Hard evidence of life on Mars that NASA doesn’t want to discuss

Interesting title. This is the same guy that found "ET bases on Titan" No thanks...no credibility.

ATS

a reply to: nighthawk1954

You can easily debunk the "proof" from pics 2 and 3.

To start, I would like to point out that if one were so inclined to look closely at pic 2, they would actually see the "creature" peaking out from the left edge of the "rock with the crack". It has not changed its position, rather the camera has changed the perspective.

Proof? Ok, look at the "V" created by shadows that is just above the red arrow head in the 2nd pic. Now find that same V in the 3rd pic. You can see it is well to the left of its position in pic 2. It is also in-line with the "creature" and the left edge of "the rock with the crack". Now go back to pic 2. The V is just above the left edge of the cracked rock, and the "creature" (or "rock" as I prefer to call it) is just behind the left side of the cracked rock, right where it should be.

If it looks like a rock and only moves due to changes in perspective like a rock, then it's probably just a rock.

What moved was the rover. (sorry about the headache)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2f3e5d86c1e.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/35d8c81df0c0e8ba.gif[/atsimg]
Discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Urantia1111

How are you making that distinction?

Well there is no life on Mars (so far) and since rocks aren't normally animate, there is only Edit: (Thanks Phage) two other possibilities.

Looks like the time of day and shading changed between Phages two angles, too.

Nice one Phage
i was gonna suggest dust devils, but you've just pointed out the obvious.
its all about the perspective

These photos again?

They were discussed on ATS some years ago, and as we can see from the animation posted by Phage it's just a question of perspective.

It's amazing how many people are incapable of understanding perspective.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

If this were true ATS will need to create a "I TOLD YOU SO " section and dedicate it to Arken.

a reply to: Phage

Well...now that's gonna save me a few beers.

Thanks.

I think the first thing that needs to be said is that the object does not resemble the rocks themselves. Notice the weathering of the rocks in the area, and then notice that the object in question is jagged in some areas, instead of smooth. Clearly, and there is no disputing this fact, the pictures show something that was in one place and then another. What the explanation is for that I don't know.

Photo manipulation, an animal of some kind, the rover having moved or picked up the object, nasa really isn't on mars, shadows, etc...These are all explanations, some more likely than others. But there is no disputing the fact that what has been presented shows something that has moved.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Shepard64
How convenient for the Mars planet scanners, an animal that looks like a rock.

Why not, we have plenty of life that looks like somthing else...

This person has a point. A Good point.

originally posted by: Chamberf=6
Perhaps, everything on Mars has evolved to look just like rocks, just to make Arken happy.

OMGosh - that was the hilarious Friday afternoon laugh before heading out the door to go home from work that I needed! Outstanding sir! and

But yeah - parallax like bhornbuckle75 said and Phage illustrated.

a reply to: tallcool1

I think it is the notorious mars turkey. The team at the bases on mars regularly hunt them around thanksgiving time.

"Hard evidence of life on Mars that NASA doesn’t want to discuss" ...
Who cares about NASA? They are just an American space agency. If they don't want to discuss something, there are other space agencies and scientific organisations out there.

a reply to: wildespace

And they don't think anything of it either.

Just to add: Like your avatar and your postings. (Even when I don't always agree. )

ETA: a reply to: Phage
a reply to: ArMaP
a reply to: bhornbuckle75

I've spent a little time looking into this, and I hope you all will give my MS paint altered photos a minute of your time.

SOL 1836



Using my spatial reference 'landmark' , now look at SOL 1843.



Parallax is NOT the issue here, as it's painfully obvious, using my reference stone, that the object in 1843 is NOT in 1836.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
ETA: a reply to: Phage
Parallax is NOT the issue here, as it's painfully obvious, using my reference stone, that the object in 1843 is NOT in 1836.

Phage didn't say the issue was parallax, he said the rover moved, which would explain why the object visible in 1843 isn't visible in 1836. I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

originally posted by: ArMaP
It's amazing how many people are incapable of understanding perspective.

I don't think I'm that great at it, as I can get confused by perspective issues, yet tests show that most people aren't as good at it as I am, which is scary.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

One of the images phage uses for his top animation in his reply uses a partial photo of SOL 1836. I provide the full image, showing the object is NOT in that particular photo.

I'll forgive you for not knowing what a parallax is.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Parallax also affects optical instruments such as rifle scopes, binoculars, microscopes, and twin-lens reflex cameras that view objects from slightly different angles."

As I pointed out, using a referenced landmark in both photos, the reason it's not visible in 1836 is because it's not there.

If you still don't understand the simplicity of this proof, please accept my condolences.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
As I pointed out, using a referenced landmark in both photos, the reason it's not visible in 1836 is because it's not there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not there". If you mean not visible, obviously it's not visible.

But when I look at Phages 2nd animation, it's apparent to me that as the angle continues to change, the rock you circled in red will disappear behind the foreground rocks, so, it's still there, but you just can't see it.

By the way when an object is visible in one view and not in another view, I wouldn't prefer to refer to that as parallax which according to your source refers to viewing the same object from two different angles. I think ArMaP's term of "perspective" is probably more fitting since this is more of a 3d topography issue.

These videos are funny... If these people are making such startling damn discoveries why don't they get the Education it takes to work for NASA. Or become an Engineer, and build their own damn rover and send it to mars so they might be more credible. Because in these examples. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to explain why the object is in one pic and not in the next. The object that looks like a damn ROCK......... And if its NOT a rock? Send something to Mars, or go to Mars yourself and prove it.... I'll wait....

fw536f37a9.jpg