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.

 

Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

page: 2
85
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


I don't mind his input...au contraire...

It was more of a comment to myself..."If only that would be enough to call it..."...but it isn't.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


Yes, I guess I know what you were getting at ...

Having credentials is one thing, but convincing the sceptics out there is another. There'll probably never be enough credibility unless we get some kind of official anouncement about past life on Mars. Only then, others are really going to chime in.

For that to happen, however, we'll probably have to wait for ages ...
edit on 3-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 





official anouncement



absolutely. Even a real live alien wouldn't convince most people. Its either a maniken, or CGI or something 3rd or a rock
It's either a too good video...or too poor.

Indeed...only if the president comes out and states it. The official word is sacred in America.

It's always a question when debunkers try to explain it..."oh, how would they keep it a secret...so many people knowing or working on it...for so long....somebody would spill the beans"

They would and they do...but...people believe presidents and suit heads. The president simply ignores or denies such claims....and that is enough for the average voter.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Which is why I asked the good Doctor to elaborate on the terms used in his/her post. The terms mean that the spinal sections portrayed in the rocks in your example Number 1 (Arken's spine) came from a specific area of the spine, and shows multiple places on each segment which correspond to known anatomical features.

I would suggest that someone organize a research team, prepare very good copies of the spine picture, make almost simultaneous appointments with appropriate professors at several universities, show them the photo and ask them for an analysis of the potential fossil (on tape and on video if possible) without telling them that it's on Mars.

And I say "simultaneous" appointments, and that a team do this, because once one of them gets the hint that its on Mars (and the researchers shouldn't tell them that during the interview, but do so later when the project is completed) they may alert others in their field about the interview.

And a meeting with someone from the Smithsonian in the U.S. may also add good data to such a project. Of course, more comments by doctors such as the poster here would also add descriptive language.

What I'd like to read is a detailed anatomical description of how Arken's spine/rock both differs from or duplicates known spinal anatomy.
edit on 3-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 



I would suggest that someone organize a research team, prepare very good copies of the spine picture, make almost simultaneous appointments with appropriate professors at several universities, show them the photo and ask them for an analysis of the potential fossil (on tape and on video if possible) without telling them that it's on Mars.

Interesting proposal, Aleister ... and for those who missed it, here go the images of Arken's spine (example 1), I'm not sure whether everybody saw the complete structure in its context because it actually consists of two images stitched together.

The following images are:
(1) the original JPL/NASA image
(2) a 3D version for use with red-cyan anaglyphs
(3) a white-balanced version


(Click here for FULLSIZE Image)

(Click here for FULLSIZE Image)

(Click here for FULLSIZE Image)


Original image links:
Source Image 1 (left part)
Source Image 2 (right part)

edit on 3-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I don't see a spine. What I do see is rock carved out by running water and sandblasted by dust storms at some point in the past. Which makes sense given what we know about Mars.
edit on 3-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


you don't see vertebra like structures ? , try just looking past the rock marked imagination.. see it? , the one next to the 3d seagulls?


here take my hands



funBox



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

JadeStar
I don't see a spine. What I do see is rock carved out by running water and sandblasted by dust storms at some point in the past. Which makes sense given what we know about Mars.
edit on 3-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Here is the "Best Evidence" pic by Arken. Not saying they aren't sand-blasted rocks carved out originally by running water, but the coincidence of three or four of these structures in a row is what some of us are talking about. I'm not a doctor or anatomy professor though, so my view is strictly from an observer perspective. Which is why I'd like to hear more descriptions from such professionals of where they see the small details which tell them it may be part of a spine.




And the original thread where this pic was shown, as well as a very good selection of other rocks which hint at biological forms located in the same area, all by Arken:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 3-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

JadeStar
I don't see a spine. What I do see is rock carved out by running water and sandblasted by dust storms at some point in the past. Which makes sense given what we know about Mars.
edit on 3-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Your assumption is just as legit as any other at this stage. What makes you think it's carved out by water and sandblasted?

