Alien Critters On Mars? Check This Out!!!

If the moon rotates on its axis relative to Earth, how come there aren't any pictures of the far side from Earth based observatories? The moon is visible all the time, it just depends where you are.

Originally posted by skitzo
Why is all the little critters seem to be peeping out from behind rocks? Anybody got pics of something running or flying?

If you saw a big nasty Metallic Alien machine coming at you I bet YOU would scurry for the rocks for cover too...

But this one didn't quite make it...

Originally posted by seenitall
If the moon rotates on its axis relative to Earth, how come there aren't any pictures of the far side from Earth based observatories? The moon is visible all the time, it just depends where you are.

The moon rotates on its axix ONCE for every time it ORBITS the Earth, if it didn't you would see more sides from Earth based observatories...

Take two balls and put a mark on one (the moon) Now move it around the second ball (the Earth) so the mark always faces the Earth... you will see that the Moon revolves on its axis exactly ONCE for each orbit..

Hope that helps

Did you read the relative to Earth part? Or did you skip that?

Saying that the moon rotates on its axis is purposely deceptive.

Rotation would indicate that the far side would be visible at some point of the cycle.

PS: I have rusting gigantic alien walking robot machines with lasers for eyes in my backyard. Looks like a rock to some people though.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by seenitall]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s

Looks like Spoon1's avatar to me!

But seriously, interesting anomaly. And isn't there another one pretty much like it lying on its side right to the upper left of the yellow box, almost touching a hub-cap thingy with punch-outs surrounding a circular hub, under the UL corner of the box?

Is this really on another planet or an old junkyard? Or could this be where the Pentagon 757 crashed?

And btw great thread, these where's Waldo pictures are a lot of fun to study.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by gottago]

Actually, it's not deceptive at all. It's quite a clear description of what goes on, and it's also very accurate. For something to rotate on it's axis means just that, it rotates on it's axis. Whether it does so in relation to the planet that it's a satellite of doesn't change the fact that it's revolving on it's axis. To try to argue a moot point such as this begs the question of why bother, when there's so many other things to discuss?

Like, for example, the fact that I'm still waiting to see the Eat At Joe's sign up there. Not to mention Marvin the Martian poking his head out from the farside, snickering because he just got his cannon operational, and is anxious to try it out.

Being realistic here, there's so much more to talk about, aside from whether the moon revolves in relation to us or not. That means nothing when it comes to this study. There's pictures of the farside, and that's all that really matters.

TheBorg

Zorgon,
Thankz for those link. I will study them and when come to some conclusions will post here...
Borg my friend. I think that it's quite wrong thinking that it's not important if or not Moon revolves around it's axis...
I'll post some posts of mine from other forums which are making people's heads go nuts.
It's putting some basic and fundamental things under question like life span on other more or less massive bodies.
It's quite important in fact if it revolves! I can't picture in my head those argues above 'cause if it's not it's logical that it's always one side in front of our eyes because Earth's gravity hold it in position??!!! Knocking my head around this...

Originally posted by TheBorgTo try to argue a moot point such as this begs the question of why bother, when there's so many other things to discuss?

Sigh... I thought I was genuinely helping out someone... I guess I am not too good at Kindergarten level physics instruction...

I wonder what they are going to do when I toss the issue of Lunar Gravity into the mix... that will have college level formulas to deal with...

:shk:

Originally posted by undo
More details of the metal beast, as i'm calling it:

I do not understand how you can speculate on anything once you have enlarged it so that it is pixelated. It is an interesting area and I would like to see it closer, but without the pixelation. It looks like many iron mineralized areas here on earth.

Originally posted by observe50
Actually I'm scratching my head to, who or what did take the picture of the Rover???

Uhh, the other rover?

There was no other rover. I think the base from which the rover left from had a camera on it and that is what took the pictures of the rover.

Originally posted by NegativeBeef

Originally posted by observe50
Actually I'm scratching my head to, who or what did take the picture of the Rover???

Uhh, the other rover?

Originally posted by zorgon
You also would have to have a plausible reason as to why a "rock" would form in that shape...

The rock was not necessarily formed in that shape, it could have had any other shape when it was formed and it was shaped like that after it, after all Mars has huge sand storms.

But seriously ArMap... not everything in the Universe is a rock... sooner or later you will have to come to grips with that, no matter how painful the reality might be.

I know the Universe is not only rocks, but even a fossil is a rock, right?

And why would the realisation that not everything are rocks be painful?

For the record, fossils would not sit on the surface like that, especially if there are huge sand storms. If you are to believe that life is so prolific, it would be only logical to assume that there are some species that would take up residence in the scavenger niche.

