Ancient Mars

Originally posted by zorgon
So... exactly how does a rock lift off the face of Mars, achieve orbit velocity, then escape the gravity of Mars, aim itself at Earth to become a meteorite and conveniently land in Antarctica where scientists can just pick it up?

If you believe that... I have some nice land to sell you in Florida

That wouldn't happen to be a 23 mile wide impact crater you posted right above that question would it?

Just sayin...

Many will think this sounds crazy, but Mars, from what I have read/heard and truly believe had a very advanced civilization. However, when their planet went south long before the dinosaurs, and due to their advanced ability to time travel, which is really only inter-dimensional movement, they came hear. They came here without permission, and settled on what was Atlantis after the 3rd polar shift on earth. Even though they were tolerated, they were fully left-brained beings, logic and no love, there came a point they pretty much raped Mother Earth. They were warring beings and almost caused the downfall of this planet if not for a few very special higher beings. Believe what you will, but I have no doubt they were there, and came here. Belief does not matter, because everyone will remember.
Be Well

reply to post by beastieboy01

Looks a lot like the one we found on that old Lick Observatory photo from 1946





This one is NW of Endymion same width as crater. I am sure ArMaP can point out where to find it in this picture

LICKOBS9

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
Just sayin...

Well I want to see the math...

That rock would have had to be massive to be able to produce a meteorite of that size after burning through our atmosphere and the 'life' found on it would have had to be embedded deep in the original rock for us to find it after tons of material burned off...

A 23 mile crater> Would such an impact be enough to generate escape velocity, enter a precise Mars Earth trajectory and hit Antarctica to land in the snow where we can spot it?

Odds are astronomical.... yet according to Von Braun the place is littered with Mars debris

Sorry... no math... no believe such a tall tale

reply to post by zorgon


Well I wasn't saying a meteorite came from that specific crater, but there's about 34 meteorites that NASA considers to be from Mars. How do you think they got here?

from what i remember from another thread here about water on mars.


i figured mars has been without water for 800mil yrs. i think! lol.(i mean looking like earth)

earth has had 5 or so major extinction events, giving rise to certain dominant species each time.

if any life was left after the event that fubard mars, has had 800mil yrs to evolve.to the conditions on the planet that we see.

that's a long time. who knows what type of progression life evolved?

does every planet need to go through 200my of dino's before it gets to mammals? lol.

there is life there, i've seen too many things that point to it in the less than 20 miles the rovers have taken pics on the ground.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Great post. Most of us never consider what something looks like before its excavated. When only the obvious is seen, the hidden is missed.

Yes... precisely...

So the next time you see something like this on Mars... you might think twice

reply to post by zorgon


Wow...what an awesome piece of evidence. You Mars-Researchers are really onto something over there.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist but there's about 34 meteorites that NASA considers to be from Mars. How do you think they got here?

I would presume that being meteorites, that they fell from the sky like most meteorites tend to do...

But prove to me they came from Mars.. Since we supposedly have not yet been to Mars, how to you make such an assumption as to be able to say "Yup, them space rocks gotta come from Mars?"

Because NASA says so?

I allways have seen another face in the Mars Face.

and it is when the picture is up side down. :



is it only me or do any one els see a alien face like a grey

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hey Skyfloating,

Here is another find by the same researcher:

Highlighted:

And for some smaller-scale stuff, here is a potential fossil that was discovered a few months ago - included at top-right are terrestrial examples of similiar fossilized organisms:

(I cannot remember the image number, but this was taken from an Erebus grind during August 2005)

reply to post by zorgon


Oh, dear.

Ah yes that eternal cry of the Devout skeptic Pareidolia with the ever present Wiki as documentation

THIS, from the same knave who used a WIKI reference in his (slightly) tongue-in-cheek slap at MY face??

Personally I think those that see nothing but blurry rocks have Prosopagnosia

(See original post for WIKI link to "prosopagnosia"). BTW, I had no trouble recognizing your face.

BTW...without we "Devout skeptics" (sic) the world might be even more over-run with the crazies (See: Hoagland and believers, for example).

Speaking of Hoagland.....brings me back to the Cydonia Region, and the original 1976 photo that was perceived to be a giant face. MAN! Did a whole cottage industry of crap blossom up because of that!

Funny that you chose to criticize me about people seeing faces that aren't there, in random patterns of sunlight, shadows and hills and rocks and crevices.....when up-thread in your (very excellent) posting example actually made a case against the "face Devotees"....showing the perfectly reasonable, and eminently logical postulate of the outcropping having been an island at one time --- back when there was ample liquid water on the surface.

Your split personality on these issues (of determining "face" shapes in random patterns) astonishes and vexes me..... :shk:

Don't suppose it ever crossed your mind that people recognize patterns because they are there?

Well, any intelligent individual who does look into the workings of the Human brain, and the Brain/Eye connection and visual perception "protocols" (for want of a better, more scientific term) that exist (after millions of years of evolution) would realize just HOW our brains and perceptions can fool us --- regularly.

Example: Linky-Dinky: "The Neuroscience of Illusion"

Be sure to follow the links to "View the slide show" from the above article. Only five are offered there, but in an archival copy of an actual SciAm mag you can see a lot more.....as a matter of fact, I believe there's a fun thread (old, disused) on ATS about optical illusions...will hunt.

To quote an old friend, "Fascinating".

reply to post by weedwhacker


I agree with you that most of it is nothing. But then sometimes someone comes along with something. I love that last pic on this page.

Originally posted by zorgon

reply to post by Skyfloating

I agree THAT is truly amazing!



*oh edit to add: anyone got a scale for that to go by? *looks at ArMaP* :p

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I too am intrigued by that particular photo. The angularity is undeniable. Still, before putting the equine in front of the dray, and leaping to conclusions ( and mixing metaphors ) a sober examination and analysis, along with, as you mentioned, scale AND context. IE, where is it and what else is nearby?

It is amazing what you can do to a photo by cropping it and removing a lot of outlying contextual information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thinking more on it, the ability to "see" objects from orbit (and it greatly depends on many factors, yes? Height, and equipment focal length, lighting conditions, etc.)

So, for comparisons, how about researching the sorts of things we know about, without doubt, by looking at what can be seen from Earth orbit. Again, remember differences parameters matter....

...found two links of interesting reading:

Starry Skies article.

And, one from NASA (**)

(**) BTW, I tire of people dissing "NASA" as if its a 'four-letter word' . Sheesh! Mostly it is likely that trend stems from the sorts (like Hoagland, Skipper, et al) who, upon attempting to sell their delusional horse manure "theories" and "discoveries" simply HAD to criticize NASA in order to dispel any claims that they lacked credibility.

reply to post by game over man



Here is the answer of your question.

Hi

This pic could be natural





Very simler looking dont you think???






Regards

Rutters

reply to post by Skyfloating


Huh? it didn't came out like I expected to, you whant me to send you the pics again?

reply to post by weedwhacker


i would say the main house is slighty south of the stables that you see here.

pool is just west of that.

what the heck does your questions mean?

you can see that, right?

even with one good eye, you can see symmetry.

find his ref photo and see for youself.

reply to post by BIONICLE ALEX


I can see the flying object on the first picture. Maybe the other ones need to be re-sized or something. I´ll post whatever you send.