Fossilized Spines and Vertebrae of Big Creatures in Curiosity Sol 109!

Originally posted by Lamos
I see what could be bones, but we can never know for sure. I am not going to sit here and say so absolutely that they are just rocks in those photos because that would be foolish. I want to believe that those are bones. Bit would certainly make me feel less lonely as a human being if this turns out to be true. However, as I said before, we can never know for sure.

Never knowing for sure is a quarter of the fun! Conspiracy people on this site live for "never knowing for sure". Welcome, and please stick around ATS and share what you have discovered and experienced in your life. I'm happy to have given you your first star. That's a great thing about threads like this, they bring in lurkers and people who may here about them on the news, and some of them become members and escape the barrage of stuff that lurkers have to wade through. You can start a thread when you get 20 posts, and from that point on it's all North!

reply to post by devilzown


Under non-marine condition's the argument about bone density is valid but these are presumed to be aquatic and the formation of bone and it's relative density in marine life follow's far different criteria and has more to do with relative muscle strength, flexabillity and articulation, as for the formation of the vertabrate's on earth who is to say that if life and what's more intelligence existed at some previouse time with the abillity to travel between these world's that they or it would not then have seeded life from one world to another, I mean there are a lot of crazy thing's about mars including the excentric orbit of phobos but that is another subject for other thread's , still for conjecture it bear's weight.

When I was a kid growing up in Illinois I found what I could clearly see was a starfish fossil in the local creek. All of my friends saw only a rock, My brothers and sisters saw only a rock. Even my parents saw only a rock, although my mom made a feeble attempt at humoring me. A few years later I had the chance to show it to an archeologist at a nearby museum and he told me it was obviously a starfish fossil.
My point is that until we either get archeologists on Mars or get the samples back to earth there is no way to know for sure.
So I thank the OP for bringing this to my attention. I just hope I am around long enough to get some of the answers I have been waiting my whole life to know.

i really think that the appearance of this being a spine i just a matter of erosion and shadow. the north western arrow points at what many seem to think is a protruding piece of bone (one of three such "features"), however it could just as easily be a lump of rock on the back ground casting a small shadow, this shadow then reaches the main body of rock. there is a small darker shadow in the middle of this first "protrusion" - look caerfully.
when looking at the rest of the rock/feature in question, the planes and hollows are all wrong to be bone imo, and given the amount of abrasive sand around, i reckon that any exposed bone would have long ago (and obvs these bones have to be millions of years old, when mars could speculatively have had standing/flowing water, as well as flora and fauna) been eroded by wind blowing abrasive sand against it. not to mention the changes in night/day temperature and effects of light on the bone.
in such a location i could not see them being fossilised and then exposed by weather (or by geological movement and surviving relatively intact) as then they would erode at a consistent rate with the surrounding rock.

there is also a larger pic of the whole area - little protruding shelves of eroded rock poke through the dust all over



and what did this large animal survive on? there would have been a flourishing ecosystem - where are the traces of it? maybe someone can check the scale of the pics and come up with a length for the supposed spine - but there would be a wealth of plants and animals that would also leave remains and traces that would be evident, and i aint talking hugo
i'd love to see proof of a flourishing, lush mars in the distant past, but at present it's just my sci-fi nerdgasm, not RL

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Spacespider

 

Thank you for your kind words, Spacespider.

Every paleontologist, even with low skills, can confirm that there are Bones.
It is only a matter of time.

Soon NASA/JPL will give the official announcement.

You just got me to thinking with your statement "It is only a matter of time" .............Don't you think they would be 'all over' these specimens? Don't ya think that no one there could sleep until they got the rovers much closer and got some High Resolution shots....? I mean, it just seems that in the news, that's not the case. Or have we been denied access to this information? This would certainly be a game changer. At that point, all the possibilities.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Link to same rocks...different pic
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Also

Mastcam: Right
2012-11-25 23:09:56 UTC

Mastcam: Right
2012-11-25 23:09:11 UTC

Mastcam: Left
2012-11-25 23:09:38 UTC

Mastcam: Left
2012-11-25 23:09:08 UTC

at this link
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Also similair "vertabrae" right side of this pic
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Arken


As has already been pointed out to you a dozen times over many threads, your seeing what you want to see.

