Rodents on Mars!!! The announcement NASA should have made?

reply to post by earthalien50


I think yr avatar pic is hilarious btw very very good

Im not staying here to argue, just going to say it and leave lol.. its a rock. Look at the rock in the foreground, middle of the screen they are nearly the same shape. Nasa has put to much money and lies into this operation to allow it to be #cked by some Earth squirrel. They edit EVERY photo before it hits public domain... Nasa is a PRVIATE GOVERNMENT ENTITY, IT DOES NOT WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, BUT IT DOES TAKE YOUR TAX MONEY BY THE BILLIONS.

So easy to lie and get away with it on earth huh? .. well Im an honest individual anyways

Here is some more info on the "Trees" on mars, as they turn out to look more like dunes.

www.xtl-ak.com...

Below is a higher resolution photo of the area that I found years ago, and saved.



Thoughts?

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Looks like a rat...smells like a rat...must be a rock!!!

In all seriousness I believe there was a thread on this at one time and I think most concluded that it was indeed a rock.

And if it wasn't, I'd sooner believe that we never actually went to Mars (and probably pocketed all that exploration money for black ops) than that there are rodents on Mars.

I can't believe this thread! I tried reading through the 14 pages of, "it's a rock; it's not a rock.." But I just can't... Personally I don't think NASA is trying to lie to us or cover anything up. What I know is that the atmosphere on Mars is 70% CO2. So that kills the argument in my mind. There's no animal that can live without oxygen. Secondly, why would a mars rodent look so much like an earth rodent? If the squirrels in Alberta look different from the squirrels in Russia, how can the squirrels on mars look like the squirrels in Alberta? Earth rodents look different depending on their geographical location. From the examples we see on earth we can conclude that Martian rodents would NOT look like earth rodents...

So it's either a rock on mars or a rodent on earth....




Robb

reply to post by woogleuk

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by earthalien50

 

ok, the oldest mummified remain on Earth are something like 5000 years old right, and remains are always protected from the elements or in a unchanged environment, ie in ice from mummification date.

You may be correct about the oldest age of earth mummies. But Earth is a totally different environment than Mars.
Trying to prove that mummies can not survive on Mars by comparing the environmental and biological processes on Earth is scientifically invalid.

We know extreme temperature variations break down nearly everything.
Anything on the surface of Mars will undergo extreme cold, and extreme heat unless at the poles.

It is indisputable that extreme temperatures on Mars exist in some areas. Good point. But there are different environmental processes on Mars as opposed to Earth. Is there a large or small difference of decay in a near vacuum with extreme temperature changes?

We know from our understanding of science that Mars would have been the way it is now for millions of years, and once upon a time there may have been running water, but this has yet to be 100% confirmed.

Prove that Mars could not sustain life since millions of years ago. There is not enough information to confirm. In my opinion, this is merely an hypothesis.

Water ice exists under the surface of Mars with temperatures that reach 81 degrees F according to NASA. This would indicate the presence of liquid water especially if you consider that saturated salt water have a freezing point of -21 degrees C.

Anything organic, would have turned to dust long ago, the best preservation would be that of fossils.

Where is there information about decomposition of biological material on the surface of Mars? There isn't any other than extrapolation without experimentation. We know how biology works on Earth only.

I'm not the best at explaining things, so seriously, do some research yourself.

I am certainly not an expert either, just a fan of the science.

When someone tells me to “do some research yourself,” it usually means that they have a shallow argument and use intimidation instead of facts. I would rather play fair or not at all.

reply to post by Just Chris


It looks exactly like a rock. So, if it is a rodent, big if, if it is a rodent that evolved the ability to look exactly like the surrounding rocks, then it is not the dominant predator. It's hiding from something bigger that eats it.

Or maybe NASA washed the whole image in that color.

Originally posted by earthalien50

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by earthalien50

I never said that they would not turn to dust.

I am new here, but I thought that ATS veterans would do their homework.

Yes, homework assignment:
1. define pareidolia
2. Describe what the other side of the object looks like.

You have to go back to page 9 of this thread and read what I have to say at the bottom of that page about pareidolia and cognitive dissonance.

I will describe the other side of the object as soon as I read a description of my appearance in your post.
My question is as ridiculous as the other.

I didn't have to but

Whatever it is, it appears to have a tail, torso, leg, eye, head and is nestled between two rocks as a real rodent would. I cannot ignore these six characteristics because probability compels me to look carefully at this anomaly. I have done some investigation that I would like to share.

I disagree. I can't make out anything rodent like except a "head" and where an eye should be.
That it is "nesteled" is imaginative. Probability is that it is a rock since it has more rock like characteristics

Don't get too worked up, we probably agree more than you think.

here is what i know for sure

all my life (40 years) people have been saying when the appocalypse comes
all that was gonna survive is the rats and roaches

and that looks like a f----- rat

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but I thought everyone knew there were rodents on Mars?

www.youtube.com...



(yes, the OP's image is a rock)

reply to post by Just Chris


nice rock bro

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but I thought everyone knew there were rodents on Mars?

www.youtube.com...

(yes, the OP's image is a rock)

That lady rat in your link is almost a looker, but the whiskers put me off.

