Are the Mars Rovers actually in Canada?

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Four people in my house looked at the pic, and saw an animal

I bet you the majority of people asked that had ever seen a squirrel or guinea pig would see an animal at first glance... that's the point.

It looks like an animal to me too.

But, I think it's a rock based on an abundance of other evidence.

No one asked was told what to look for, though. Everyone saw an animal, a rodent of some sort. Even knowing it's Mars, it still looks like an animal. The details are too numerous to call it a rock.

1. lighter fur around the eye, as common with animals
2. ear
3. paw with claws/toes
4. shoulder definition
5. fur shading


I do know what you mean, and can see a LOT of rocks that sort of look like something else, even, in one place, what looks like a partially buried human face. I can see those are rocks. They are cool, but they are rocks. This, I cannot call a rock. I have looked for little areas that would indicate it's just a rock, but everywhere I look, it still looks like a rodent of some sort.

No, for the record, I don't think the pics were taken on Earth. I think it's actually from Mars. If they ant to prove that's a rock, then they need to take the Rover there, with video showing the return journey, and show us that it hasn't moved. I'd bet it wouldn't be there, though. I'd also bet they won't give us more pics of that spot.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't think the pics were taken on Earth. I think it's actually from Mars

Then you must also believe there is a breathable atmosphere on Mars to sustain the GuineaSquirrel (?)

They have every reason to lie to us and to other Governments. The space race is still ongoing. Both the US and Russia lied throughout those early days just as a form of one-upmanship. Just because the Iron Curtain is no more doesn't make it any less of a race for superiority. Remember the hacker Gary McKinnon who hacked the Defence files? He discovered information that related to "non-terrestrial" forces and names of ships which were not naval. Everyone wants an advantage it's the nature of the beast

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
They have every reason to lie to us and to other Governments. The space race is still ongoing. Both the US and Russia lied throughout those early days just as a form of one-upmanship. Just because the Iron Curtain is no more doesn't make it any less of a race for superiority. Remember the hacker Gary McKinnon who hacked the Defence files? He discovered information that related to "non-terrestrial" forces and names of ships which were not naval. Everyone wants an advantage it's the nature of the beast

Yeah, I love McKinnon's story. He comes across as believable to me.

And we also have the testimony of sergeant Karl Wolfe, who claims to have seen photo's of structures on the moon:

www.youtube.com...

And Donna Hare, who says she has seen evidence of Nasa photoshopping pictures before releasing them to the public:

www.youtube.com...

People that make claims such as "There is a rodent on Mars" (or even "there is a rodent on the Earth where the rover actually is located), don't bother to actually check details of photos they are making claims about. The rodent for example - the most damning (non)evidence is the fact that the "leg" and "paw" are actually solidly connected to the "body." There is no separation.. unless it's a slug-rodent of some type, it's not a rodent. There is lighter color on the underside of the rock behind and in front of your "rodent." There is an angular horizontal line along the side of the "rodent" that doesn't look at all rodent-like. It is whiskerless. Its mouth and ears are deformed. The tail if you bother to zoom in, is clearly just a bit of rock above a shadow.

It's like all the "houses" that are posted. With crooked lines, non-matching sides for walls, and so on. So either the aliens are pretty lax about their building codes... or they are not structures.

Out of the however many 10s of thousands of pictures.. no plant life.. no other life.. nothing.. other than a single rodent? No lichen, nada..

For those that think there are rodents or larger animals living on Mars.. I ask.. how. Storms, no water, no plants, no food chain.. nothing. They are living how? Keep in mind that all ecosystems on our planet are an intricate weave of plants and animals, where even the loss of a single species can screw up the entire works. There are plankton and tiny plants that are needed for tiny animals and bugs to eat, which are in turn eaten by larger ones, and so on. Yet on Mars, apparently rock-rodents can live on dust and nothing else.

If you are going to claim pictures are rodents.. do some serious study. Not a cursory glance and claim you've discovered a space gerbil or something. Even a basic zooming in on the pictures makes it clear the thing is a rock. Zoom in on the other rodent posted. It becomes even more clear it's an animal, and even when more fuzzy, claws, whispers, the eye, and so on, are easily identifiable. Zooming in on the Mars rodent has the opposite effect. Clear sign we are not looking at a space gerbil, nor looking at Canada.

This very idea is laughable. First off, you're aware that there are distinct terrain features seen in the High Arctic that are totally inconsistent with the images coming back from Mars, right? For one thing, if you looked at the pictures you posted at all, you'd see that the rock on Devon Island has significant amounts of lichen and moss on it, and even some scattered grass around, none of which exists on Mars. Second, the soil in your second Mars image (the alleged bones) is quite obviously sandy, which is not present at all in Arctic desert environments, the ground on Devon Island would be hard-packed gravel and rough rock shards like this. That image also highlights another feature missing from the Mars images, raised patterns caused by permafrost, to say nothing of visible surface ice and snow.

