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

page: 34
314
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intermediator313
Hello!

This is my first ever post here. I´ve been lurking for a while, and believe this is a good time to reply.

I have sent (as should YOU) the unaltered pics from Gale Crater to the Geology Ass. and to the Archeology Ass.
in my country. I will keep myself and the people involved anonymous.

Today i got my answers from both!! Now hear this:

The Geology Ass. forwarded my request to the Archeology Ass. with a question as to what it was...
So the "rock-dudes/dudettes" didn´t know what it was and sent it to the "bone-dudes/dudettes".

One of them Dr. Prof. NN , thought it looked like Vertebrae, but because of unknown scale, he thought they could be anything.
He then forwarded it to a friend (fossil-hunter) asking his opinion. He also thought they looked like Vertebrae, BUT because of unknown scale... it could be anything...

They were all unaware of the location of the Rocks/Bones...

So... obviously they LOOK like Vertebrae, and not like stones... but they CAN be just strange stones..

Does anyone know the scale???

Has anyone of YOU sent the ORIGINAL photos to your closest Stone expert, Bone expert??? You should.

I will try to send NASA an e-mail requesting the full resolution photos. Thanks.


Thank you very much. I appreciate a lot.
Thanks for your efforts and contribution!




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Sadly, for some, ignorance is bliss.

Fossils CAN be found, and ARE found on the surface in the GOBI desert, Mongolia.

They can also be found half buried and completely buried. Educate yourself.

GOOGLE is your friend!!!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Regarding scale, I doubt that knowing the scale would be of any help in this case. We are after all, talking about something on the surface of Mars. The scale could be anything at all -- we wouldn't know if it was consistent or not with a real Mars creature.

I guess knowing the scale could help narrow down what type of Earth creature most closely matches it. It would be interesting it if was found to be identical to a species of living or fossilized creatures found on Earth. That would tell us either both planets shared some of the same life forms, or that the photo is actually taken on Earth and colorized to look like Mars.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
I am going to play devil's advocate again in this thread and put out this scenario.

You are a scientist, in a space suit, on Mars, and you are walking through the same crater that the Curiosity rover is in. Your job is to search out anomalies that may help prove that there was once life on Mars.
You stumble near this outcropping of what appear to be bones, just like the rover has.
Now, do you go over to it to get a better look, or do you just keep on walking , like it was not important?

This, to me, is really what it boils down to. I cannot imagine ignoring this object, even if it IS a pile of rocks.
If they do not task this rover to go over there and get a better look, then there is something really wrong with the pursuit of science here, and that bothers me greatly.


Reminds me of something Hogland said ... for a rover called "Curiosity" it isn't very curious about anything.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Arken, you should email Andrew Knoll

From what I’ve read, he has been involved with previous Mars missions and seems to be extremely interested in the possibility of fossils on Mars.

Either you will blow his mind, or he might provide you with some scientific reasoning as to why these are not fossilized bones.

Of course, you should tell him the location of the images... he'll probably know anyway.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


I have to admit that logic does seem to have Merit...

Not bones...but unusual rocks..perhaps eroded by wind, various elements, once fluid water?

Or potential fossil remains...

To my laymen perspective either conclusion would have warranted a closer pass by the rover for investigation?

And why didn't that appear to happen.

If the rocks were so obviously a common and less than interesting anomoly as to not warrant a close examination...or closer pics..then my opinion would be that NASA should have a better PR or public outreach function where they can explain why this unusual rock is not unusual...at the very least it offers a "teaching moment" or a chance to capitalize on public attention to the mission. But silence on the image seems a poor choice. Can NASA be entirely unaware that there was some public discussion about these pics?

Just thinking outloud.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Can NASA be entirely unaware that there was some public discussion about these pics?


Probably not "entirely" unaware, as I'm sure there are a few folks at NASA who lurk on ATS now and then. But, those folks probably don't go to their supervisors and say "look what I saw on ATS today"

It would have to make it to MSM in order for them to take notice enough to even consider commenting on the topic. Even then, they usually only comment on things that people think might destroy the planet, like Nibiru and asteroids.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Ok mate

(I'm jokin, im jokin



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Can NASA be entirely unaware that there was some public discussion about these pics?


Probably not "entirely" unaware, as I'm sure there are a few folks at NASA who lurk on ATS now and then. But, those folks probably don't go to their supervisors and say "look what I saw on ATS today"

It would have to make it to MSM in order for them to take notice enough to even consider commenting on the topic. Even then, they usually only comment on things that people think might destroy the planet, like Nibiru and asteroids.


OK...from NASA's Curioisity page...

Members of the media, please contact:

Dwayne Brown
NASA Headquarters
(202) 358-1726
dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov


Maybe an ATS Mod could reach out for comment?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Arken
 


Arken, you should email Andrew Knoll

From what I’ve read, he has been involved with previous Mars missions and seems to be extremely interested in the possibility of fossils on Mars.

Either you will blow his mind, or he might provide you with some scientific reasoning as to why these are not fossilized bones.

Of course, you should tell him the location of the images... he'll probably know anyway.


Thanks for this tip.

I do it .



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
We interviewed Andrew Knoll back in 2005 at ID. A quote from the interview....




2. Based on the evidence you have seen, how long ago (If it exists) would you say life first began on Mars? How does it compare to the genesis of life on Earth, and would this information lend any credibility of the theory that life on earth may have been seeded by asteroids or other space debris?

