you.
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
Originally posted by arianna
Can you remember the location where you found it?
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.
Getting annoyed? I'm narrow minded? No, I hope this is bone, but I hope someone comes out with something soon.
Every paleontologist, even with low skills, can confirm that there are Bones.
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)
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.
I trust what my eyes are telling me and what I see in these pictures are fossilized bones.
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?
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.
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