The alleged dome someone mentioned? While there is a dome on Devon Island, it's quite distinctive and located in a lowland area that looks nothing like the Martian surface. The Mars research project installation is higher up, but very clearly marked and identified as well. DEW Line site? Nope, the DEW Line was something of a picket fence, the nearest installation to Devon Island was Cape McLoughlin, 500km to the south.

originally posted by: fleabit
People that make claims such as "There is a rodent on Mars" (or even "there is a rodent on the Earth where the rover actually is located), don't bother to actually check details of photos they are making claims about. The rodent for example - the most damning (non)evidence is the fact that the "leg" and "paw" are actually solidly connected to the "body." There is no separation.. unless it's a slug-rodent of some type, it's not a rodent. There is lighter color on the underside of the rock behind and in front of your "rodent." There is an angular horizontal line along the side of the "rodent" that doesn't look at all rodent-like. It is whiskerless. Its mouth and ears are deformed. The tail if you bother to zoom in, is clearly just a bit of rock above a shadow.

Well, when you zoom in on the lemming-rock, you can't say with certainty that it's a lemming. I fully agree with you. There's not enough detail. Let's assume that it is a lemming, then you should expect not seeing certain details with the resolution we have. If you look at some low res pics of lemmings on google, you can't see the whiskers for instance. And in a low res image, certain things might appear to be off (like how the limb connects to the body) because you're not seeing enough detail.

The fur together with shadows, might cause the limb-body connection to look a bit weird. Also, lemmings have a tiny tail at the bottom of their bums. If this is a lemming in this picture, you should not be seeing any tail since the large rock is in front of it.

Out of the however many 10s of thousands of pictures.. no plant life.. no other life.. nothing.. other than a single rodent? No lichen, nada..

If this mission was a smokescreen, the pictures released to the public will be scrutinized first. But that doesn't mean they can miss things. In the larger full size picture you don't see the lemming rock at all. And when releasing landscape pictures, they would obviously keep away from areas with plant life.

If you are going to claim pictures are rodents.. do some serious study. Not a cursory glance and claim you've discovered a space gerbil or something. Even a basic zooming in on the pictures makes it clear the thing is a rock. Zoom in on the other rodent posted. It becomes even more clear it's an animal, and even when more fuzzy, claws, whispers, the eye, and so on, are easily identifiable. Zooming in on the Mars rodent has the opposite effect. Clear sign we are not looking at a space gerbil, nor looking at Canada.

You're now comparing the high resolution image to low resolution image. There's not a lot of low res image of lemmings to be found, but here is one:



If you did not know you were looking at lemmings in the picture above, could you then say with confidence you were clearly looking at a group of lemmings?

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
This very idea is laughable. First off, you're aware that there are distinct terrain features seen in the High Arctic that are totally inconsistent with the images coming back from Mars, right? For one thing, if you looked at the pictures you posted at all, you'd see that the rock on Devon Island has significant amounts of lichen and moss on it, and even some scattered grass around, none of which exists on Mars.

The pictures I posted were not meant to give a full overview of the terrain types found on Devon Island. If you google for Devon Island, you will find different kinds of terrain. You will find terrain with moss and grass and you will find terrain with only rocks and hard dried up sand.

Second, the soil in your second Mars image (the alleged bones) is quite obviously sandy, which is not present at all in Arctic desert environments, the ground on Devon Island would be hard-packed gravel and rough rock shards.

The picture you're referring to is only sandy in the middle:



At the top you clearly see rocks and hard dried up sand and yes in the middle there is loose sand. Some of the rocks in the middle are covered with sand and other rocks don't have any sand on them. The rocks look like they have been broken into smaller pieces and look like they have been thrown around a bit. It almost looks like someone or something has done some digging there.

Unfortunately the original picture only shows a tiny portion of the ground. If there would be a huge panoroma with clearly a lot of loose sand, it would be a lot harder to say the picture was taken on Devon Island, eventhough there are some pictures of Devon Island that seem to have some looser sand than in most other pictures of the Devon Island terrain.

That image also highlights another feature missing from the Mars images, raised patterns caused by permafrost, to say nothing of visible surface ice and snow.

The Mars Society also has a base in Utah. If this mission is a smokescreen, not all pictures have to come from Devon Island.

a reply to: ShadeWolf
a reply to: fleabit

I've posted this before, I wonder what you guys think of my reasoning here:

There's one other thing I'm really confused about. Take the picture of the rock that looks like a bone:



Nasa has commented on that picture on their website:

No bones about it! Seen by Mars rover Curiosity using its MastCam, this Mars rock may look like a femur thigh bone. Mission science team members think its shape is likely sculpted by erosion, either wind or water.

If life ever existed on Mars, scientists expect that it would be small simple life forms called microbes. Mars likely never had enough oxygen in its atmosphere and elsewhere to support more complex organisms. Thus, large fossils are not likely.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

So first they make a factual statement: No bones about it! But then the rest of their explanation is more nuanced. They say they think Mars likely never had enough oxygen and "large fossils are not likely" or "scientists expect"....

