What do you need to survive on Mars? Shelter, food, liquid. Part 1: Shelter

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Ah too bad.

From your thread title:

"What do you need to survive on Mars? Shelter, food, liquid. Part 1: Shelter"

I got excited to think it was going to be a thread about what humans would need to colonize Mars (especially since you used the pronoun "you" in your thread title).

Only to find it's another Mars "Rock" thread.

All the shapes do look interesting. No, I do not think they are anything but rocks.

Wish you luck with the thread.

See, thats what I thought as well, I might just start a thread with THAT premise

That's the thread I was expecting, also.

Maybe you (or someone) should create a thread like that...HOWEVER, the shelter (plus food and water) needed on Mars for a manned mission is only half the battle of the mission. There is also the "shelter" (spacecraft), food, and water that would be required for the trip to Mars and the trip back.

I believe that there is probably more water there for us to use than there is breathable atmosphere.

Wish you luck with the thread.

and it seems I will need that luck.

Thanks everyone for all your comments and thanks for jumping on me too. I bet you all feel better for that. No-one has discussed any of the images, apart from saying that they look like rocks. That comment is boring and by now, I would have thought it would have become boring to you all too. If you really truly think they are rocks, then just dont bother to comment and the thread will die. However, if you all want to make a comment, then make it about the subject and content of the thread. That is images which appear to show intelligent design. Start by explaining how they are all the same kind of 'shelter' shape and many appear to have something inside them.

I have shown many different angles and many different examples, it is obvious, to me anyway, that the 'tent overhang' for example is not a rock. (before anyone says anything, I am sure they are NOT tents, OK?, but I am also 100% sure they are not standard rocks too.) Please dont keep on telling me these are rocks.

So, if you think they are rocks, please dont comment and let the thread die in peace. Otherwise I will think there is some other agenda here because normal people without agendas would not bother to comment on an uninteresting topic.

From reading some of these posts, I find it amazing that size has anything to do with whether aliens exist on Mars. What does size matter ? What you are all basically saying is that in our esteemed estimation, there cannot be any intelligent life which is small or large - it all has to be the same size as we are.

Thats just plain ridiculous when we have no idea what they are made of and what elements they use to assimilate for food, use for clothing, or even what elements are the basis for life on Mars. Carbon does not have to be the basis for this alien life, so get real. Liquid does not have to be water for them.

reply to post by qmantoo


It has to do with brain size and density.

From all life here on Earth, we know that the smaller and less dense the brain, the less evidence we have for intelligence.

Yes, a cat or dog can act intelligent or be trained to do some things (sometimes complex things), but when it comes to much more complex things that we humans do, they just can't seem to learn it.

Now, before you jump up and do the "but life may be different than we know of elsewhere", that is true, but again, as I've explained before: we go with what we know until we find something that we don't know.

All life here on earth, those that have brains and nervous systems show much more degree of intelligence than life that does not have those.
For example, while I might be vastly more intelligent than one of my dogs, my dog is vastly more intelligent than a tree.

Let's face it: the dog pees on the tree, not the other way around. And that's because my dog has a brain and central nervous system.

There are still some arguments about brain size (sperm whales brains are much larger than ours), but also about brain size to body ratios.

However, the fact remains that here on earth, the smaller the brain, the smaller the density, meaning the less amount of synapsis connections to make.

Given a being only 3 inches tall, their brain would be only so many millimeters in size. Not a lot of room for those connections.

So it's hard for most people to accept the idea of really small aliens that are intelligent enough to build structures based on what we know.

Now you can sit there and say "but there could be intelligent life out there that has different kinds of brains that work differently, etc" and for all I know you might be right.

But until we actually find something like that, we only know what we see here on Earth.

Using shapes in a photograph that LOOK like something, and then claiming it's evidence for something else to exist is......well, poor science.

What would be better is to be able to examine something like that up close and seeing things like tool markings on it. That would be a dead give away.

But only a shape in a picture? Not going to be good enough I'm afraid. Especially with all the examples we have here on Earth of rocks that can look like so many things.

And sorry that you do not want to have others post that in your thread, but this is a public forums, and others will speak their mind. I can appriciate not wanting the bashing or insulting posts.

