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

Originally posted by Arken



Thanks for your meaningful comments and kind words.

I'm glad to catch your attention.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)

I guess you missed my question on the previous page.

Hi Arken. Did you colour/manipulate the images you claim are bones?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Nicely laid out thread Arken. S+F

I can't say for sure (no one can really, unless we brought them back, or had access to the rovers and could drill into them ect) if those are bones/fossils or just natural rock formations as I'm not schooled in the fields of geology or archeology, but those formations sure do look interesting.

Anyhow excellent post thanks for putting it together. Usually I just see just rocks in these threads, not always but usually. This one I dunno, can't say for sure. Would love to hear Nasa's response on these, and if they have examined those formations with the rover(s).

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Arken

 

One person in particular, Sir Charles Shults, ran a website for a number of years (MER Spirit and Opportunity) pointing out similarities between Earth fossils and some of the oddities that appeared, and were ignored by NASA, on Mars. he has since produced a DVD of his work. Info on the same follows:
URL: www.shultslaboratories.com...

MSL Curiosity produced a 'curiosity' early in its mission as well, as it detail in the story here:
www.gather.com...

Since then, there have been several others, not the least of which was that metallic-appearing item jutting from the rock that NASA chose to drive right by so they could drill into another, less interesting piece of Mars.

Finally, there was the 'macaroni' fossil found by MER Opportunity shortly after its arrival on the red planet. That particular item was immediately ground to dust.

Doesn't leave a lot to offer hope. NASA seems determined NOT to do whatever most any other thinking, curious person might, lol.

I really do believe that NASA might not even be seeing these things in the photos.

The NASA engineers and other folks that work there are probably at the extreme end of the analytical,left brain, thinking spectrum, so even if these are fossils the NASA people will never see them, because their dominant left brain analytical thinking just can`t comprehend the abstract.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

Originally posted by DreamerOracle

Originally posted by skalla

Originally posted by Spacespider

Originally posted by skalla
with the greatest of respect, if you spent as much time learning about geology and archaeology as you did examining photos of mars, then you would say "rocks" too

Have you even looked at those pictures yourself ?
I guess you prefer the most social accepted answer, afraid to stand out of the norm..
That´s clearly not natural rock formations

yes, i did look at these pictures for quite some time prior to posting a response. i also studied archaeology at two highly respected universities as well as handling bones at excavations. i use modern bones for craft projects as well as home decoration and work with animals on farms. this does not make me an expert in my own estimation but gives me a decent grounding in recognising them. i'm a pretty keen rock hound too.

i dont take a view to "stand out from a norm" but simply examine things on their own merits.

still rocks, quite clearly.

Archaeology encompasses many sections but Paleontology, osteoarchaeology and archaeozooology although simular are very different fields of study.. and handling bones for two years does not an expert make.

editby]

my post makes it abundantly clear that i do not consider myself an expert, and also that i have been handling bones for considerably longer than 2 years.. the more one learns about a subject the more you realise just how much is left to learn.
like i said earlier, i rock hound a lot, and always find rocks that resemble other stuff. heck, i even once found a rock that looked uncannily like the face of a friend - thankfully reality was present and i did not believe that he had been decapitated, petrified and buried along my path

reply to post by rayuki


You don't know that they are not fossils with 100% certainty no way.

I say that they sure do look like vertebrae, but I will not claim to know they are 100%.

I mean for goodness sake if everyone buys into the whole evolution thing...then shouldn't we all believe that life will evolve everywhere and anywhere and even possibly civilizations will rise and fall just as they did and do here!

I don't get it!? Why people doubt life existing elsewhere when they can believe it happened here from a scientific mechanism..Then why can't that same mechanism be at work all over the known universe?

I myself expect fossils and life to be everywhere out there on every other planet we come too as we explore further into the depths of this universe! I completely expect it and would think it very strange if we started looking around at planets and found .. no signs of life even trying to start up.. THAT would be freaky if you ask me!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Arken


WOW VERY Interesting indeed! Great find man!

I would always leave room for error but it sure does look like some type of HUGE spine of God only know what!

Is that a skull at the front portion of this dare we label it...this.. "vertebrae fossil"? (forgive me if someone asked this already i just scanned the thread I just had to reply right away as stuff like this does get me pumped!)

It really does look like a skull that goes with it to me!
It makes me want to go back and look at all those other skull pics closer that someone posted that I always sat on the fence about!

-FG

Moar rocks

People see bunnies in clouds, too. If you have a whole planet's worth of photographs of rocks, you're easily going to find some that resemble whatever you're looking for. We have yet to even hypothesize what kind of weather factors would create what kind of erosion possibilities; what do continuous several 100 mph windstorms do to sandstone?

I'm not saying they are or aren't; but it will need a crew of archeologists to verify anything and that will only happen if Disclosure is allowed.

reply to post by Arken


After reviewing the photos posted in the OP and a couple other posts on the first page of this thread, I would like to say that, given that the photos are not photo shopped beyond simple highlighting, there are some definite anomalies that need further investigation. If NASA has simply over looked many of these things, which I highly doubt, we would potentially miss out on something Earth changing.

