Rover spots the 'new thing' on Mars

Originally posted by Aestheteka
Like I keep pointing out, we were 'shocked' to discover people in the New World. We were 'shocked' to discover people in Asutralia.

We weren't.

Have any of you ever seen just what fragmnets of neolithic pottery look like yet we are capable of reconstructing them in their original form.

Only when they have enough material or those fragments are enough to identify the piece as being from a specific type.

ANY straight line of virtually identically-sized 'bricks' is not evidence that there might be minerals which might suggest that there was water N trillion years ago - it is indicative that someone or something shaped them and put them there.

It depends on the type of mineral, some minerals have specific shapes, like the photo I posted above.

The fact that it is being referred to as 'Homestead' and not 'Body of Water' or 'Lakefront' should be quite a large clue....

To me, it means nothing. Have you seen the other names they give to other features?

Panning away from a couple isolated images things begin to look entirely natural.

reply to post by Aestheteka


I disagree still thinking like an Earthling and assuming a whole lot like bipedal and opposable thumbs etc. if life does exist in the universe who says it will be humanoid.

reply to post by Illustronic


That's even more noticeable if you look at the Hazcam image below.

reply to post by ArMaP


Eh?
Have you actually thought about any of the answers you've posted?
Are you truly trying to say that everyone was completely aware that not only there was a new world but also that it was inhabited, despite that being in contradiction to established dogma at the time? Australia was a hypothetical and mythological geographical counterbalance to the northern lands (Terra Australis)

Here is an exceptionally good quality neolithic pottery find - link - usually only a practised expert is able to recognise the spongy fragments of non-kiln fired clay from surrounding material, never mind reconstruct them into a predicted final shape, yet this often happens (many local museums do their own 'reconstructions').

Reconstructed Saxon buildings based on (similar archaeology) such evidence as

The filling of the hut consisted of an even black-brown loam, partially disturbed by burrowing animals. There was no trace of any prepared floors, debris from collapsed walls or roof or of a hearth.

Saxon Grubenhaus

While i do like your Blueberries hypothesis, in this case it looks too artificial.
Even the second photo were more area has been revealed suggests a conitnuation of the 'bricks'.

To give you a sense of just how archaeologically inviting those 'bricks' are, examine the evidence for reconstructing a Socttish Broch from the surrounding terrain. It's basically a circle of rocks in amongst rocks so they generally appear to be nothing more than a pile of rocks.

However, I have the feeling that all of these words and example will fall on deaf ears. You have already 'decided' that Mars is not, nor ever has been, inhabited and therefore reject outright any claims contrary to that.

reply to post by neo96


I disagree.
If you take that angle then there is no point in even looking for extraterrestrial life because if they don't build structures similar to ours (or at least did at some point in their history) then all forms of communication are out - they're certainly not going to use such things as radio or lighting, both prominent identifiers in the search.
Until we develop ESP or Astral-Crystal-Unicorn bonding as a quantifiable means, I think I'll stick to looking for cross-cultural parallels, or at least the possibility of such

Originally posted by neo96
My problem with this is people are thinking like Earthlings so they project Earthling "engineering" on anything they see.

Waterway? looks like bricks to me any "alien" civilization would they use the same technology as us?

Don't think they would.

Why not? I'm not saying this is anything... We can only speculate, but why wouldn't any alien civilization use the natural resources of that planet to build constructs and do it like us? Actually, when you think about it, humans have used a wide range of different building techniques in our history.

Hey you all are free to see whatever you want to others like myself are not going to make assumption's because it fit's our belief system.

Put what you know in one hand and what you don't and see which one is fuller i am not going to sit here and assign human engineering and traits or characteristics on a "alien" world when there is so much we do not even know.

That is me what you do is up to you.

reply to post by neo96


But without speculation there is no science, no exploration
As we (you and I) will never be able to go to Mars in our life times and are reduced to analysing images thrown to us, why then refuse to speculate on similarities.
I would love nothing more than to travel to Mars and start digging but...

Originally posted by Aestheteka
Eh?
Have you actually thought about any of the answers you've posted?

Yes, as I always do before hitting the "reply" button. What other people think about is a different thing.

