Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hoagland pic...Mars Curiosity "Pump" Anomaly???? Not a Rock...

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


VasaCroe are you going to claim copyright for the photos and your post lol





posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Seems like ATS has finally got that call from NASA to stop me from posting the evidence that I claimed to have found in exposing the fact that NASA has fudged the raw images from its curiosity rover.

But I guess they are as foolish as NASA themselves in thinking they could sensor this sort of thing. Well just head to wooiswoo and you will see the evidence published by me a short while ago.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

0pass
Seems like ATS has finally got that call from NASA to stop me from posting the evidence that I claimed to have found in exposing the fact that NASA has fudged the raw images from its curiosity rover.

But I guess they are as foolish as NASA themselves in thinking they could sensor this sort of thing. Well just head to wooiswoo and you will see the evidence published by me a short while ago.


Don't you have a blog to get to


Or do you want to copyright my posts too
edit on 26/9/2013 by Sk8ergrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Good find Vasa Croe glad you uploaded the photos and your opinions without shouting " I won't upload without being credited " lol good for you



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


yeah, we have spotted wreckage on Mars, and it's been posted and explained as wreckage by NASA, here on ATS. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: Does anyone have a link to the NASA site picture of this object?

edit on 26-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Didn't this probe come down useing boosters to slow itself? To me it looks like a piece of a rocket engine. I am only saying that because I have seen pieces LIKE that before laying around after disposing of them. It has some of the characteristics minus the fins. If it is man made that's what my money's on.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Link to original NASA image...

Source

And a second image....

Source
edit on 9/26/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 




Thanks for telling me it's a rock...not sure how you came to that conclusion as you have not given any explanation on that thread or this one.

It is the person who make such claims like you that should explain why it is not a rock, not us who just see it as the rock it is. It is you who are claiming things, and yet you provided zero explanation.

edit on 26-9-2013 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


Here you go.



www.redorbit.com...

I know that I've seen a ground photo of the heat shield here......



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
No impact crater, so if it is space junk, it might have bounced? anyway, does not look 'natural' to me.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Vasa Croe

Nostrenominon

Vasa Croe

Nostrenominon

Vasa Croe

Nostrenominon
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


All this because of a circular shaped rock in the middle...Nice.


All what? Not just the cylindrical shape in the middle....this object has symmetry throughout from top to bottom, and it would appear to be very uniform in it's ratios as well.

Nothing about this looks like a rock to me.

Those that are saying rock, please explain other than saying "its a rock".


Well when you look at it, what else can you say about it except that, IT'S A ROCK?
If that little circular shape wasn't present in the middle, no one would be talking about this pic.

Here's a fun activity, go outside and look for rocks that seem symmetrical. It's not that hard. Esp since rocks formed from water erosion experience a stable water level for several years as it erodes equivalent amounts on each side. Who said all rocks have to look irregular or asymmetrical?


Well the fact is that little circular shape IS present in the object and would be right in the middle of where you say water erosion would have created the shape of this rock. Your argument does not make any sense....if water erosion erodes this as you say "equivalent amounts on each side" then how did it happen to miss a cylindrical shape and make it what appears to be perfectly cylindrical?


Well genius, we can't see the other sides of the rock can we? How do we know it's not the same on the other side? Try again.


Well...not so much a genius, no we can't so how do you know there is water erosion on the other side. Speaking of genius....had this been water erosion then how would the water have flowed in a nice perfect circle all the way around the object in order to have it erode as such.

While your at it...why don't you post a pic of similar erosion occurring anywhere that you can find...

If, on the other side of the object there were another cylinder then I would say that is even more of a case for this NOT being a rock.

Take your crap attitude and name calling to another thread....or go beg for someone to like you closer to home.
edit on 9/26/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)


No you are.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

juleol
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 




Thanks for telling me it's a rock...not sure how you came to that conclusion as you have not given any explanation on that thread or this one.

It is the person who make such claims like you that should explain why it is not a rock, not us who just see it as the rock it is. It is you who are claiming things, and yet you provided zero explanation.

edit on 26-9-2013 by juleol because: (no reason given)


Ummm...I have throughout the thread. The symmetry, the protruding cylinder, the appearance of a uniform ratio and multiple pieces, etc...

Look at the two other links from NASA I provided above, and ANY other links to pics from Mars and please point me to a single object in ANY other photo that even closely resembles this object.

As has been stated by other posters in this thread...it could simply be another piece of another failed mission. I am not trying to say one way or the other it is alien, but it is surely NOT a rock.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

boymonkey74
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Could it be a part of a probe we sent years back?

Not heard of any probe crashing anywhere near that area, and even if there was one the chances of curiosity stumbling on it would be so slim it would nearly be impossible.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

juleol
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 




Thanks for telling me it's a rock...not sure how you came to that conclusion as you have not given any explanation on that thread or this one.

It is the person who make such claims like you that should explain why it is not a rock, not us who just see it as the rock it is. It is you who are claiming things, and yet you provided zero explanation.

edit on 26-9-2013 by juleol because: (no reason given)


And vise versa to you too with your own post. Works both ways when you discuss a subject.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


Here you go.



www.redorbit.com...

I know that I've seen a ground photo of the heat shield here......


Ok, that one doesn't help for what I have in mind, but if you can find a ground picture, that might. I wanted to be able to compare them to this one, as much as my unprofessional self can, to examine the damage, shape, possible "dust", ect. just to see if it would kind of "match" the object in this picture.

Not sure how clear that statement is for what I mean....... Not meaning they would be the same object.


Oh, and btw, thank you for answering me!
edit on 26-9-2013 by chiefsmom because: afterthought



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

pikestaff
No impact crater, so if it is space junk, it might have bounced? anyway, does not look 'natural' to me.


I thought the same looking at the NASA photos...no impact that I could see. Could have been a piece that bounced and landed there and appears to be propped up on a rock as well. Can see any lines either where it might have rolled or anything.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Normally all I see is a rock. So when is a rock not a rock? On this occassion this maybe more than a rock! Its symmetry and circular structure/s suggest a mechanical type object. But I could be wrong and its just another rock as 99.9% are!!



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

skyblueworld

juleol
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 




Thanks for telling me it's a rock...not sure how you came to that conclusion as you have not given any explanation on that thread or this one.

It is the person who make such claims like you that should explain why it is not a rock, not us who just see it as the rock it is. It is you who are claiming things, and yet you provided zero explanation.

edit on 26-9-2013 by juleol because: (no reason given)


And vise versa to you too with your own post. Works both ways when you discuss a subject.

That isnt how it works. I never made any extraordinary claims and neither did the guy who claimed it was a rock. It is the OP who should explain why it is not a rock, which is why i wrote that response.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

RP2SticksOfDynamite
Normally all I see is a rock. So when is a rock not a rock? On this occassion this maybe more than a rock! Its symmetry and circular structure/s suggest a mechanical type object. But I could be wrong and its just another rock as 99.9% are!!



Naturally occurring gas bubbles are perfectly circular, too.

That's why I suggested that this may be a rock formed in a geothermal "mudpot" of bubbling gasses, and this may be an example of mud that hardened into rock with a gas bubble in it. Later, the rock possibly split to reveal half of the bubble.

edit on 9/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
.

I agree with Hoagland on this one based on symmetry ... it's not natural

and he is correct ... it only takes one

Still waiting for a rational explanation not based on desperate grasping at straws ..

mud bubbles LOL

.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join