But the red dust devils did make make me think about this thread. The rodent like rock, and the others around look as though they have a coating of dust over them, perhaps from a dust devil, and that enhances the rodent like look. As for the Op's "alive and kicking" well it just ain't so, that's so OTT.

reply to post by earthalien50

Cognitive dissonance is a distortion of the truth like pareidolia. I have read articles claiming that supporters of the official story of 9/11, belief in god, and deniers of climate change are victims of this phenomenon.

The controversial rock/rodent from Mars could partially be caused by cognitive dissonance on either side of the argument thus distorting the real truth for some on both sides.

I would say that perception in general is a distortion of reality. The truth is that you can't "perceive' anything from this picture other than what your mind makes up. There is just not enough information. I'm not going to argue that life doesn't exist or couldn't have existed on Mars.

Pareidolia is a known psychological phenomena and is extremely common. We experience it in one way or another everyday. No matter how you slice it, it is still Pareidolia. If you zoom in on this thing, it becomes less rodent like and more rock like. It is only when you zoom out that the "rodent" appears

If you look around you can see other rocks that have the same charateristics

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by earthalien50
Whatever it is, it appears to have a tail, torso, leg, eye, head and is nestled between two rocks as a real rodent would. I cannot ignore these six characteristics because probability compels me to look carefully at this anomaly.

I disagree. I can't make out anything rodent like except a "head" and where an eye should be.
That it is "nesteled" is imaginative. Probability is that it is a rock since it has more rock like characteristics

I was surprised when I saw the whole rodent like figure myself. It is strange that you can not see the shape of a rodent.

Don't get too worked up, we probably agree more than you think.

Maybe you are correct. I am worked up, but it is because of passion. I do not want to appear angry or elitist and I apologize if you think that. I just believe that people should at least look at the evidence and question the TPTB.

I will work at changing my tone.

Peace

I just believe that people should at least look at the evidence and question the TPTB.

How can you infer we don't "question TPTB" just from the fact that we don't agree with you?
Many of us explained exactly why we think that it is very really highly unlikely that a creature evolved under completely different conditions than a rat, just to look exactly like a rat.
And we said also that this is just a picture, you need a little more than that to make a scientific claim (like "there be mice here")

Sure, there are douches everywhere, but my advice would be to only engage those that show some kind of independent thought.
And NO, that doesn't mean agreeing with you. It means using analytic thought and not jumping to conclusions because I like those conclusions.

I assure you, most people here are really passionate about space and the unknow, even those who just see a rock!

Cheers.

bahahaha! best laugh i've had all day! thank you thank you thank you!

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by earthalien50

 

I would say that perception in general is a distortion of reality. The truth is that you can't "perceive' anything from this picture other than what your mind makes up. There is just not enough information. I'm not going to argue that life doesn't exist or couldn't have existed on Mars.

We agree the distortion of reality is real, but both sides of the argument are influenced by this.
We also agree there is definitely not enough information for absolute proof on either side. I have never implied that this is undisputed truth, it is a hypothesis that has not been proven or disproved.

Pareidolia is a known psychological phenomena and is extremely common. We experience it in one way or another everyday. No matter how you slice it, it is still Pareidolia. If you zoom in on this thing, it becomes less rodent like and more rock like. It is only when you zoom out that the "rodent" appears
If you look around you can see other rocks that have the same characteristics

I agree that pareidolia does exist and is common. But this accusation is not proof that it exists in this discussion.
No malice intended, but claiming a psychological disorder is causing this disagreement on only one side appears to be presumptive, intimidating, and incorrect in my opinion.

Originally posted by earthalien50
You may be correct about the oldest age of earth mummies. But Earth is a totally different environment than Mars.
Trying to prove that mummies can not survive on Mars by comparing the environmental and biological processes on Earth is scientifically invalid.

I wasn't comparing, I was saying Mars was a harsh environment......all processes aside it's still harsh temps and high radiation (not to mention those pesky dust devils!)

It is indisputable that extreme temperatures on Mars exist in some areas. Good point. But there are different environmental processes on Mars as opposed to Earth. Is there a large or small difference of decay in a near vacuum with extreme temperature changes?

I have no idea, however I think the difference over a few hundred thousand year would be negligible,

Prove that Mars could not sustain life since millions of years ago. There is not enough information to confirm. In my opinion, this is merely an hypothesis.

I never said it couldn't, in fact quite the opposite!

I am certainly not an expert either, just a fan of the science.

When someone tells me to “do some research yourself,” it usually means that they have a shallow argument and use intimidation instead of facts. I would rather play fair or not at all.

Or perhaps in my case, I repair PCs for a living and only have time to respond on ATS while waiting for something to install or diagnose, and I simply don't have the time to go running around trying to find information for people which is freely available by doing a simple search.

I agree with you! However who's to say what "your" brain is interpreting vs. "my" brain is more accurate? Since we can't both go to where the actual photo is taken to actually "prove" if it's a rock or a rat, then we're both correct.

This photo can 100% show a rat or a rock. Both are valid, let's try to keep our biased perspective, unbiased so wan truly appropriate other perspectives.

Originally posted by Dondylion

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.

Your eyes work fine, yes, but this isn't a case of what your eyes see. It's what your brain interprets that's what's going on.

Pareidolia ( /pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-doh-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse.

It's still a rodent on earth IMO!