Curiosity finds an interesting tiny-sized structure.

reply to post by arianna


You have shown us rocks on the Lunar surface and on Mars stating that they are miniature civilizations thriving in harsh conditions on different threads. The airless near vacuum on the Lunar surface has a thriving miniature civilization as does the cold CO2 environment on Mars you proclaim.

Surely, These hardy little souls have cities on the Earth unless oxygen and warmth kills them and they can only thrive in harsh environments under extreme conditions .

If I remember correctly you mentioned on another thread that they came to Earth.

If they are here, maybe you can produce evidence by showing us an image of lets say..... In the USA of these little beings. I would like to go and inspect them first hand and post my results. Who knows I might make the National Enquirer's front page.

Yea, like, little troll colonies on Mars ?

Or garden gnomes? They are sooo cuuute.




EVIDENCE!!! This just in:

Originally posted by arianna
Yes, there are rocks on the terrain and many other interesting objects that cannot be explained away as being natural.

Why are you always so sure about what you say? How can you realistically say that those objects cannot be "explained away as being natural"? What's so special about them?

PS: do you remember the little test we made some months ago? That should be enough for you to stop being so sure about what you see in photos.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by arianna
Yes, there are rocks on the terrain and many other interesting objects that cannot be explained away as being natural.

Why are you always so sure about what you say?

In short ArMaP, academic qualifications and experience.

reply to post by dcmb1409


In all fairness to the "little" theory. Is it possible that there once were ants, termites or something else similar that could have built structures, and later, their ancient and extinct communities eroded and appear to look like small towers?

Even the idea of petrified coral, in an ancient dried up seabed comes to mind.

There is some agreement among scientists that life could have POSSIBLY existed on Mars, right?

reply to post by arianna

I do not rely on imagination when examining images but rely on years of previous visual knowledge and experience.

What exactly is "years of previous visual knowledge"?

I have 50 years of "visual knowledge"...if you are 5 minutes younger than me....then I have more "visual knowledge" than you.


Your looking at rocks.

Folks, lets keep the conversation limited to the topic without the rude comments and nonsense. Thanks

Originally posted by arianna
In short ArMaP, academic qualifications and experience.

Experience of what, looking at things that you don't know what they are?

Those academic qualifications (whatever those may be that help you saying that something is not natural) and experience didn't help on that test, right? I was expecting that you would learn something from it, but I guess I was wrong.

reply to post by windword



Its not written in stone but recent scientific studies suggest that Mars only had water on its surface for around 5000 years and has been in a drought for millions of years since that time , it is suggested.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Mars is not the Earth and its planetary dynamics are different in many ways as in data from the mechanical observations from space and on the ground around the red planet. Did termites and coral evolve in the suggested 5000 years and bypass the microbe process like it did on Earth and become an instant species?

We have some microbes on Earth that can tolerate high radiation such as observed in nuclear reactor coolants. These are studied and found to be terrestrial in nature. So life can adapt to a degree. I'm saying from what we know is that life needs a foothold to thrive and evolve like the microbes that adapt to radiation in reactor water. but Mars is not a great model for life to have gained a substantial foothold in its history.

It is thought that Mars once had oceans and rivers with an atmosphere similar to Earth but as yet there is no evidence of past life via carbon or fossilized records. Curiosity landed in a crater near Sharp Mountain to look at layers of past Martian strata to study the geological past written in stone. Something major happened to Mars in its past history to make these oceans and rivers disappear along with most of its atmosphere, It has an almost non existent magnetic field and with the largest known volcano it now shows no tectonics to speak of either in sub-surface heat nor Mars-quakes. Temperature is another factor as Mars heats up briefly during the day and plunges into deep cold at night even at the equator. So the termites and coral as we know them would not be happy on Mars. There might be life on Mars but I think its only microbial at best.

reply to post by dcmb1409

Its not written in stone but recent scientific studies suggest that Mars only had water on its surface for around 5,000 years and has been in a drought for millions of years since that time , it is suggested.

That 5,000 year span is specific to the location of the Phoenix lander.

