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.

 

Mars,Past Civilization,Proof

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 



so what makes you an expert on ancient artifacts. I think you just like to take the proverbial. Diddnt you see wheres wally? Classic detractor im affraid. Get someone with some credentials to evaluate it. Some people eh


So you are an "expert on ancient artifacts"?? Do you know arianna?

Why should I get "someone with credentials to evaluate it"?? I see rocks not ancient artifacts.

You are making the claim of "proof" of an ancient civilization on Mars because you (the only one) see a propeller whereas everyone else sees rocks.

Isn't it then up to you then to"Get someone with some credentials to evaluate it"??

Some people, indeed.

edit on 2/25/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I saw a BIC lighter and a cigarette pack. No beer cans or bottles around. Can't be anyone I know, there would be beer cans.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Three pages of replies and not one flag. That says something pretty good about ATS in my book. Carry on lads.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
yes its a glitch apparently. I highlighted that in my other thread.

We are now 4 pages into this thread and you still haven't provided any evidence of your 'propeller'. You've been asked numerous times to point it out on an image and here we are still waiting.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Severin

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
yes its a glitch apparently. I highlighted that in my other thread.

We are now 4 pages into this thread and you still haven't provided any evidence of your 'propeller'. You've been asked numerous times to point it out on an image and here we are still waiting.
oh dear you dont read threads do you? I cant upload pictures from my phyawn! Yet you still detract. If others can find it and post pics why cant you?
You can see the curved smooth symetrical blade, the blade on the otherside is dug in the soil. Yet you still see rock?wow.
This pic is clear,its not blurry, its a freakin freak of a rock. And any archeologists or engineer can see this aint no rock.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 





And any archeologists or engineer can see this aint no rock.


Again with the absolute statements.

How many archaeologists and engineers have you consulted on this matter?

Mind posting their responses to you?



If others can find it and post pics why cant you?


Others have posted the area you're talking about but they haven't seen a propeller if you read back.
edit on 2/25/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 

Well thats where you're wrong, i have read the entire thread and yes I did so that you are on your phone, but anyone with any sense would have prepared the thread properly with images to back up your claim. You can rave on about how clear it is and how every expert would instantly recognise it, but I ask you... how many other posters here have said YES I SEE IT?

Not many by my count.

Follow the example of Arken, he goes to great lengths to construct a valuable thread, but yours...Its just poor threadmanship in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

This pic is clear,its not blurry, its a freakin freak of a rock. And any archeologists or engineer can see this aint no rock.


However, this geologist CAN see that it's a rock.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Severin
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 

Well thats where you're wrong, i have read the entire thread and yes I did so that you are on your phone, but anyone with any sense would have prepared the thread properly with images to back up your claim. You can rave on about how clear it is and how every expert would instantly recognise it, but I ask you... how many other posters here have said YES I SEE IT?

Not many by my count.

Follow the example of Arken, he goes to great lengths to construct a valuable thread, but yours...Its just poor threadmanship in my opinion.
i am not arken although i love his threads,the problem is the clarity of his pictures dont really clarify. My pic is clear and shows a propeller like object. Still cant see it.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

This pic is clear,its not blurry, its a freakin freak of a rock. And any archeologists or engineer can see this aint no rock.


However, this geologist CAN see that it's a rock.
why do you think that? Is it because its on mars? Please tell me your reasoning.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I guess I'm using parsimony as well as my trained eye. It's in a rock field, full of rocks, rocks, sediment, rocks and no machinery (that I can tell).
Therefore I am stating that this is more likely to be a rock than a propeller, due to the fact that (despite wishful thinking) it is surrounded by what look like other rocks of similar type, as well as what appear to be other types of rocks. It seems there are vesicular rocks as well as smooth rocks.

edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: added



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by Severin
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 

Well thats where you're wrong, i have read the entire thread and yes I did so that you are on your phone, but anyone with any sense would have prepared the thread properly with images to back up your claim. You can rave on about how clear it is and how every expert would instantly recognise it, but I ask you... how many other posters here have said YES I SEE IT?

Not many by my count.

Follow the example of Arken, he goes to great lengths to construct a valuable thread, but yours...Its just poor threadmanship in my opinion.
i am not arken although i love his threads,the problem is the clarity of his pictures dont really clarify. My pic is clear and shows a propeller like object. Still cant see it.