Are you truly trying to say that everyone was completely aware that not only there was a new world but also that it was inhabited, despite that being in contradiction to established dogma at the time?

Where did you get that "in contradiction to established dogma at the time"? We still have documents from that time that do not show any "shock" with the discoveries.

Reconstructed Saxon buildings based on (similar archaeology) such evidence as

If they used similar archaeology as a help for the reconstruction then they didn't base it just on some 6 bricks, right?

While i do like your Blueberries hypothesis, in this case it looks too artificial.

What "Blueberries hypothesis", I didn't said a thing about blueberries.

Even the second photo were more area has been revealed suggests a conitnuation of the 'bricks'.

The hazcam photo shows where it starts and where it ends. Did you saw the limestone photo I posted?

To give you a sense of just how archaeologically inviting those 'bricks' are, examine the evidence for reconstructing a Socttish Broch from the surrounding terrain. It's basically a circle of rocks in amongst rocks so they generally appear to be nothing more than a pile of rocks.

In this case the surrounding terrain doesn't show anything that hints to an artificial structure, and there isn't any known case (as far as I know) of Martian architecture to know what look for.

However, I have the feeling that all of these words and example will fall on deaf ears. You have already 'decided' that Mars is not, nor ever has been, inhabited and therefore reject outright any claims contrary to that.

Apparently you are the one that already decided something, you decided what I think about life on Mars.

As for me, I haven't decided a thing, I am still gathering information, because I like to base my opinions on facts and not on wishful thinking or imagination.

reply to post by Aestheteka

Of course, it's just evidence of water in Mars' distant past....

Yes....precisely.

.....my posterior...

Oh wait....you were being sarcastic??


I'd say the image reflects quite well a sedimentary layer of something....and that signifies a very wet period, for a significant amount of time, given the apparent thickness. Also, likely quite a long, long time ago, as well.

Since it is exposed on a relatively horizontal (at this point in time) surface, it would be an example of the type of "folding" that rock strata display here on Earth, to compare.

The ubiquitous, and handy-dandy easy go-to of Wikipedia

Some Google Images

....followed by eons of erosion.

If anyone's ever seen the UK series Time Team, they manage to reconstruct entire Roman villas on less evidence than that....

Bit of an exaggeration, I'd warrant. For one thing, here (on Earth) there are many other clues.....ancient Roman villas are not identified solely on a photograph; they are examined in situ, and can be surveyed, tested for presence of various materials, all that indicate Human influence. And of course, the big "gimme" give-away is the fact that it is Earth...where we are quite certain that:

A) Life exists;

B) Intelligent life exists; and,

C) The Roman Empire existed. We sort of have the "edge" here, by knowing these facts.

Originally posted by Aestheteka
But without speculation there is no science, no exploration

That's true, but we should some known basis for our speculation, or else we risk basing one or more theories in, for example, two unknown things, so we cannot know what happens when both change to an unexpected value, while if we do that with just an unknown we can speculate about what happens when it changes.

(I hope the above makes some sense, it sounds a little confusing to me)

Actually the zoomed out and wider images are more convincing of them being artificial, because nothing else around that line of rectangular rocks looks anything like that one formation, they are all just disjointed, scattered, random pieces of things. Then you have this perfectly straight line in the middle of it all. Quite odd to say the least, though I'm sure odder things have formed in nature.

reply to post by ArMaP


I (vaguely) understand what you are getting at but you are presuming greatly that we are the only intelligent beings in our solar system and that we are the only (of the aforementioned) beings which have created civilization.

My point on the New World discovery was that we DIDN'T expect there to be any people or civilization there (there should have just been sea as the aim was to find a quicker route to India) because we believed we were the only ones in existence. Countless texts of the period 'prove' this.
Similarly, if one can expand one's perception just a tad wider (picturing space as an ocean and planets as land masses, for example) why is it impossible to then compare what is clearly an unusual, artificial-looking anomaly in the middle of a plain (the only horizontal line and constructed with what may be clearly compared to Earth bricks or stones) to a similar common archaeological tell-tale feature here on Earth.
To automatically presume that we are alone and that that must be a natural feature when - as can be seen in the photograph - it is in stark contrast to its envrions in a manner denoting artificial construction, is akin to a medieval, doctrinal Weltanschauung.
Forget that it's on Mars for the moment as you and I are not privy to what is really on Mars, only the scraps from the tabel of such info, and imagine you were walking across similar terrain on Earth. Would you automatically think of indications that there might be minerals which might suggest pre-prehistoric water or would you momentarily register that there was probably once a structure there and move on?
We presume far too much and each year we learn more about our universe, sometimes making previously held 'beliefs' seem foolish as they were based on ignorance, as you suggest.
To me, that looks like a straight line containing shaped objects such as bricks or even carved stones. From that I would automatically think 'structure'. Whether that image be from Mars or downtown Manhattan, the image conjures up the same idea.

