Ancient Ruins Found on Mars!

reply to post by Phage


Well, if we are going to assume it was an ancient Martian structure, I doubt it would have any sort of 90º angle or straightness left to it. It would have to be hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old. Just look at what has happened to early Roman structures in a couple thousand years here in a lovely Mediterranean environment. Add in a more hostile environment such is on planet Mars and you've should have a vastly deteriorated remnant leaving behind only seemingly straight lines and rough (at best) right angles.

I admit being very unknowledgeable in this area.

That said, to me it looks like a piece of coral from a long dry sea bed.

Just my two cents worth.

I just want to remind folks a shuttle captain said recently there was life on Mars. Don't think he was speaking of single cell paramecium either. Was listening to a very intersting c2c last night. The guest said damage control was on with the Vatican saying et life would not preclude any more's of scripture.
We are going to find out soon. We've been baby spoon fed for a while now.

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN


Can you tell everyone here your level of education, field of work, and knowledge of alien culture that allows you to determine:

1) These were created by aliens.
2) These were created by "early" aliens, not the ones that existed there later.
3) When you say these were created by early aliens, about what time (in SOL please) were these aliens around?

We eagerly await your explanation.

reply to post by jpm1602


Question, in which mission did the shuttle go to Mars?

reply to post by jpm1602


Hi! Which shuttle captain said this? I'd love to do some Googling and see what I can find on that Thanks!

reply to post by euclid


Just out of curiosity, because I've honestly not done a lot of searching yet, is there a lot of discussion of that on these boards? I'm still fairly new around here. I've always been quite interested in archaeology. I've read in a few threads about ancient civilizations being "technologically advanced," but I'm not sure what folks mean by that. Do people actually think they had computers? Just curious.

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by Phage

 

Well, if we are going to assume it was an ancient Martian structure, I doubt it would have any sort of 90º angle or straightness left to it. It would have to be hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old. Just look at what has happened to early Roman structures in a couple thousand years here in a lovely Mediterranean environment. Add in a more hostile environment such is on planet Mars and you've should have a vastly deteriorated remnant leaving behind only seemingly straight lines and rough (at best) right angles.

So are you saying that, due to deterioration, an ancient structure would be indistinguishable from a natural formation with similar straight lines and right angles? What basis then is there to conclude it is an ancient structure?

Natural formation with straight lines and right angles

reply to post by Phage


did you read my post to you?

and i think he made the point that the wear and tear of the martian environment, would do much more damage to any organized structure, so even basalt columns would end up looking like battered chunks of rock. i don't think that's either pro or con on the topic of it being constructed by sentients.

There's life in space, says someone who's been there Tue Jul 29, 6:44 AM ET



TOKYO (Reuters) - The U.S. commander of space shuttle Discovery believes life probably exists somewhere in outer space, but there is a simple reason why aliens have not visited earth -- the journey is too tough.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We have seen some evidence that there is a possibility of some life on Mars in the past, so there is probably life all over the universe," astronaut Mark Kelly told a news conference in Tokyo on Tuesday, where he was joined by other members of the Discovery crew.

"From our experience, it is very difficult to travel through space, and I personally think aliens have not visited our planet."

The Discovery delivered Japan's Kibo orbital laboratory to the International Space Station in June. Kelly described the $1 billion, 32-ton module as a "Lexus of a space station" where everything worked perfectly.

"Certainly like a Japanese car, Kibo was very well-made," he said. "It is going to be the premier laboratory of the space station for many years to come."

Japan, the last of the 16-nation partnership to get its hardware in space, is expected to complete the three-part lab next year.

Japanese astronaut Akihiko Hoshide -- whose name means "Go to the stars" -- was part of the eight-member team.

"Fourteen days was a short time," Hoshide told the same news conference. "I wish I could have stayed longer."

During their mission, the crew successfully conducted three spacewalks to hook up the new lab, work on the station's cooling system and fix a problem that was hampering a pair of solar wing panels from tracking the sun for power.

Back on earth, some are more interested in the possible existence of alien life than the lab's scientific experiments.

