The Roots, Guises like an Ancient Sumerian God, and Footprint…from Curiosity Sol 67, 72.

reply to post by Arken


Hi Arken, I'm afraid I'm with Armap too.
I'm a bit worried that in your quest for artifacts you are producing "class b" evidences. This may eventually invalidate or undermine your very nice work and effort.

You produced "Class A" evidences in many threads before, and I just think you should try and filter only the class A artifacts.

Jpg pixelation/compression is a fact and is misleading. I suggest you avoid that at all costs.
Pareidolia is also our enemy. The footprint pic is "class C" for me since it may look like a fingerless foot, but any, rock fracture may look like many other things. So this one is a bit of a stretch. I actually have a rock in my countryyard house that looks like a fingerprint. I'm sure it isn't and it's in front of me and it's not a jpg picture.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do follow all your threads and I'm a "believer". For that reasons I urge you to select only the class A.

Ps: I just made up this Class A, B, C thing. but I think it's a good classification for us to adopt.
Bests

Arken, hello. I remember you said a couple of days ago you had some new ones that could go into the Skunk works forum, and maybe that's where this thread should go. But in American baseball even Babe Ruth only got eight hits in every nine at bats (he was the greatest) (joking about his batting average by the way). I'm much more interested in what has become of the "spine" and if any more experts have weighed in on that one. And Hugo is a rarity whatever it is.

The top root of the root rock is just a layer of the rock for sure, not elevated. The face, and the footprint, interesting earth-like comparisions but of course just rock structure. How about a close-up of the "seashell" a previous poster saw, that's got an interesting design. As for ArMaP and his comments, he's gotten it right and you've gotten it wrong, so if you admit you were wrong on this one you guys can be friends and get a beer.

My battlecry is "Remember the Spine!"

In the meantime, I actually found the "Sumerian God"!

But it's rather a statue and has been hiding away in a Sol 107 image. Also, it looks more like the ancient Greek God Zeus (click here for a comparison), the "father of Gods & men and ruler of Mount Sharp Olympus" ...

The above image is an enhanced, white-balanced version of the original NASA/JPL image acquired on Sol 107 (see lower section, bottom).

Click here for some more info about Zeus on Wikipedia ...

DISCLAIMER:
OK, I admit that this is probably just me again suffering from pareidolia, but for a brief moment I actually saw a certain resemblance

Arken, in all your posts, all I see are rocks, lighting and shadowing making you think you're seeing something that is not there.
I'd be the first to jump up and down screaming THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS if there was something you can show me that's 100% incontrovertible proof, an outright metal plate, a corpse,SOMETHING
Till then, all you really have are rocks

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Arken, in all your posts, all I see are rocks, lighting and shadowing making you think you're seeing something that is not there.
I'd be the first to jump up and down screaming THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS if there was something you can show me that's 100% incontrovertible proof, an outright metal plate, a corpse,SOMETHING
Till then, all you really have are rocks

Hi HomerinNC

As i said several times, I can't give the 100% incontrovertible proof.

Only CLUES.

reply to post by Aleister


Thaks for your comment Aleister , Balanced as usual.

Arken, hello. I remember you said a couple of days ago you had some new ones that could go into the Skunk works forum, and maybe that's where this thread should go.

And yes, Skunk works forum, is certainly more appropriate.

I've just realised something intersting. Remember the "microbe fossils in meteorites" news that come up every now and again? One of the big reasons why such claims don't receive scientific confirmation is that they cannot draw conclusions based on morphological evidence alone. In other words, if something looks like an organism, it doesn't autimatically mean that it is an organism. Other tests are required.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The scientific consensus is that "morphology alone cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection."Interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation."

I think this applies also to the alleged fossils on Mars. You cannot tell by the appearance alone.

reply to post by wildespace


That's why, with the "spine thread", for instance, people were saying that NASA needs to turn Curiosity around and have it go investigate.
Of course pictures aren't conclusive. Unless of course it started taking pictures of buildings and things of a drastic nature.

reply to post by Arken

I don't always see what you see in your pics Arken,but this one is interesting.
Looks like a brick on the right side of the pic-squarish block with 3 marks on it,just above the lower part of the blurred part of the rover.

The root/plant is interesting as well.

reply to post by Arken


Explanation: S&F!

Uhmmm?

You overlooked the adobe mud brick ...



... sitting under ...



... the white tarp! :shk:









Now just to compare things again ...

Adobe mud bricks ...



... under a distressed white dusty tarp ...



... looking sort of like this ...



... But also covered up but the sands of mars ...







Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

reply to post by OmegaLogos



Hello again, OL!

The thing you are calling a white tarp is the most interesting thing in this thread, in my opinion. Very nice catch!
It looks...fluid, for the lack of the proper term.

reply to post by JayinAR


Yes, that's one of the types of rocks that are on that area.

I don't have any idea of how they were formed, only that they look sedimentary rock, like the "brick".

reply to post by JayinAR



Explanation: St*rred!

Here are some more picture of tarps I was able to grab for us to compare the 'fluid' looking anomaly with ...

To me it looks like ...



... it could have a corner folded back over itself.





And tarps can indeed appear to have a 'fluid' look about them ...





Personal Disclosure: I wonder what else Nasa has hidden under cover in plain sight?

This has got my curiosity going!

It certainly looks like a brick. Are we sure that we are on Mars?

Nice, a single brick, and not a trace of the civilisation that made it. On Earth, a brick can usually be found with other made-made stuff, near a road and buildings or remains of buildings. Even a trash site would do.

It could be a cracked block of sedimentary rock, with some wind-eroded layers on top of it. Just could be.

reply to post by williamjoseph


Explanation: St*rred!

Earth or Mars? ... I am unsure of that! :shk:

But I am pretty confident we are looking at construction/ building site because it looks to me like this single picture taken by from mars very possibly ...

has a Cable!

has a Brick!

has a Tarp!

has a carved stone face!

Personal Disclosure: And maybe the footprint was the result of some ancient alien martian being stomping on a fresh mud brick in disgust and leaving the horrendous grinding out of an existence by the side of a shallow ancient martian lake making mud bricks and what ever they could scavange from a dying martian empire,... just as the long drought made it too shallow to survive ?

Click on picture above to take you to the thread I sourced it from.

I hope this helps!

edit on 17-3-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix anomalous bold broken bbcode.

I don't often post on threads such as this,although they do interest me-but good to see others noticed the "brick" I mentioned-Sure looks very different to all other rocks in the image.

Fascinating stuff.

reply to post by Arken


Seriously you let what you really want to see effect what you think you see look at your picture.



The light in the picture is from the right the rock has a shadow fomed in a depression on the right side the object that you think sticks out from the rock is a smaller stone on the ground behind !!!

In this picture I have coloured a depression on the suface facing the camera the area that you think sicks up doesn't it's higher than the coloured area so the light from the right highlights it again I cant see why you can't figure that out.

Oh I do you just don't want to !!!

Congratulations, you have found the Space Jockey (aka the Engineer).