reply to post by ArMaP

If they used similar archaeology as a help for the reconstruction then they didn't base it just on some 6 bricks, right?

No, there were no bricks, just some darker shading in the soil and some darker shading still along with some chalk in what are presumed to be post holes. From this, 'experimental archaeologists' then constructed what they presumed to be what the Saxons built using materials and tools available during the period.
So basically they had even less evidence than 6 bricks but school text books still show the pretty 'reconstructions'

Originally posted by Aestheteka
I (vaguely) understand what you are getting at but you are presuming greatly that we are the only intelligent beings in our solar system and that we are the only (of the aforementioned) beings which have created civilization.

Once more, you are the one presuming things. I am not presuming anything, I am only basing my opinion on what I think I know, and that, in this case is:
- Mars has rocks
- those look like rocks to me, somewhat like the limestone photo I posted

I also know that rock is used by humans to make houses for a long time, but as I don't have any knowledge of human (or any other species intelligent enough to make their own shelters) presence on Mars, I don't go that way.

My point on the New World discovery was that we DIDN'T expect there to be any people or civilization there (there should have just been sea as the aim was to find a quicker route to India) because we believed we were the only ones in existence.

Columbus was expecting to find India because he was wrong, that's why he had some difficulty in finding someone that would pay for the voyage, the general idea at the time was that the Earth was bigger than he thought (he wasn't alone in that, some people said that the Earth was smaller) and that if there wasn't any land between Europe and Asia they would all starve to death, seeing that they only had food enough for the shorter distance that he was expecting.

Countless texts of the period 'prove' this.

Could you point one to me/us?

Thanks in advance.

Similarly, if one can expand one's perception just a tad wider (picturing space as an ocean and planets as land masses, for example) why is it impossible to then compare what is clearly an unusual, artificial-looking anomaly in the middle of a plain (the only horizontal line and constructed with what may be clearly compared to Earth bricks or stones) to a similar common archaeological tell-tale feature here on Earth.

It's not impossible to compare, but I think it's a bad comparison. Although (apparently, we don't know what the ground shows some meters to the left or right of that path) unusual, it doesn't look artificial to me, it looks like sedimentary rock, like limestone (that sometimes has shells and other remains from living creatures).

A piece of rock like that would appear as a line, if it was partly underground.

You are assuming that what we see is artificial and similar to the remains of a brick wall.

To automatically presume that we are alone and that that must be a natural feature when - as can be seen in the photograph - it is in stark contrast to its envrions in a manner denoting artificial construction, is akin to a medieval, doctrinal Weltanschauung.

Who is automatically presuming anything? Show me where did I presume that we are alone and that that must be a natural feature?

Why is your opinion (wrong, in my point of view) that what we see is artificial better than my opinion that it's only a natural feature? What more data do you have to make your "version" more likely? Have you seen the microscopic camera photos?

Forget that it's on Mars for the moment as you and I are not privy to what is really on Mars, only the scraps from the tabel of such info, and imagine you were walking across similar terrain on Earth. Would you automatically think of indications that there might be minerals which might suggest pre-prehistoric water or would you momentarily register that there was probably once a structure there and move on?

First of all, it would depend on the area where I was, if I was at the top of a mountain I would expect more to see something like marble than limestone, but in a lower, flat area I would expect to see something like limestone.

We presume far too much and each year we learn more about our universe, sometimes making previously held 'beliefs' seem foolish as they were based on ignorance, as you suggest.

Where did I suggest that?

To me, that looks like a straight line containing shaped objects such as bricks or even carved stones. From that I would automatically think 'structure'. Whether that image be from Mars or downtown Manhattan, the image conjures up the same idea.