Kelly's comments add to a lively Japanese debate over aliens and UFOs. Japanese politicians discussed the possible existence of flying saucers late last year after an opposition lawmaker brought up the topic in parliament. Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said he personally believed in UFOs, but Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda was more cautious, saying their existence had yet to be confirmed. (Reporting by Naoto Okamura; editing by Sophie Hardach)

His words admittedly are tightly cloaked. My understanding reading between the lines are a major hit. I could be wrong. I frequently am. The journey is too tough. Negative. Not for a species in all probability billions of years ahead of us.
Just to throw this out there. I believe there is a heinz 57 of species out there.



[edit on 8/27/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 8/27/2008 by jpm1602]

reply to post by rocksarerocks



the guy has substantial evidence of tampering, hours of image analyzing...
etc.


what do you have to confirm marsanomalyresearh's Skipper and all his hard work should never be taken seriously?

have you taken so much time as he did to analyze photos from Mars to concludeevidence of ONLY rocks?



I agree not all analysis there are valid,at least to my opinion,but there is a good number of really substantial analysis with respectable claims


so smw. talking rubbish here...


and your nickname says it all probably, your predefined opinion about mars that is

personally,i think it's a tent with heavy camoflage.
but that's just what i see. it appears to have some type
of communications or technological tower built at the shadowed
end which is protruding from the top (the anomalie with
the little dark dot just sorta hanging in space slightly above the left end, because what
it is attached to is so thin, it nearly disappears in the light
background of the sky).

so my vote is, camoflaged tent. a makeshift building of some sort. but not stacked up stones.

Originally posted by fleabit
reply to post by euclid

 

Just out of curiosity, because I've honestly not done a lot of searching yet, is there a lot of discussion of that on these boards? I'm still fairly new around here. I've always been quite interested in archaeology. I've read in a few threads about ancient civilizations being "technologically advanced," but I'm not sure what folks mean by that. Do people actually think they had computers? Just curious.

Well, welcome.... to ATS where ignorance isn't really denied by either side. As to if there is a lot of discussion here about that.... ummmm.... sort of; you might find some threads with a few gems of interesting information.

Did/could an ancient civilization have a computer? I don't know for certain. But here's a better line of thought: If our planet were to suddenly be devastated by a natural global catastrophe that caused 90% of life to die what would happen to all our technology? A series of things would occur:

1. The survivors would attempt to continue to survive.
2. The young who survived would no longer be attending school to study and go to college and get a good job. They would be doing what they could to survive as well.
3. The survivors would begin to cluster and create enclaves, towns et cetera from the bits of what was left of our once magnificent technological infrastructure.
4. Because 90% of the people have died there would be few people who actually new how to repair a car, distill crude oil into fuels, mine and extract metal ores, smelt the ores into usable metals, do brain surgery, make cold medicine, fabricate microchips and electronic components (you get the picture).
5. Because of this our technology would regress. And it would continue to regress for many generations until the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of those initial survivors would sit around a fire in the middle of their village telling their young about the great cities that once existed and the machines that flew in the sky carring people all over the world. Our techonological reality would become the stuff of myth and legends. Religions might even be born from them.
6. And after fifty thousand years what will remain of what we created in this time? Nothing that we create today will be around in 50,000 years from now. Our building are metal/steel/iron... it will disintegrate within 500 years, our houses are wood and plaster they'll disintegrate within 100 years unless constantly renovated and rebuilt, the same with our microchips and the data held in WORM drives or magnetic media.... all gone within 200 years of this hypothetical catastrophe.

So what might have happened to any advanced technology left over from a civilization that existed one million years ago?

Bones, stones and the myths & legends they handed down to us are more resilient, and important, than anything any civilization could fabricate.

-Euclid

[edit on 27-8-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Phage

 

did you read my post to you?

and i think he made the point that the wear and tear of the martian environment, would do much more damage to any organized structure, so even basalt columns would end up looking like battered chunks of rock. i don't think that's either pro or con on the topic of it being constructed by sentients.