The sedimentary layers of Gale crater (the location of Curiosity) suggest that it was full of water for a very long time, on more than one occassion, over the course of a couple of billion years.

It is thought that surface water dissappeared from Mars as recently as 1 or 2 billion years ago. That gives it about 2.5 billion years in which surface water could have existed. That is plenty of time for simple forms of life to develop.

reply to post by Phage


Hopefully the Curiosity rover will answer these questions when it examines the crater on its way to sharp mountain and gets a close up view of the layers exposed on sharp.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMaP, You have said that you are interested in geology. In that case you should know the difference between what could be a rock or what could be a tiny structure. The test that you and another member set using views captured on this planet were not a real test. I was expecting a view that could be referenced at an official scientific site and downloaded personally. Also, I had previously stated in other posts that many of the facial type features can be found all over the place on this planet especially with regards to natural formations such as soil, rocks, clouds... or even on a slice of toast.

Anyway, have you had a look at the very close view posted above? If you observe closely there are many interesting objects to view that are definitely not natural-looking rock formations. In fact, it would appear that the whole terrain is littered with very tiny structures which could well be mistaken for being small rocks.

If necessary, I am prepared to post an image of the close view highlighting what can be observed.

Originally posted by arianna
In that case you should know the difference between what could be a rock or what could be a tiny structure.

Yes, I am interested in geology, and I don't see a thing that couldn't (in my opinion) be a result of natural geological and/or erosive processes.

I was expecting a view that could be referenced at an official scientific site and downloaded personally.

If what you were expecting affected the result that means that you were not analysing the image from a neutral point of view.

Also, I had previously stated in other posts that many of the facial type features can be found all over the place on this planet especially with regards to natural formations such as soil, rocks, clouds... or even on a slice of toast.

That's (mostly) because of the now famous pareidolia.

Anyway, have you had a look at the very close view posted above?

Yes, but please stop calling it "close view", as that's misleading, considering that you just resized the image, the photo is not a close-up of that area.

If you observe closely there are many interesting objects to view that are definitely not natural-looking rock formations. In fact, it would appear that the whole terrain is littered with very tiny structures which could well be mistaken for being small rocks.

I don't see anything that looks artificial to me, could you please point to at least one and explain what do you see that makes you think "this is artificial"? Thanks in advance.

If necessary, I am prepared to post an image of the close view highlighting what can be observed.

Not necessary, in this case (as in most), words, even if less than 1000, have more worth than an image. A good, old-fashioned explanation will be enough.

reply to post by ArMaP


It does surprise me that you cannot see the artificiality on the surface. If that's the case then maybe it is not I who should visit an optician. Of course, I have to make allowances for people who are in a state of denial.

As far as pareidolia is concerned, it is known that some people in the science world also see things in images that are not really there.

You asked me to stop calling the image a 'close view', as it is misleading, If the image, in your opinion, is not a close view of a selected section from a larger image, then what would you call it?

You also said that you do not see anything that looks artificial and have asked me to point to at least one object that I consider to be artificial.

I will post an image with explanation later when I have more time.

Looks like a Martian peni?

Originally posted by arianna
It does surprise me that you cannot see the artificiality on the surface.

You should know me by now.

If that's the case then maybe it is not I who should visit an optician.

I didn't say that you should visit one, did I? Also, failing to recognise shapes is not something an optician can treat, as that's a brain related condition.

Of course, I have to make allowances for people who are in a state of denial.

No denial, just different interpretation.

As far as pareidolia is concerned, it is known that some people in the science world also see things in images that are not really there.

Pareidolia is just a side-effect of the way we function, in the same way as optical illusions, it's all in the brain.

You asked me to stop calling the image a 'close view', as it is misleading, If the image, in your opinion, is not a close view of a selected section from a larger image, then what would you call it?

Zoomed-in, resized, I think any of these would be more appropriate.

You also said that you do not see anything that looks artificial and have asked me to point to at least one object that I consider to be artificial.

I will post an image with explanation later when I have more time.

Don't forget to explain what properties make you consider it artificial, if you don't mind.