Fossilized Skeletons, Skulls, Fish, and a strange "W" on the horizon... from Curiosity., page 9

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:30 PM

link

To get into more detail, I think it is likely there were single celled organisms on Mars, but to get from that to multicellular life has to be a massive step. I think if you found 10000 planets with microbial life, only one of those would contain animals and such as we know them, and we may have to find a million planets with animals to find a single one with human like intelligence.

Of course, these numbers are just guesses but I believe it unlikely Mars ever had complex life, and if it did we are going to either find mass evidence of that life and its technology, or absolutely nothing but fossils. That is why I find it astronomically unlikely you have stumbled upon some sort of war helmet in isolation amongst a bunch of stones, and far, far more likely you have found a slightly odd shaped rock.

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

SurveyingFlea

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:45 PM

link

reply to post by Arken

Hello this is my first post. These are amazing pictures and going through them I was in awe. The photo's regarding the "W", if you look next to it on the left I'm hesitant to say but it looks like a living dinosaur like creature. Im wondering if anyone else sees what I see. I noticed the other object to the right as well. so many awesome oddities

Arken

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:08 PM

link

reply to post by SurveyingFlea

Thanks. Ready for the ride?

Welcome on ATS.

MCL1150

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:15 PM

link

reply to post by Arken

Nice work, Two Thumbs Waaay Up for Arken!!

AFewGoodWomen

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:41 PM

link

Originally posted by lambchop
You missed the bird rock that looks like Mr Burns

Lostmymarbles

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:56 PM

link

Originally posted by stars15k
Rocks. Shaped by weathering.
Nothing not found on earth that are also just rocks.
No one is hiding anything, because there is no need to do so.

Wouldn't you need rain to help cause the weathering? And Mars supposedly does not have water just ice, so where is the rain to aid in your weathering suggestion?

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:57 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by smurfy
Okay, what I'm saying is what we're looking at in most of the pictures, is clumps of congealed 'sand' or 'dust' just hard enough to maintain a shape. Jump on it, and it would crumble.

Yes, we can see that most rocks break under the weight (smaller on Mars) of the rover, so they are brittle sedimentary rocks that, for some reason, appear to lack strong adhesion of the sediments from which they are made.

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

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:02 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Justoneman
I am convinced that some on here want to know the truth wherever it leads us and unconvincingly dismissing them all is a big fail for fellow scientist studying in the field.

Even if it leads us to a "it's all rocks" situation?

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

arianna

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:50 PM

link

Here is something else from sol 109 that members may find of interest.

The formation has structure indicating that it could be a possible fossilized formation of an ancient sea creature.

On the other hand, it just may be a long array of rocks.

A larger image is available at the link below.

Image no: 0109MR0684015000E1

Direct view.

i985.photobucket.com...

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:39 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The "W" is really too far away to get a good idea of what it may be (it reminds me of the "Martian gorilla", that rock was so far away that it looked different and more like a gorilla than when seen up close, some people couldn't even recognise it as being the same rock).

As for the "fish head", I could find a "left eye" version to make an anaglyph, so I couldn't get a better idea of how it really looks in 3D.

I couldn't get any idea of distance or size either.

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

Ektar

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:52 PM

link

Way to go Arken, another great thread to follow. You really have a great eye & your
collection of material speaks for itself!
I hope you get some answers this go round from the experts!
S & F me friend!

Cheers
Ektar

Ektar

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:12 PM

link

Hey Arken I just happened to come across this by accident...
it's the right middle photo...

Photographs of Dinosaur Descendants

The Frilled Shark, though, was once thought extinct from the Jurassic period. This primitive shark dwells in the sea and was found off the coast of Japan

Source webecoist.momtastic.com... photography-29-rare-exotic-animal-photographs/

Cheers
Ektar

~widowmaker~

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:52 PM

link

while i would love for these to acutally be something of any creature having lived on a different planet, the chance of these giant creatures remains just chilling on the surface almost intact, would be like a needle in a haystack.

with that said i do see resemblance in the objects outlines, and the one with a croc head i imediately thought of an aligator or croc before i even saw the photo so kinda cool anyways heheh. also interesting is that all of the animals have to do with water or swampy areas no?

we will find out when i go to mars in 2016 ^^ (i wish)

Justoneman

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:56 PM

link

Originally posted by ArMaP

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Justoneman
I am convinced that some on here want to know the truth wherever it leads us and unconvincingly dismissing them all is a big fail for fellow scientist studying in the field.

Even if it leads us to a "it's all rocks" situation?

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

Even if it leads to whatever the truth is? yes.