Show me one fossil on Earth that has been discovered on the surface in the same shape as the original organism.

If you're going to call them fossils, please have a look at how fossils are formed in the first place.

If your conveniently shaped rocks were really remains of life, they would be very 'fresh'. You don't see life running around though do you?

I do believe that there was probably some form of life in the past on Mars when you consider the evidence of oceans and running water, yet these finds don't even come close to backing up such a belief. Grasping at straws with this kind of stuff here guys. You want to find evidence of life on Mars? You would have to dig or find current life. Simple as that.

Fossils do not form on the surface. Erosion couldn't have 'uncovered' these forms either because the process wouldn't discriminate between the fossil and the surrounding rock. Although as stated above by another poster, these forms could come about from erosion effects on a normal rock thus making it look strange in appearance.

Maybe if you had high resolution pictures of an exposed cliff face you would have something to consider.



[edit on 22-3-2007 by seenitall]

Sigh... I thought I was genuinely helping out someone... I guess I am not too good at Kindergarten level physics instruction...

I don't need your help. Physics isn't my area of expertise but I think its a play on words, and yes a moot point. Technically it does rotate on its axis but I don't really think that putting it the way you have is helpful to anyone.

If you are really 'trying to help', why do you insist on claiming that these rocks are evidence of life?

[edit on 22-3-2007 by seenitall]

1) "Diapsida Breatbone". If it was biological in origin it more closely resembles a shoulder blade. It doesn't look like any pectorial girdle I've ever seen, not even close. Looks like some form of shale to me though. You do know that many many types of rocks break along cleavage planes dont you?

Rounding of rocks is usually attributable to erosion processes, especially water.

2) "Diapsida skull". Resembles a primitive anapsid skull if anything. This would indicate some sort of sea creature such as a turtle like organism. It does look strange, but I've seen some damn strange rocks too. I think on closer inspection it would look much less organic. The picture is pixellated as hell.

As for the other bones, I think you would find that they are rocks. The amount of pixellation doesn't really allow you to determine whether they are one piece or two. In all of the other pictures there is not enough detail to made any definitive statements, especially the one you describe as follows:

Three pieces of interst in this section.. the triangular fragment attached to the bigger piece, the odd shape at bottom left, and the partially buried round "tube like" piece

The above quoted pieces could VERY easily just be two pieces overlapping each other.

One point I would like to make is that rocks of certain types will break along cleavage planes. Many of the more complex pieces displayed could quite easily be pieces of fragmented rock resting in convenient arrangements. The rail road pieces, in my honest opinion, show how this can happen to produce very defined shapes.

If these rocks are really bones, then they would have to be very recent otherwise they would have broken down much more. IF these are real, I would be more interested in finding the ones that are alive.

Everything else aside. Nature comes up with some strange things, even rocks can take on strange shapes. Perceived rounding of certain pieces seems to indicate that water once flowed at these locations. It would be nice to know where exactly on Mars they were taken.

I am not against the idea of life once being on Mars. In fact, I think it was probably likely considering the vast oceans and rivers that once existed. I just don't think these pictures represent evidence of such. To find any real evidence you would really have to dig. An exposed rock face could also provide much insight.

All in all its just one opinion against the other but I lean strongly towards rocks because of the conditions required for fossilisation, and the strong evidence against Mars currently being habitable for these to be recent.

Ok! So what do you say about these 'tube worms'?? Hell! Things are now beginning to get interesting!




Mars Pathfinder images: Courtesy Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

I'll soon be showing you an animated pic of movement of critters!!
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from shouting 'hoax' from the rooftops!

Cheers!!



[edit on 23-3-2007 by mikesingh]

I reserve my judgment on this until I see the "movement" spoken of. When I see that, then I'll respond with my 2.5 pennies.

TheBorg

Could someone put the links to the original JPL pictures?

they don't have to be fossils either, just bones in the desert, or even mechanized, rusty, crashed contraptions.

shall i dig up photos of bones in a desert? not fossils, just bones in the desert.
since "seenitall" seems like a smart enough person to not overlook that possibilty, i'm going to assume the lack of consideration on that point, is a key sign that he's engaging in a little disinfo, for what reason is the question at this juncture. some just do it cause it's fun to pick on those who don't have the support of the mainstream, others do it cause they are running interference for the big guys, and still more do it because they missed something important and developed a theory that was incorrect, by mistake.

[edit on 23-3-2007 by undo]

So, clear the air. Really, all I want are the new pictures. Whatcha got? Still waiting on the movement clips though.

TheBorg