The fact of the matter is, we know quite a bit about Earth and about Earth's history when it comes to our climate and our atmosphere. Most of this knowledge comes from digging deep into the Earth and examining soil layers and fossils and from collecting ice cores from deep down the arctic icesheets.

We have not done this type of research on Mars. We are able to make educated guesses about the history of Mars, but we can not be 100% sure what Mars looked like thousands or millions of years ago. To get good data on that we will at least need to drill some ice cores on Mars.

So you send a rover all the way to Mars and spend large sums of money to do this. You send a rover to do scientific research and equip it with certain instruments, like an almost indestructable drill. But then you drive by something that looks like a bone and then you just ASSUME that particular thing must be a rock and can not be a bone since that doesn't fit your theories??

That is NOT science. If there are real scientists operating the rover, they would definitely stop at the rock that looks like a bone and just check it out. That's why the rover is there! Just check out the rock that looks like a bone!

In science you come up with a theory and then you do groundwork in the field to either confirm the theory or try to disprove it. Science is about collecting DATA. Science is not about making assumptions and then refusing to do experiments because they don't fit your theories.

We don't know for a fact that Mars never harbored more advanced lifeforms. So why not examine the rock that looks like a bone? That just does not make any sense.....

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Mars has absolutely no military or strategic value. It is too far away and too difficult to get there for it to be any use to anyone.

Sure waste a lot of time and money investigating a large rock.

Or do they ???

a reply to: ParasuvO

Either time is relative or its not, if time is relative then an observer on Earth travelling at 185 miles per second, observing Mars travelling at about 14,000 miles per second, cant look at the evolution of Mars in Terrestrial terms. The differences in speeds surely has to affect many things when taken over a period of millions of years. To an earth based observer the higher speed of Mars must cause a time dilation, like if two atomic clocks were placed on Earth and Mars at the same time a hundred million years ago. I would suggest the difference in their reading at this present time would be significant . This would also effect observed chemical and biological observations.

You guys many enjoy some posts by a member here that hasn't posted in forever. His name was Arken and you can find his stuff here:

Arken

Have a look. He was all over this a couple years back.

Look carefully....

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
I suppose this could be a plausible theory. But I just don't see why after building and successfully testing robots and rockets, they wouldn't just go all the way to Mars.

Well i supposed they did, only whatever machines were on those rockets were not 'these' robots.

They get the funding to go to mars, they also get the black project funding. Then they build two sets of robots, one set goes to mars, the other stays on earth in some island but pretends to be on mars. Meanwhile the real stuff is going on out there, whatever that is.

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
This very idea is laughable. First off, you're aware that there are distinct terrain features seen in the High Arctic that are totally inconsistent with the images coming back from Mars, right? For one thing, if you looked at the pictures you posted at all, you'd see that the rock on Devon Island has significant amounts of lichen and moss on it,

Hey, I just found your lichen



An article on this Mars picture: www.nbcnews.com...

In the article they use a type of lichen that does not look entirely the same as the Mars picture, but when I looked for lichen on Devon Island, I found this polar lichen:



www.cimicorp.com...

If you search google for "polar lichen" you will find many types of lichen. Some look quite similar to the Mars picture.

originally posted by: rockn82
You guys many enjoy some posts by a member here that hasn't posted in forever. His name was Arken and you can find his stuff here:

Arken

Have a look. He was all over this a couple years back.

I was watching the video I posted in the opening post again and they also talked about Richard Hoover, who used to work for Nasa, that says that there are "crinoids" in the Mars pictures. Then I searched online and found that Arken had already opened a thread on that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Crinoids are marine animals that make up the class Crinoidea of the echinoderms:

en.wikipedia.org...



Video of Richard Hoover explaining his position:

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Neill887
Well, let's shed some light on my "mindset".

To start off with, I used to think the whole UFO-phenomenon was a bunch of nonsense together with a lot of other conspiracy theories. Up to 5 years ago, I would sometimes make fun of people of people online because they were so dumb and misled to take UFOs seriously.

And then I started to pay attention and leave my emotional investment in the paradigm I was living in, at the door.

Thank you for sharing this here Neill887! You have done some AMAZING investigative work here, and put together a most interesting thread - and those pics are truly something to behold; being all too familiar with our northern Canadian landscape, I find your hypothesis to be more than plausible.

To me, thinking outside of the box of our all too comfortable paradigm is the epitome of denying ignorance. Critical thinking at its finest - it was a pleasure to read through your process as well as the concise answers you gave to questions - which in turn offered up even more to support your case. There isn't a person here who truly knows where all of the funding for black projects goes - so in that regard, one theory is as good as another.

if people want to claim :

"the mars rovers are on a canadian island "

how about some evidence

as you are making the claim - try the diferences in such metrics as :

length of day

length of year

axial tilt

the moon

etc etc etc

that would be apparent if the mars rovers media was coming from a canadian island - not mars

PS - and also expolain the absence of any rain // snow // clouds // frost // fog etc etc in the entire body of the rovers documented media return .

do i need to get popcorn ?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm confused. How is that science proving that nothing can get past the radiation belts around Earth?