Another ancient sarcophagus found on MARS??

Good morning, ATS!

Exploring around the recently uploaded NASA Curiosity Rover photos and the videos provided by the Martian Archaeologist, I found an interesting "rock" that seemed a bit out of place and caught my attention, given its smooth surface and the right angles at which it is cut, features that are not present on any of the other rocks laying around it.



After zooming in, enhancing a bit the resolution of this rock (or whatever it is) and contrasting its colors with the surrounding environment, you may agree (call it pareidolia, if you will) that it closely resembles a very weathered and broken sarcophagus -or at the very least, a capsule of sorts, embedded on the crust of the red planet:



This finding brought me back to a thread started about a month ago by canucks555, of a coffin like rock on Mars, that definitely looks out of place and is in sharp contrast with the surrounding environment, with its smooth, polished surface and sharp artificial looking angles:



So there you have it, ATS. Is this trickling and seemingly unconnected evidence, pointing out to something HUGE? You be the judge.

I really look forward to your comments and debunking.

The original image can be found here

a reply to: RadioKnecht
Actually, the rover is in the Atacama desert, and all the pictures you're seeing are from our own ancient past. Ok. Maybe not, but it's another good conspiracy theory, considering NASA uses the Atacama as a testing ground because it's similar to Mars.

Interesting pics. Though I'm sure it's all just pareidolia.

originally posted by: RadioKnecht
Good morning, ATS!
...


After zooming in, enhancing a bit the resolution of this rock (or whatever it is) and contrasting its colors with the surrounding environment, you may agree (call it pareidolia, if you will) that it closely resembles a very weathered and broken sarcophagus -or at the very least, a capsule of sorts, embedded on the crust of the red planet:

There's my issue, right there. You've spotted something, and in order to make it look more like what you think you've seen, you adjust the image to look more like what you think it is, and then use the adjusted image to ask us if we think it's something it's not.

it's just rocks.

I'm sure someone equally skilled at picture adjustment could adjust it to make it look a lot more rock like, and less like something 'made' it they wanted to.

as this is the Mars Rover, are there not other photo's taken from different places of the same object?
If you could supply those, and it still looks like a 'sarcophagus' from different angles, then maybe you might have something interesting.

I think it's more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Martian Archaeologist than Pareidolia but rocks come in all shapes and sizes both here and on Mars.

originally posted by: CrastneyJPR

originally posted by: RadioKnecht
Good morning, ATS!
...


After zooming in, enhancing a bit the resolution of this rock (or whatever it is) and contrasting its colors with the surrounding environment, you may agree (call it pareidolia, if you will) that it closely resembles a very weathered and broken sarcophagus -or at the very least, a capsule of sorts, embedded on the crust of the red planet:

There's my issue, right there. You've spotted something, and in order to make it look more like what you think you've seen, you adjust the image to look more like what you think it is, and then use the adjusted image to ask us if we think it's something it's not.

it's just rocks.

I'm sure someone equally skilled at picture adjustment could adjust it to make it look a lot more rock like, and less like something 'made' it they wanted to.

as this is the Mars Rover, are there not other photo's taken from different places of the same object?
If you could supply those, and it still looks like a 'sarcophagus' from different angles, then maybe you might have something interesting.

Exactly my issue.

"Hey look at this picture that has been heavily doctored and edited and tell me if the thing I think is "x" is "x" or not."

a reply to: RadioKnecht

The only Mars pictures I trust are the satellite photos, which do show interesting structural anomalies. The surface pictures from the rovers are likely staged. I dont think they want us to know what the actual surface looks like from a first person perspective.

a reply to: gortex

but rocks come in all shapes and sizes both here and on Mars.

So do Sarcophagi apparently...

a reply to: Klassified

I know it could all probably go down to a bad case of pareidolia.

However, the one big issue I have with reducting everything that looks out of place to pareidolia (particularly when presented with images as the ones above), is why the rest of the rocks that surround these peculiar formations, don't look the same?

What I'm trying to say is that, if the coffin-looking rocks got their particular shape by environmental forces, then why the rest of the rocks around them don't look also the same?