I did read your post. I seems to me that you are agreeing with me that this is a picture of a rock. I also don't really get the drift (pun intended) of your statements about an inferred sand pile that is not visible.

Regarding my response to tyranny22, what's the problem? I took his statement "Assuming it was a Martian structure" to mean that he was assuming it was a Martian structure. Maybe that was too much of a leap on my part.

My question remains; given that great deterioration had occurred (to a structure or a natural formation), why conclude it is the remnants of structure rather than the remnants of a natural formation?

The "structure" in question has rough right angles and sort of straight lines. My reference to the basalt columns was to illustrate that right angles and straight lines can be a product of natural processes.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Phage]

Mr. Skipper's website is amazing. If there is no fakery on it (other than the fakery he points out, of course), it is quite shocking.

There are more structured rocks in the photo at the bottom of this page, where he is trying to draw attention to a vague statue of a human head. What gets me though is the half of a hubcap or pie plate lying in the dirt near the head!

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

reply to post by Phage


i'd post the pic of the sand on the top of it, but i'd have to cut it out in paintshop, upload it to the internet, only to be told it's just rocks with sand on it, so the point of proving there's sand on it to begin with, is really not going to be evidence that it's artificial. it just raises the question as to why, what caused it, all the theoreticals of the forces either known or unknown at work to generate the sand layer. it's okay, i don't really mind either way. i already have an opinion of what it is, based on my observations and they don't matter much anyway. i'm just some lady on the internet.

A large part of our problem is our only comparison, THE EARTH.

We constantly, and with good reason, compare everything we see, to what we know happens on our own planet.

What do we know of Geological structures that have undergone many many thousands or Millions of years with 3/4/5 hundred mile an hour winds or worse?

What do we know about what the rainfall was like in winds of that nature? how much of what we deem unnatural, was at one time under an ocean?

Also we have extreme variants in temperature, from maybe hundreds of degrees both ways within hours, don't flame me for that last part, I'm simply making an example, we know here on Earth, that those variants are not as extreme, but yet we see rocks which have split into cubic units because of our own not so harsh variants.

Every assumption we make, we have left out the vital evidence, and simply because we have only one comparison.

Our Earth.

Originally posted by Phage
Well, if we are going to assume it was an ancient Martian structure, I doubt it would have any sort of 90º angle or straightness left to it. It would have to be hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old. Just look at what has happened to early Roman structures in a couple thousand years here in a lovely Mediterranean environment. Add in a more hostile environment such is on planet Mars and you've should have a vastly deteriorated remnant leaving behind only seemingly straight lines and rough (at best) right angles.

So are you saying that, due to deterioration, an ancient structure would be indistinguishable from a natural formation with similar straight lines and right angles? What basis then is there to conclude it is an ancient structure?

Then there wouldn't be any basis. Any formation with even a hint of a 90 degree angle on it (assuming that native Martians would even use that Earthly building convention) could be a potential "ruin." And since we can't go there and poke around for artifacts, there would be absolutely no way to distinguish a significantly decayed ruin from a natural formation.

And in that case, since we can't prove it one way or another, it doesn't matter if it is an actual Martian ruin. Rock, ruin, what's the difference if it can't be proven?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Nohup]

Originally posted by jpm1602
"TOKYO (Reuters) - The U.S. commander of space shuttle Discovery believes life probably exists somewhere in outer space, but there is a simple reason why aliens have not visited earth -- the journey is too tough."

"ADVERTISEMENT "

"We have seen some evidence that there is a possibility of some life on Mars in the past, so there is probably life all over the universe," astronaut Mark Kelly told a news conference in Tokyo on Tuesday, where he was joined by other members of the Discovery crew.

"From our experience, it is very difficult to travel through space, and I personally think aliens have not visited our planet."

I just want to remind folks a shuttle captain said recently there was life on Mars.

"some evidence that there is a possibility of some life on Mars in the past" is a far cry from "there was life on Mars".

Don't think he was speaking of single cell paramecium either.

There is actually strong possibility he was referring to meteorite ALH84001. If that's the case you're correct. The thingies they found are much smaller than a paramecium.