Not to me, it's as simple as that.

reply to post by ArMaP


I forgot to comment on you earlier reply

Where did you get that "in contradiction to established dogma at the time"? We still have documents from that time that do not show any "shock" with the discoveries.

I'd meant to ask you to show them to me/us

As for your similar request for me to show you mine, simply look at world maps from before and after Columbus' journey - early world maps

There is plenty of evidence there that they were (with the exclusion of Columbus and a tiny minority) most definitely not expecting two continents, numerous tribes and a bucket load of gold to be sitting half way between Europe and India. To say otherwise is just peculiar...
Maps were expensive items to commission and then, as now, were officially sanctioned documents as they portrayed not only a geographical but also a philosophical world view. We may thus infer that a world map which doesn't include the Americas prior to 1492 and then does include it post 1492 must have presented quite a shock to both the Church and the cartographers alike...

Cool thread, enjoying the speculation and arguments.
Great photos and very interesting.

Call me easily impressed but I just find it amazing that while many of our species continue to beat each other with their fists and kill each other in the name of superstition and short sighted greed, humanity has the curiosity to and the ability to create technology that can open up new vistas of and raise new questions about existence.

Jeez its MARS, A truly alien environment and we can photograph it and examine it and we can sit in our homes and discuss it with each other.

The mindblowing thing is that the further our reach the more questions and puzzles we will encounter, because so many people were not afraid to fall off the edge of the world we are not afraid to reach the edge of the universe
Awesome.

Originally posted by Aestheteka
As for your similar request for me to show you mine, simply look at world maps from before and after Columbus' journey - early world maps

The fact that there aren't any known maps showing land to the west of the Atlantic ocean doesn't mean that they didn't know (or suspected) that there were some lands there, although I think that nobody was expecting a continent from pole to pole.

There is plenty of evidence there that they were (with the exclusion of Columbus and a tiny minority) most definitely not expecting two continents, numerous tribes and a bucket load of gold to be sitting half way between Europe and India. To say otherwise is just peculiar...

Columbus wasn't expecting that continent, he thought it was Asia (or, more specifically, India), he even sent some of his sailors looking for the large cities he was expecting to see in India.

According to some historians, Portuguese sailors had some indication that there were lands on the western side of the south Atlantic ocean, seen during their voyages to south Africa, during which they moved to the west to avoid contrary winds. That is supposed to be one of the reasons Portugal didn't accepted the Inter caetera papal bull (that gave a very small part of what is now Brazil to Portugal) and finally agreed with the proposed division made by the Treaty of Tordesillas, because they knew (or had a strong suspicion) that there was land on that part of the world.

Maps were expensive items to commission and then, as now, were officially sanctioned documents as they portrayed not only a geographical but also a philosophical world view. We may thus infer that a world map which doesn't include the Americas prior to 1492 and then does include it post 1492 must have presented quite a shock to both the Church and the cartographers alike...

Maps were also classified information, as was the way some of the boats were made, so even if some country had some maps showing a not "published" discovery they wouldn't show them to other countries, it was a "finders keepers" thing.

Also, I don't think anyone with some culture would be shocked by the discovery of any other lands after the discovery of the extension of Africa and the discovery of all the Atlantic ocean islands; it was a gradual process, and they knew that they didn't knew all, so discovering things was natural.

Another bit from that article gives me 2.5 billion reasons why they have suddenly found something new and exciting. In order to justify a lot more money for touring other planets. Pics are cool and all, just 2.5 billion for some photos?

More buzz will be stirred up in the weeks to come over the Curiosity rover's upcoming $2.5 billion mission to Mars. The car-sized rover, also known as the Mars Science Laboratory, is due to be launched on Nov. 25 with Mars' Gale Crater as its objective.

Some crater is its objective? I bet some pie of precious metal ores is more like it. Then we can send a factory ship and begin mining operations, men even. Pollution of a whole other eco sphere can then begin in ernest. Thats not the eventual intent you say? They been spectro graphing rocks all along the rovers paths and I have yet to see a total printout of any minerals beside basic calcites, sulfates, etc. Prove me wrong. Any sign of cu, au, ag pt, rh ir, etc?