Shall I post pictures from my backyard, my town, my state, my country, the world over where you can imagine the very same things? I can even color correct them to make them look like Mars. I don't get it, why post this nonsense, you make us all look like fools.

26+ pages........sad, just sad. But hey, in the end it works for ATS, and I'm sure is a big boost to your desire for attention and internet "creed", so whatever...spread ignorance as long as it sells I guess. Thanks internet.

And 'Remember' as someone pointed out here on ATS, Nasa manipulated the color. Remember it being exposed that the red color is often times inserted into the photos....... why I don't know, other than Mars is supposed to be the 'red' planet, and that's what most of us are expecting to see.

Arken, thanks for posting your finds. Very interesting and worth a long look.

"Convex" discovered a similar form - at Spirit sol 819



www.youtube.com...]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2VpwTrYwBA

Original nasa image link:

marsrover.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Plotus


Wow, really?!?!?!? That's insane!!!!! I can't believe they would do that and think they would get away with it. Especially since we have access to the raw data (seriously, just email them and they will give it to you) and we have a color spectrum pictured here on Earth and the same color spectrum pictured on Mars that your average idiot can use to determine how it would look to the human eye.

How, oh how can Nasa think they can get away with this?!?!? Surely they can't be depending on the ignorance of the average moronic internet "subject matter experts" to set us all straight?!?

Just another example of why we are all viewed as fools. Pity the real conspiracies that are happening right now, even pointed out on this very website that will never be taken seriously. Sad, but then again...expected.

reply to post by Arken
Whale bones...

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by skalla

 

i also studied archaeology at two highly respected universities

Well, if is real, then, with all due respect, give back the money from those universities. They have made you to study on the wrong books....

That is rather impertinent of you Arken. A highly respected university would not be teaching their students from as you put it "the wrong books". What degree do you hold that you can dispute this member so rudey ? Given that 99% of your threads end up in skunk works I'd say you owe this person an apology. Even though you prefaced your post "with all due respect" you showed absolutly none to the poster or the education that he paid for.

reply to post by karen61560


the "reply" was really no problem to me, but ta any way
it was nice though that he tripped up and said "if it was real" rather than the usual "it's totally deffo a skellington"

what really amused me though was that he believes that universities teach you by rote from books, rather than providing you with the intellectual tools to examine things for yourself and draw your own conclusions... rather than looking for evidence to fit a theory... arken, i'm looking at you

reply to post by skalla


When a web site has Deny Ignorance as its motto the members should respect that. I have jumped to the defence of many on here when I see they are being woefully disrespected. Some have even told me to mind my own business. LOL. You hold your own. Even in my low level job I was taught with a hands on and book study program. If you need any info on flooring just let me know. I consider myself an expert. Compared to some on here I would consider you one too. Heck compared to most on here. LOL.
The photos made me curious but when someone posted photos of rocks that looked just like these I accepted that they were rocks. If life or the remnants of prior life are ever found I dont think they would keep it a secret. The microbial life fossils found on meteorites was not kept secret. In this day and age I dont think extra terrestrial life would be the great scare that some seem to think it would be. Unless they were knocking at our doors with their equivalent of the Uzi that is.

reply to post by Unity_99


Hi, Unity. What do you believe they are? I think it could be possible, but then again, they could be rocks.

reply to post by Arken


Except, those real bones were under the Earth for millions of years.

Your mars photos are on the surface....

....That makes them rocks. Fossils do not form on surface dirt. Bones turn to dust if they are exposed.

reply to post by Unity_99


What makes us all sure that this is really Mars?

For all the same the pictures were taken in some earthly desert, making the rover real, making the bones real (which any paleontologist could confirm) but not of off worldly origin.

I read in this thread somewhere that for being able to fake this Nasa would have needed to fake the launch, landing, orbital pictures .... things that aren't that difficult to do I think..

I'm not trying to promote this in any way, my aim is not to debunk the mars mission, its just a question that came up a long time ago.

What's the general idea about this on ats?