I see a long formation with an uncanny symmetry featuring complex shapes along a center axis. Heavily eroded, slightly twisted and covered in dust, but the basic symmetry is there. It would be quite a feat to achieve that kind of regular erosion via wind, water and sand ...
edit on 4-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


I must give you a "BRAVO!" for your presentation.
Stars!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


I have shown you this image before from Orkney of the north coast of Scotland.



Symmetry happens in nature !!!

As for the look of the ROCKS on Mars, ventifacts on Earth have similar curves etc for example

3.bp.blogspot.com...

Now imagine the lower half of this rock covered by sand or soil on Mars with a similar resolution to the images people on here get to excited about imagine the claims the usual suspects would make.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Great thread s+f



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The pics you link to are all obvious rocks, and nobody here would say otherwise. Arken's spine, on the other hand, has the possibility of being more, owing to the fine details that medical professionals have seen. Please read the full original thread about the "spine" and the other things found nearby, it's a long read but worth it. (just found out my time is limited on site for now, or I'd read the entire thread again for the best bits).
edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The pics you link to are all obvious rocks, and nobody here would say otherwise. Arken's spine, on the other hand, has the possibility of being more, owing to the fine details that medical professionals have seen. Please read the full original thread about the "spine" and the other things found nearby, it's a long read but worth it. I'll try to link some of the more interesting posts here in the next couple of hours, but the entire thread is interesting.


There is NO fine detail because the image is NOT hi-res 30+ years of taking pictures and more than half that with digital images tells me that!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


IMO, you don't need a higher resolution to clearly recognize that the formation in question consists of several congruently aligned features that are essentially mirrored along a common, central axis.

P.S.: I know you're from the natural cause fraction and I appreciate the examples you provide ...



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





There is NO fine detail because the image is NOT hi-res..


Which is perfectly reasonable and understandable on a $3.5 BILLION Mars mission...


But hey, if 2mp is all NASA could work with (they stated themselves they used such a low res CCD as 'their engineers were used to working with it'..), then that's all we have to work with.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





There is NO fine detail because the image is NOT hi-res..


Which is perfectly reasonable and understandable on a $3.5 BILLION Mars mission...


But hey, if 2mp is all NASA could work with (they stated themselves they used such a low res CCD as 'their engineers were used to working with it'..), then that's all we have to work with.


That has been explained on here MANY times, bandwidth and the simple fact that LARGER pixels which the chip has produce LOWER noise in the lower light levels Mars has.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

jeep3r
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


IMO, you don't need a higher resolution to clearly recognize that the formation in question consists of several congruently aligned features that are essentially mirrored along a common, central axis.

P.S.: I know you're from the natural cause fraction and I appreciate the examples you provide ...



Sorry BUT YOU DO look at the image I posted above imagine that in the distance on Mars what claims would be made part of a jaw bone perhaps

3.bp.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yes, I know what you mean ... in the first example, however, I see a stronger consistency regarding the symmetrical properties, while repeating very similar patterns over a longer distance. We can argue about that, no question, but I think the deviations from your comparison justify a different interpretation.

Add in some of the other features presented in the image compilation on page one and it becomes increasingly difficult to make wind, sand and water erosion responsible for all of what we see.
edit on 4-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Here's an informed post on the original Spine thread, by a former lunar cartographer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

some more learned individuals on the thread in favor of the stuff being bones or bone fossils, which at least proves a case that more learned individuals eyes should be drawn to this thing via media and other sources. It doesn't in the least prove they are fossils or bones, imnho, there is plenty of good opinion on the thread itself that they are nothing but rocks, especially from ATS member Skalla, a fellow who has studied rocks well. A good one convincing to me is when a member points out that some of the "bone" areas are all connected as one rock, something which I don't think occurs in biological species of something as intricate as this guy's spine would be. But here are some more posts on the thread - although I wasn't able to find the post the doctor posting on this thread said they left, which is what I was looking for in the first place - who's observations weight in favor of at least more specialists looking at them as possible bone fossils to see what the mix brings:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join