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

Click here for more information.

I really dont think that any of us can say with any certainty that anything is rocks and anything is not rocks. Mainly because of the absolutely abysmal photo definition without any better available. It is completely inconeivable that after spending that much on a space project, that there are not better images available to some sections of the science community. This is what we should all get together and demand, not be split arguing whether something is a rock or is it natural or not. However, maybe that division is an agenda which has to be promoted in order to divide and conquor.

By the way, I notice no-one has popped up to tell us what the pillar and stick-shaped 'rocks' are. Maybe thats because they think it is obvious, but it is not obvious on an unihabited lifeless planet.

So please, anyone who thinks these are rocks, tell us how they came to be there in stick-shapes and pillar-shapes? Also, why we have such crappy image quality too without any better available and why you are happy with this quality.

Originally posted by qmantoo
I really dont think that any of us can say with any certainty that anything is rocks and anything is not rocks.

I agree.

Mainly because of the absolutely abysmal photo definition without any better available. It is completely inconeivable that after spending that much on a space project, that there are not better images available to some sections of the science community.

I do not agree, the images do not have an abysmal definition and definition is not a real way of measuring image quality.

Most (if not all) of the "anomalies" are found not close to the camera but far away. Higher resolution photos would only shift the identification zone further away, but there will always be a limit after which things are hard to see, and that's the area where most "anomalies" are found.

So please, anyone who thinks these are rocks, tell us how they came to be there in stick-shapes and pillar-shapes?

The same way we have rocks with many shapes on Earth. Do you any specific reason for those not being rocks?

reply to post by ArMaP


Of course it sensationalistic to call these anomalies fossils but, you know, if that is what it takes to get people interested in mars exploration then maybe in some unscientific yet popular ways sensationalism could be a useful tool to forward real science


Just a thought.

reply to post by FuturePeace

Brookings Report
en.wikipedia.org...

While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions.[4]

Originally posted by jeep3r
reply to post by Arken

 

Great Post, Arken!! By the way, I love your unique style of writing ... I can actually 'feel' your excitement!!

Whether it's fossils or ships(!!!) at Gale Crater, or both: believe me, you (or perhaps even we) are really onto something here. NASA/JPL can't wait much longer with confirming that something's out there!!

Oh, and not to forget: S+F for the hard work you put into this ... !!

edit on 19-2-2013 by jeep3r because: text

What fascinates me is when scientists say a "Mars sized planetoid" collided into Earth and formed the Moon and Earth. What if that Mars sized planetoid was Mars and the debris managed to carry some living DNA along for the ride.

ArMap -

I do not agree, the images do not have an abysmal definition and definition is not a real way of measuring image quality.
Most (if not all) of the "anomalies" are found not close to the camera but far away. Higher resolution photos would only shift the identification zone further away, but there will always be a limit after which things are hard to see, and that's the area where most "anomalies" are found.

I do not mean that the images themselves have abysmal definition as I am sure they have much better definition than we get to see. What I mean is the copies of the originals that we get to see are abysmal quality and compressed to possibly almost 50-60% I would guess. This makes them smaller for the internet, of course. However, where are the high quality uncompressed images which can show our scientists as much as NASA is seeing. As I have said before, I really cannot believe that they spent all that money on rubbishy 2M pixel cameras and this is what they say because they dont want the whole science community to clamour for the better images they have.

In a weathered environment (with however little atmosphere and pressure there has been for the last millions of years) it IS unlikely that stick-like and S-shaped "rocks" are going to survive in these shapes. Maybe you can show me some wiggley-shaped rocks here on Earth please (where there is atmosphere and pressure more than Mars) so that I can compare the two likelihoods.

I reallt think it is a stretch of your imagination to say that these stick-shaped and S-shaped "rocks" are merely rocks which have been moulded by the thin atmosphere over millions of year to look like that. In fact, it is almost as stretched imagination as mine seeing anomalies. :-)

Originally posted by iforget
Of course it sensationalistic to call these anomalies fossils but, you know, if that is what it takes to get people interested in mars exploration then maybe in some unscientific yet popular ways sensationalism could be a useful tool to forward real science

I think that the problem is that people would become interested in a type of science that does not exist, the type that only shows they are right.

Originally posted by Cohort
reply to post by FuturePeace

 

Brookings Report
en.wikipedia.org...

The Brookings Report also says that they should make a new one some years latter, as things would obviously change.

Do we have a new report or do we keep on using that 50 years old report?

reply to post by qmantoo


The higher quality images will probably be available in the PDS, as happens with all other missions, even some missions from other countries.

The quality is usually better, but the resolution is the same, the biggest difference is the level of compression.

Originally posted by ArMaP

I think that the problem is that people would become interested in a type of science that does not exist, the type that only shows they are right.

While these are not merely rocks and any1 who thinks they are , are nutcases imo.
Btw what type of sciences are you referring to?

ArMaP -

The higher quality images will probably be available in the PDS, as happens with all other missions, even some missions from other countries.The quality is usually better, but the resolution is the same, the biggest difference is the level of compression.

Yes, you would have thought so. However the MER .IMG files contain a gif which is not any better and sometimes even worse (if that is possible). The MER (Spirit & Oppo) are stretched but do not seem to have less compression. I have not looked the the Curiosity ones in the PDS.

There are no (40,000+) Indian photos in the PDS of their Moon missions. If you know where they are hiding, then I have been looking for them for years (as have other people too). Please tell give me a link.

Originally posted by homeslice
Many of these look like bones... but they are just rocks from earth.

I don't think those rocks look like bones at all.
I think they look like rocks.

Those photos of Mars definitely have bones in them though,
Any idiot can see that.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
While these are not merely rocks and any1 who thinks they are , are nutcases imo.

How nice of you.

Btw what type of sciences are you referring to?

Where?

Originally posted by qmantoo
Yes, you would have thought so. However the MER .IMG files contain a gif which is not any better and sometimes even worse (if that is possible).

No, the IMG files do not contain a GIF and they look much better than the JPGs posted on the MER site. Where did you get that idea?

There are no (40,000+) Indian photos in the PDS of their Moon missions. If you know where they are hiding, then I have been looking for them for years (as have other people too). Please tell give me a link.

I haven't seen the Indian photos either, but I haven't looked for them yet. I will let you know if I find them.

Isnt Nasa now planning to go back in 2020 to "search for life" lol seems conveniently timed

Originally posted by GeneralChaos

Originally posted by homeslice
Many of these look like bones... but they are just rocks from earth.

I don't think those rocks look like bones at all.
I think they look like rocks.

Those photos of Mars definitely have bones in them though,
Any idiot can see that.

edit on 15-7-2013 by GeneralChaos because: (no reason given)

Those look like rocks, mars pics look like bones for the main reason of having a degree of symmetry to them.

reply to post by ArMaP


I have not seen a new report as of yet, Do you know of one?

reply to post by Arken


Could this be the beloved dragon I've been waiting for.

Hopefully so. Star and flag.

-SAP-