BUT it can't be standard earth type erosion we see here because it is without standard Earth conditions so the whole point is moot until a rover or a human working on Mars to actually find the truth starts doing so.

We can argue back and forth about our beliefs but without further investigation, and NASA is obviously holding back, we are left with theories. Arken's theory is holding water. The rock crowd has to contend with what peoples eyes see, and the 'its rocks you silly person' crowd are trying to say we are seeing what we want. I say balderdash, we are seeing what is there through our own experiences.

Plus we can use common sense in analysis of the fact some us already know about the Brooking's Report. Where the plan for dealing with the truth until further notice was given clout. I smell the rats running from the daylight every time someone tells me my eyes are lying to me. I am not buying either Fossils or Rocks until these are tested properly and avoiding the subject like the black plague is NASA's gig right now. THAT action alone is the thing that makes me say, hey maybe it really is a Fossil and not the other way around.

Arken

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:42 AM

link

Originally posted by Ektar
Hey Arken I just happened to come across this by accident...
it's the right middle photo...

Photographs of Dinosaur Descendants

The Frilled Shark, though, was once thought extinct from the Jurassic period. This primitive shark dwells in the sea and was found off the coast of Japan

Source webecoist.momtastic.com... photography-29-rare-exotic-animal-photographs/

Cheers
Ektar

Hi Ektar.
You point at this one?

Interesting.

ZeussusZ

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:03 AM

link

reply to post by ArMaP

maybe the rocks are not as dense on Mars, being less gravity. The rover could be super strong there.

ArMaP

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:52 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Justoneman
Even if it leads to whatever the truth is? yes.

Unfortunately, I don't see many people acting in a way that makes me think that they want the truth, whatever it may may, I see mostly people wanting their own opinions to win, as if this was some kind of popularity contest.

BUT it can't be standard earth type erosion we see here because it is without standard Earth conditions so the whole point is moot until a rover or a human working on Mars to actually find the truth starts doing so.

Right, it can be similar to Earth type erosion in areas where there isn't any rain (like in Antartica) but it cannot be exactly the same.

We can argue back and forth about our beliefs but without further investigation, and NASA is obviously holding back, we are left with theories.

See, is this type of answer that makes me doubt people's neutrality. Why do you say that "NASA is obviously holding back"?

Arken's theory is holding water. The rock crowd has to contend with what peoples eyes see, and the 'its rocks you silly person' crowd are trying to say we are seeing what we want. I say balderdash, we are seeing what is there through our own experiences.

Once more, another thing that makes me doubt about neutrality, calling other people "the rock crowd" (or "the fossil crowd") makes it look like some kind of dispute between two factions instead of a search for truth.

And saying that you we "are seeing what is there through our own experiences" applies to both the rocks and the fossils sides, or do you think your eyes are not deceiving you but the eyes of those with different opinions are?

Plus we can use common sense in analysis of the fact some us already know about the Brooking's Report. Where the plan for dealing with the truth until further notice was given clout.

Was it really?

I smell the rats running from the daylight every time someone tells me my eyes are lying to me. I am not buying either Fossils or Rocks until these are tested properly and avoiding the subject like the black plague is NASA's gig right now. THAT action alone is the thing that makes me say, hey maybe it really is a Fossil and not the other way around.

Don't you think it's possible that NASA is not avoiding it, just ignoring it, because, to them, those are just rocks?

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

Granite

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:51 AM

link

To all the naysayers, the two most important archialogical finds on Earth were found while Lois Leaky was driving and walking in Kenya. She had the skills and some luck because it took 25 years before finding them. Heavy rains exposed them...at last.
SnF!

skalla

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:13 AM

link

reply to post by Granite

Lois Leaky had the skills, and actually analysed what she found.
There are obviously plenty of examples of totally irrational "finds" that have not been physically analysed by the scientific community because the woo-heads who own them dont want their dreams shattered by the inevitable rational explanations that eluded them. Ooparts (or at least the vast majority of them) are a fine example

Ewok_Boba

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:37 PM

link

reply to post by Arken

It seems like every thread you make, there will consistently be an overwhelming number of confirmation bias naysayers claiming these are rocks, as if they know the truth. And every thread I need to post with an example of how absurd their confidence is. I can go all day, if you want. Suppose you saw this skull on the surface...what then?

www.pakalertpress.com... il&utm

Of course some of them will have no evidence of biological history, but I ask you guys this, if the Smithsonian so easily dismissed this case, how intelligent does that make your comment?

My point is, YOU CANNOT KNOW WITH ANY CERTAINTY from pics alone, so why post like you do?

edit on 26-2-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)