Nope, I can't see it and neither can anyone else because its just an image full of rocks.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
I guess I'm using parsimony as well as my trained eye. It's in a rock field, full of rocks, rocks, sediment, rocks and no machinery (that I can tell).
Therefore I am stating that this is more likely to be a rock than a propeller, due to the fact that (despite wishful thinking) it is surrounded by what look like other rocks of similar type, as well as what appear to be other types of rocks. It seems there are vesicular rocks as well as smooth rocks.

edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: added
the rocks nearby are not smooth at all, they are not of similar type. I wouldnt employ you as a geologist.just noticed the edit.
edit on 25-2-2013 by symptomoftheuniverse because: noticed edit.



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

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by aorAki
I guess I'm using parsimony as well as my trained eye. It's in a rock field, full of rocks, rocks, sediment, rocks and no machinery (that I can tell).
Therefore I am stating that this is more likely to be a rock than a propeller, due to the fact that (despite wishful thinking) it is surrounded by what look like other rocks of similar type, as well as what appear to be other types of rocks. It seems there are vesicular rocks as well as smooth rocks.

edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: added
the rocks nearby are not smooth at all, they are not of similar type. I wouldnt employ you as a geologist.just noticed the edit.
edit on 25-2-2013 by symptomoftheuniverse because: noticed edit.


I wouldn't employ you as a human!


See, it's easy to criticise others with insults.
I prefer to criticise you with reason.


Well, you're only seeing what you want to see and dismissing anything that goes against your premise.
There are smooth rocks nearby as well as vesicular rocks.

Tell me, what is the scale of those rocks?
What size do you think the 'propeller' (looks like sandstone, or a fine-grained igneous rock) is?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by aorAki
I guess I'm using parsimony as well as my trained eye. It's in a rock field, full of rocks, rocks, sediment, rocks and no machinery (that I can tell).
Therefore I am stating that this is more likely to be a rock than a propeller, due to the fact that (despite wishful thinking) it is surrounded by what look like other rocks of similar type, as well as what appear to be other types of rocks. It seems there are vesicular rocks as well as smooth rocks.

edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: added
the rocks nearby are not smooth at all, they are not of similar type. I wouldnt employ you as a geologist.just noticed the edit.
edit on 25-2-2013 by symptomoftheuniverse because: noticed edit.


I wouldn't employ you as a human!


See, it's easy to criticise others with insults.
I prefer to criticise you with reason.


Well, you're only seeing what you want to see and dismissing anything that goes against your premise.
There are smooth rocks nearby as well as vesicular rocks.

Tell me, what is the scale of those rocks?
What size do you think the 'propeller' (looks like sandstone, or a fine-grained igneous rock) is?
criticise? You state its a rock and the reason you give is wrong. Dont take the hump because i caught you out on a assumptions.ask nasa how big it is.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I'm not taking the hump at all.
It just irks me that you can't see that it IS a rock, surrounded by other, like, rocks.
That is all.
However, feel free to carry on with your wishful thinking fantasies. You may actually discover something one day, like how to recognise rocks.

You provided the claim, it is up to you to prove it. Thus, YOU need to find out what the scale is in that image.

Me, I know it is a rock. I'm happy with that. I can live comfortably with that fact and I'm excited by the fact that there are rocks there, that we can learn a lot about the environment from those rocks and that in my lab there are people using earth rocks to try to make Martian cement.
These earth rocks are chemically very very similar to the chemistry of rocks one would find on Mars.
Now, that is one source of excitement for me: to be involved in a project that has long term and significantly positive outcomes.
edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: formatting



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 





, its a freakin freak of a rock. 

Your latest description of your propeller made me think of Rick James....

But I still see a rock.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki


I'm not taking the hump at all.
It just irks me that you can't see that it IS a rock, surrounded by other, like, rocks.
That is all.
However, feel free to carry on with your wishful thinking fantasies. You may actually discover something one day, like how to recognise rocks.

You provided the claim, it is up to you to prove it. Thus, YOU need to find out what the scale is in that image.

Me, I know it is a rock. I'm happy with that. I can live comfortably with that fact and I'm excited by the fact that there are rocks there, that we can learn a lot about the environment from those rocks and that in my lab there are people using earth rocks to try to make Martian cement.
These earth rocks are chemically very very similar to the chemistry of rocks one would find on Mars.
Now, that is one source of excitement for me: to be involved in a project that has long term and significantly positive outcomes.
edit on 25-2-2013 by aorAki because: formatting
i thought cement needed lime,from limestone.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

edit on 25-2-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
i thought cement needed lime,from limestone.


There are many clay minerals one can use to make a cement. When the rocks are ground to a fine enough grainsize (clay) then interesting things can happen.
As I said, it's an experiment using Mars analogue rocks and is in its early stages. If it works, it's useful. If it doesn't work, it's still a useful exercise.







 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join