It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Nasa caught lying again. How many times can they get way with lying.
Originally posted by OnionHead
Wouldn't be much fuss if it didn't have what resembles an eye. Is the conclusion that everything with the resemblance of an eye qualifies as a living creature, for example the common arse hole, it that a creature? Or a backward walking cat (Suppose that is a creature). If a rock that resembles a cat in one of these pics with its rear in the air, with it's eye looking at you, would that make it a creature, and if so what would it eat? These are important questions that need answered.
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by gortex
That particlular creature is not a rock and to even try to insist it is, is to try and make people believe crap when their own eyes KNOW 100% otherwise.
This isn't a guess. IT'S 100% PROOF OF A RODENT ON A NASA PHOTO THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN ON MARS.
That is a RAT. We had them in our kitchen and were putting them in cages and releasing them at the creek till we tinfoiled up the holes and taped them and got the 2 cats.
Eyes work just fine.
Originally posted by Spiro
My friend,
Originally posted by winofiend
Originally posted by Spiro
From my personal experiences, I know fine well there are/is life on Mars.
No there's not. Prove it.
Thanks.
Yes, there is. No!
be safe be well
Spiro
Originally posted by TC Mike
Ok here is the original rodent pointed out.
It looks like a the remains of a former art & sculpture gallery on mars that suffered an explosion. Thats what I would say, but draw your own conclusions.
Originally posted by woogleuk
Even if life did once exist, by now it would have turned to dust, not be sitting on the surface well preserved.
Maybe when we dig deeper, we might find fossils, I don't see why that isn't possible, but out in the open on the surface like that? Only ill informed/educated (in biology/science) idiots would believe otherwise.
Scientists didn't think the Earth was flat. Even 2000 years ago it was known the Earth was spherical and even how big it was. So that statement shows ignorance.
Originally posted by earthalien50
Check science history and notice that the sun does not revolve around the earth and the earth is not flat.
Originally posted by Just Chris
Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Nasa caught lying again. How many times can they get way with lying.
A LOT MORE TIMES when most of this gullible lot on here suggest it's just a rock!
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Scientists didn't think the Earth was flat. Even 2000 years ago it was known the Earth was spherical and even how big it was. So that statement shows ignorance.
Originally posted by earthalien50
Check science history and notice that the sun does not revolve around the earth and the earth is not flat.
Scientists aren't as dumb as you think.
Several pre-Socratic philosophers believed the world to be flat: Thales (c. 550 BC) according to several sources,and Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) according to Aristotle.
Read about flat earth scientists here:
Flat Earth
Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by earthalien50
Even the best preserved mummies will turn to dust after a (long) while, especially when bombarded by extreme heat/cold and solar radiation.
would not turn to dust very quickly