By mere logic, if the same environmental forces and and conditions are applied in the same environment, same (or at least similar) results (or in this case, rock formations) should be obtained.

And yet, this rocks stand out (significantly) from their surrounding environment.

I believe that reducing everything to pareidolia is an overly simplistic way of shooting down evidence that might merit a more profound analysis.

a reply to: RadioKnecht

Apparently you're not able to realize that the rock in question is only a handful of inches in size.

So after seeing the comments of the people that would deny seeing anything of intelligent design even if it was a carved flat piece of stone sitting upright and full of carved Martian writing, I decided to just take the original photo and blow it up and take a look.

I have never seen plain rocks with 90 degree straight line corners, a perfectly rounded long "top" and the other features that make it obviously intelligently designed.

That people totally refuse to believe that in the long distant past there could have been an advanced civilization on Mars is beyond my comprehension, except for the fact they are so saturated with the dimwitted thought that Earth MUST have the only life in the universe.

a reply to: CrastneyJPR

Look at the original picture and the "enhanced" one, and honestly -hand in heart and all- tell me that it has been modified (other than the contrasting of the colors) to look something that is not.

It's EXACTLY the same picture, only zoomed where the formation in question is. The darker spots are just contrasted with the lighter ones (a process that, as you may see, was also applied to the rest of the rocks in the image).

I did not edit or modify the form of the image. Not one bit.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The godfather himself!! I'm honored!!

How you reached the conclusion that the rock in question is just a couple of inches in size is beyond me, since there is no point of reference to compare it's size with.

Too bad there are no martian bananas for scale!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

We don't know the average size of martians yet

originally posted by: RadioKnecht
How you reached the conclusion that the rock in question is just a couple of inches in size is beyond me,

The angle of the photo compared to the height of the camera: Trigonometry.

Plus: common sense observation of the landscape.

1st of all this isn't Mars that your looking at, its Arizona. You ever been to Arizona? It's f$cking desolate man, theres nothing there but sand, sand and more sand. Frankly, I have no idea if that's a Martian rock, an Arizona rock, a sarcophagus, or a Cadillac and neither do you. It is fun to speculate, to gedanken the discovery of Astro-archeology. This is a movie set or a green screen projection of a piece of Earth and you have been duped. Because our actual current technology as black funded, would appear Godlike to you.

I came here looking for a cool-looking sarcophagus and found just another rock. Why even circle the rock in the picture? It looks just like all the other rocks.

Also, for future reference - a sarcophagus generally implies there will be a burial chamber as well. Most sarcophagus builders rarely ever think "Hey, we built this awesome intricately carved funerary box inlaid with gold a jewels! lets just leave it here in the dirt and go our separate ways..."

a reply to: peskyhumans

For argument's sake, assuming (and I concede that this is a BIG assumption) that it was a coffin, sarcophagus or what have you, you do realize that it has been probably laying there, subject to environmental conditions for thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of years, right?

Probably any burial chamber or temple has long been eroded and that's why the "coffin" is just embedded in the soil.

a reply to: HUMBLEONE

If the rover is still on Earth or on Mars or on Atacama is a whole different ball game (meriting several threads of its own) and not the subject-matter of this thread.

Please, for this thread's sake, let's just assume that it is Mars.

That picture was taken on SOL109, there were 534 pictures taken on SOL109,if you can find other pictures of that rock that were taken from a different angle it would give us a better perspective of the actual shape and size of that rock.

Here`s the link for SOL109

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

based on some of the other pictures that rock appears to be pretty darn small for a sarcophagus.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

The angle of the photo compared to the height of the camera: Trigonometry.

Plus: common sense observation of the landscape.

Still, how do you know at what height was the picture taken? Furthermore, how can you assess the distance at which the stones lay, from the point where the pictures were taken?

This information has not been provided, nor the time at which the picture was taken (which perhaps could allow us to assess the distance based on the shadows that the stones cast).

To say that this formation is just a few inches in size you would have to take into account all the abovementioned data which, right now, we don't have.

I admit that -from simple observation- this formation is not massive in size. However, it also does not seem to be just a few inches (plus part of it appears to be buried in the soil).