I’m not convinced that life ever existed on Mars, although we don’t have definitive data one way or the other. Based on what we have learned from NASA’s Mars rovers, however, I suspect that the window of time when life could have arisen on the Martian surface was limited to the first 500 million years to one billion years of the planet’s history. I say that because 3.5 to 4.0 billion year old sedimentary rocks at Meridiani Planum preserve evidence of acidic and oxidizing environments – conditions that make prebiotic chemistry challenging. In future missions, we hope to learn whether these conditions were, indeed, global at the time Meridiani rocks formed, and when they were first established.

source



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by smirkley
 


Good interview



9. Have you seen any evidence from any of the photos sent back of the possibility of life, being parasitic or other?

No, disappointingly perhaps, I have seen absolutely nothing in any image from Mars that can’t be explained just fine as the product of physical processes. We continue to keep our eyes open – and who wouldn’t like to be the one to find biological signatures in Martian sediments – but so far, nothing.


Byrd presented a very good case on the previous page as to why these are most likely rocks.

If we have two experts comment on this, that would be even better.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Probably not "entirely" unaware, as I'm sure there are a few folks at NASA who lurk on ATS now and then. But, those folks probably don't go to their supervisors and say "look what I saw on ATS today".


I bet they do, the people at NASA probably love jokes like the claims in this thread!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrtallent
Regarding scale, I doubt that knowing the scale would be of any help in this case. We are after all, talking about something on the surface of Mars. The scale could be anything at all -- we wouldn't know if it was consistent or not with a real Mars creature.


But the pictures were sent to various people with a question of "what is this" and no mention was made that it was on Mars. Therefore, the FIRST question they would ask is "what size is it" (and the second is "where is it"?) because that helps narrow down the possibilities in order to be able to answer the question.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Just found a 3D color panorama from sol109, where you can see the " vertibrae ".

Get your 3D glasses out and enjoy.

www.planetary.org...



It is located to the right side on panorama, ca 25% from the end. Almost in the middle of the panorama.
You can see the light-colored roundish stone that´s to the left of the "bones" there.

I downloaded the large file and was able to zoom in quit a bit. Real 3D fun!!
edit on 25-2-2013 by Intermediator313 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2013 by Intermediator313 because: removed wrong link



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
To my laymen perspective either conclusion would have warranted a closer pass by the rover for investigation?

And why didn't that appear to happen.


I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but it takes 10-15 minutes for a signal to get from the surface of Mars to the Earth and the same amount of time to send a signal back. It will get the signal IF it's still "daylight" on Mars when the signal comes back(see this page for a little more info)

The Rover is on an autonomous exploration track -- they pre-program it on where they want it to go (its sensors help it avoid problematic terrain and obstacles) So, if Rover passed by (say) the Tardis, it would take 10 minutes for that information to get to Earth (and the rover would have gone on its merry way), and some amount of time on Earth to get the approval for a program signal of "stop. turn around. retrace your route for (a certain number) minutes." and then another 10 minutes to get the signal back to Rover. So... it could be half an hour or more (if Martian daylight was ending) to get a signal back that says "WHOA! Go back!"

They do go back for certain things, but it's not like driving something in a video game.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks for that Byrd. I knew there was a time delay, but hadn't thought through all that delay implies.

Honestly...I still fall into the "rocks" crowd, but am a little frustrated that an expert opinion hasn't weighed in yet to make me more secure in my "rocks" opinion.

I would take a paleontologist..or geologist...and not folks who just play one on the interent.

Honestly...what kind of suprised me was if this was a spine...it would be psuedo-reptilian given the vertabrae...so I searched for a Crockadile spine, found the image and compared the "outlier" bone on the far right...and to my suprise or frustration it more or less matched the mars rock/bone. ...several features aligned...i am eager for an expert (a credentialed expert) to explain why this image is NOT a spine.

Here is my post with the Crock image.

Originally posted by Indigo5
OK...for the "bones" crowd...i am going to throw you a "bone"...though I still believe "rocks" until I am convinced otherwise....

Crocadile Skeleton....


Look at the image above...Note the bone furthest to the right...where the spine would join with the skull...



NOW...look at the "Mars Spine"....and the bone furthest to the right...where the spine would join with the skull.






Red Arrow...cartilage in the Crock Skeleton...Hole in mars bone where soft tissue eroded.

Black arrow...boney formation that forms a backwards "C"...both bones

Blue arrow...arc and triangular point...

edit on 22-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
edit on 25-2-2013 by Ektar because: wrong site...sorry



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


It would be great if someone was willing to make a 3d modelling replication of one of these 'fossil' structures. Im not sure if it is time worth it but I'm sure it would be interesting. Someone?
edit on 26-2-2013 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by LordAdef
It would be great if someone was willing to make a 3d modelling replication of one of these 'fossil' structures. Im not sure if it is time worth it but I'm sure it would be interesting. Someone?

Even with photos from the left and right camera we don't have enough data to make a model, as we haven't any idea of how it looks on the other side.

A 3D model where we had to use an imagined side would be worse than not having it, as it make people think that what they were seeing in the model was the truth.



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





 
314
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join



 
$('#skin').click(function(){ window.location.href = "http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008463/pg1"; });