**AMAZING** Artifact On Mars!! Original JPL Picture source included!!

RFBurns,

I've no doubt your opinions are genuine but you really are on the wrong track with your ideas of logic, and debate. I don't know how to explain it better than Thrashee but here goes mate.

If you offer an hypothesis other than the prosaic (it is an alien artifact as claimed, yes claimed, by the OP) then you must support it with evidence.

The prosaic (or null) hypothesis (it is a rock) does not need evidence to support it, it requires evidence to disprove it.

So the only evidence that is of any relevance is that which negates (or nullifies) that it is a rock.

So to paraphrase Thrashee. I don't know what it is but it is probably a rock. If you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you.

Incidentally if we turn it around and use "it is an alien artifact" as our null hypothesis then the burden of proof would be on Thrashee, but that is a circular and not very useful or enlightening discussion because it goes something like this.

We do not know what alien artifacts, if they exist, look like. End of discussion.

I think it is likely there is, or was, intelligent alien life in the solar system so the above argument is of no interest to me because I can learn nothing from it.

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
RFBurns,

I've no doubt your opinions are genuine but you really are on the wrong track with your ideas of logic, and debate. I don't know how to explain it better than Thrashee but here goes mate.

If you offer an hypothesis other than the prosaic (it is an alien artifact as claimed, yes claimed, by the OP) then you must support it with evidence.

The prosaic (or null) hypothesis (it is a rock) does not need evidence to support it, it requires evidence to disprove it.

So the only evidence that is of any relevance is that which negates (or nullifies) that it is a rock.

So to paraphrase Thrashee. I don't know what it is but it is probably a rock. If you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong! To simply say something is not is not evidence, or proof or even comming close to burden of proof. The same applies in the other direction.

Where this concept of only one must show proof is pulled out of thin air and used as an excuse because only those on the side of disbelief support that excuse, thus makes that bonafide to be accepted?

Not in my book it doesnt. I have never seen any scientific debate where no one particular side was ever lacking in evidence. That only seems to be a norm in forums, and is hardly any science at all.

If it only takes the word of a skeptic to be taken seriously, then it only takes the word of a believer to be taken seriously as well.

The lop sided forum based analysis days are fast comming to an end, as it has been for years now.

But it really doesnt matter because believers will stick to their data, stick to their conclusions and stick to their guns as long as their is nothing further to show otherwise. You see how that works?

If all a skeptic has is text on a screen, or language out of the mouth, and no data to collaborate that, it is worthless, and in no way any worthy of scientific acceptance. Science does not function on word of mouth or belief, it functions on data, and verified data, to either side of the issue.

Otherwise, whats the point in collecting images, sensor readings, charting earthquakes on graphs, measuring voltage across a wire, taking pictures of objects on another world...why all that if data is irrelevant to prove or disprove something?

Get with the program. I would certianly like to see the word of a skeptic be taken seriously in a real scientific debate. As I said, I have never seen ANY real scientific discussion or debate where either side came into the room empty handed.



Cheers!!!!

2 min image editing with ms paint



References

1. Green Circles Meteorized Sedimentary Rocks. Fine Grained. Angular Shaped.
   
2. Red circles Volcanic Rocks [Basalt?] or Non-Fe Meteor Fragments
   
3. Blue circles Sedimentary or coarse grained rock. Somewhat round shape. Distinct material

Evidences of High thermal changes during day-night spread across image.
Right angle bend in anomalous rock seems to be a joint. An extensional fracture due to extreme weather changes. The particular fragment itself could be a slice of a larger block.





[edit on 10-2-2009 by Lucho]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Lucho]

Edited: misunderstood post


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

It has been a while since I have posted anything on ATS but I liked this thread, despite the boast of being ""Amazing"". Wher I do not think it looks like a wrench, I personally think it looks like fosilized eel. This is no way is me stating it is absolutely what I see, afterall I see shapes in the walpaper on my cubicle where I work so, take it for what it is, an opinion.

Please excuse my spelling, never has been that great.

My first thought was a wrench of some sort. I do not believe this is a rock or any kind. Looks like it's metallic as it's rusty looking. Very interesting none the less.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
I personally think it looks like fosilized eel...

Thats possible, considering in the distant past Mars did have surface water and oxygen and a thick atmosphere.

It sure would be nice to have those other filter datasets so we can see the compositional differences. If that is a fossilized life form, those compositions would show up and be quite different from the compositions of the rocks nearby.

But...we dont have the extra data needed to conclude that it might be a fossil or just another unusual shaped rock.



Cheers!!!!

Looks like a rock to me,very strange rock but a rock is a rock is a rock...so yeah its a rock imo.

I believe this artifact to be of some WE put into orbit around MARS , perhapes debris of the failed missions sent before the succesfull landings.

reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism


ok now i think this is real but there was a hoax a while back about a man on mars and lets not forget that those lenses are odly shaped on most of the rovers or should i say some? Can you tell me what kind of rover took the picture and isnt their acid ran on mars? how old could this thing realy be

[edit on 10-2-2009 by ECWSANDMAN13]

WOW cool!, A Martian Rock Snake! I thought these babies where extinct! *cough*

Seriously though, When you are looking at something that is 2D shadows and lighting are essential for you to now what you are looking at.

I am sure that there is a logical explanation for this.

Cool find by the way. But how is this an artifact? You really threw me a curve-ball there...

reply to post by ECWSANDMAN13


Hi there

Check the FIRST post. All the info is there, including the ORIGINAL JPL image.

The rover was 'SPIRIT'. Mission day 527. in the GUSEV CRATOR

Cheers

AoN

Originally posted by LaLiLuLeLo

Cool find by the way. But how is this an artifact? You really threw me a curve-ball there...

Can i cover my back on that one with this:

Artifact: An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error:

Source


My use of the word 'Artifact' may have been a bit liberal, but at the time i had a hard time believing it was natural....and STILL do.

Although i am OPEN to OPTIONS!! (to all you ROCK lovers out there:up

Cheers.

AoN

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

reply to post by fleabit


expecialy considering the fact that when a rover covers a area they usually dont send another rover to cover the same area

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism

Originally posted by LaLiLuLeLo

Cool find by the way. But how is this an artifact? You really threw me a curve-ball there...

Can i cover my back on that one with this:

Artifact: An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error:

Source

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]

No, you may not.

You left out the other 3 definitions.

1. An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.
2. Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element: "The very act of looking at a naked model was an artifact of male supremacy" Philip Weiss.
3. A structure or feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action, such as one seen in a microscopic specimen after fixation, or in an image produced by radiology or electrocardiography.

Number 1 and 2 state that the origin of an artifact has to be human. And to my knowledge and every one here, there has not bean any human-being on mars that we know of.
Number 3 does not apply to your image.

So its a snake!!!

*edit for Putting the ''-'' between humanbeing.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by LaLiLuLeLo]

If it's not a wrench then it sure looks like a water creature(eel).

Just a shadow on a flat rock.

No wrench or old tool, just a hunk of rubble and no not Barney Rubble either...

Found more stuff there.