And as for those arguing whether the bone-looking anomalies are rocks, or bones, we can't know for certain until a professional goes to Mars and looks at them in person, or we get close up shots and chemical/composition analysis. Until then, you guys are just speculating, and so far all that's been said is that rocks can look like bones, bones can look like rocks, bones can be a part of rocks, and bones, by composition, are similar to some rocks.

Did Arken MANIPULATE the photos? YES he did.
2nd line

Originally posted by TheElectricAnt
Did Arken MANIPULATE the photos, YES he did.

What's the point of this? He added slight yellowing to some of the pieces to highlight them, and it should be clear that he did anyway as evidenced by the arrows.

If you call this MANIPULATION, then a whole hell of a lot of esteemed journalists, news sites, and even academics, professors etc. are guilty of MANIPULATION.

reply to post by 1Providence1


why highlight images? it just puts prejudice into the eye of the viewer and removes credibility from whoever did the highlighting.

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Just because some half wit thinks that stones on Mars are the fossilised remains of some creature or another doesn't mean I have to respect him or his half baked ideas, I can and will call him an idiot because that's what he is.

In fact what I am actually doing IS denying ignorance - the ignorance of stupidity.

The above statement is a shame, honestly! If that is the kind of 'thoughtful' contribution you would like to share with the ATS community, I'd suggest you go somewhere else to get rid of your negative emotions.

OP has put considerable effort and time into his idea and if you are so certain there's nothing to it, you could at least invest the same amount of energy into a response, that's less offensive and encourages a fruitful and interesting discussion on this forum!

Really: Shame. On. You.

reply to post by 1Providence1

I just wanted him to address the issue, instead of not answering the question.
His findings are not presented in an objective way

reply to post by Arken


Arkin, I have dismissed most all the photo clips posted on ATS as being something other than rocks ...they are just rocks. That said, these photos in this thread cannot be summarily dismissed as 'just rocks' in my opinion and experience. Although this is not certain proof, they could very well be fossilized spines and vertebrae formed with minerals in the sedimentary rocks, based on the shapes which do indeed look like vertebrae details and not like a natural geological feature. If so they were likely uncovered by Martian weathering.

I have past cartographic and photogrammetric experience working on the 'Apollo Lunar Landing Missions' for NASA under contract by the Agency that I retired from responsible for such work; and I can tell you based on my photogrammetric experience that these are some of the most interesting photos that I have seen from the Rover. Past experience tells me NASA will be very conservative with any comments, until they find something more definative to present for peer review.

Nice work Arken, and keep looking. S&F

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by 1Providence1

 

why highlight images? it just puts prejudice into the eye of the viewer and removes credibility from whoever did the highlighting.

I disagree, but I can see how one may see it this way. Most of us here are just arm chair amateurs anyway; not much point in getting super gung-ho about how right we think we are in regards to the topic at hand.

I think the best scenario would have been to post two images, one with, and one without the highlighting. That seems to be the best way to go about putting the OP's vision, and a non-bias view in perspective, no?

JPL uses different color filters to learn more about the geology of Mars. Nothing suspicious about that. This is done on Curiosity, and all the previous missions I've followed. Just look at the photos on the Curiosity website. Lots of images with different filters being used.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

They are (most likely, 99%+) rocks. Today everyone sits on the rump in front of computer. Get out in nature, study geology.

However it would be interesting for the instruments on Curiosity to sample these rocks. Instruments like...

- Chemistry & Mineralogy X-Ray Diffraction
- ChemCam
- Sample Analysis at Mars Instrument Suite

That would at least be real data to analyze and discuss. Instead of the "I see Jesus' image on a piece of toast" discussion in this thread.

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Just because some half wit thinks that stones on Mars are the fossilised remains of some creature or another doesn't mean I have to respect him or his half baked ideas, I can and will call him an idiot because that's what he is.

In fact what I am actually doing IS denying ignorance - the ignorance of stupidity.

The above statement is a shame, honestly! If that is the kind of 'thoughtful' contribution you would like to share with the ATS community, I'd suggest you go somewhere else to get rid of your negative emotions.

OP has put considerable effort and time into his idea and if you are so certain there's nothing to it, you could at least invest the same amount of energy into a response, that's less offensive and encourages a fruitful and interesting discussion on this forum!

Really: Shame. On. You.

The poster you quoted is clearly the all knowing, all seeing observer who can make such claims without any sense of doubt. Unless of course he's blowing wind out of his ass with the level of certainty he claims, making him the perceived idiot. Of course, that's up to perspective, I suppose.

Maybe NASA released these photos to get people's response to them before publishing what they think they may be. They could let someone discover this like they did before. That is good business, let the public get involved so they don't mind contributing. They look like vertebrae but even if they are, the reason they are there could be different than that there was life there. A dinosaur getting thrown into space by a supervolcano or impact by a big asteroid lands on Mars. Does that sound so far fetched?