However, you can't ask for just people that agree with you to post. What good is a room full of "yes" men?

Erik, I have asked a mod to change the title to be more representative of the content.

What you say in general makes a lot of sense bearing in mind our current science beliefs. However, there are so many Earth-based assumptions which cannot possibly apply where a being comes from another totally different planetry environment.

Yes, I would say "but life may be different than we know of elsewhere". The thing is we will NEVER know anything else (anytime soon) if we continue to stick to our current beliefs without allowing other possibilities into our thinking. Look at the way people shout "rock" because they cannot see things from a different perspective. Look at the way people shout "It's too small" when they dont believe there are other sizes possible in other environments. I am sure you can appreciate how blinkered this is when considering other planets.

It has to do with brain size and density.

It is only our current science which tells us that intelligence on Earth is related to brain size and density. That is a function of environment and evolution. If the environment is different and if evolution has not followed the same path, then other things are possible and quite likely. Not only that, we are carbon-based beings, other beings may be other-element-based and may need less brain/weight/size ratios. By having blinkered thought processes, we limit our perception of what is possible.

we go with what we know until we find something that we don't know.

Thats so sad. Of course I realise this is all speculation by me, but it all starts as a thought process in some scientist's brain and eventually we get curent science beliefs - even if some of the speculation is not correct and gets dropped along the way. If these other thoughs were not voiced, then they never become a speculation available to others and therefore never possibly become new scientific laws and facts because no-one dared to get shot down. Truly great scientists like Einstein, Tesla, and all the other greats, have not been scared to propose new thoughts and run with them until they become dead ideas or else they become new discoveries. That is what made them great and furthered the boundaries of science. Staying in a rut will not allow us to progress at all and that is what I see here from wannabe scientists shouting "rock" and shouting "size".

For example, while I might be vastly more intelligent than one of my dogs, my dog is vastly more intelligent than a tree.

Yes, but adaption has made your dog so much better at smelling its food than you.

As humans, maybe it is partly our emotions which make us feel superior to other beings, but when we need water, can we smell where it is like elephants? When we need food, can we track a deer or rabbit like a dog can? Ok, so we come up with other ways to get what we need, but there are still skills we dont yet have.

So much of our brain is not used, we still dont understand how it all works and it is quite possible that adaptions over millions or billions of years of evolution of another race of beings would have followed paths which give them intelligence geared towards their own environment and judged on other criteria from our own. How we rate intelligence, is limited to Earthly parameters.

There are still some arguments about brain size (sperm whales brains are much larger than ours), but also about brain size to body ratios.However, the fact remains that here on earth, the smaller the brain, the smaller the density, meaning the less amount of synapsis connections to make.

There are skeletons of a race of giants which no longer exist on Earth, so I doubt very much whether brain size and density with respect to body size has anything to do with it. Look at pygmies are they more intelligent than normal-sized people? What about dwarfism? If this was the case you would have large human brains in small human bodies as beings who were more intelligent than others.

Given a being only 3 inches tall, their brain would be only so many millimeters in size. Not a lot of room for those connections.

And you cannot conceive of micro-sized physical body structures?

So it's hard for most people to accept the idea of really small aliens that are intelligent enough to build structures based on what we know.

Yes, I can see that. It IS hard for some people on here.

Using shapes in a photograph that LOOK like something, and then claiming it's evidence for something else to exist is......well, poor science.

NO - science does it all the time. Rilles are an example and accepted fact of Moon physical structure. Proclamations of features on other worlds and planetry bodies are done based on what? please dont tell me that they are all based on other data. The flybys of rocks flying through space are all done on photographs. The optical (not radio) telescopic discoveries of our universe are all done with photographs.

But only a shape in a picture? Not going to be good enough I'm afraid. Especially with all the examples we have here on Earth of rocks that can look like so many things.

Yes, we have a rich diverse environment. Far richer than other planets. What is good enough for science is good enough for me too on here. Our whole understanding of other planets began with a drawing and then a photograph.

However, you can't ask for just people that agree with you to post. What good is a room full of "yes" men?

No, I dont want 'yes' men either. However, I AM asking them to look at the evidence and maybe say... "Hmm, that looks strange, maybe we can find other examples of the same shape in other parts" (which I have done for you all) But so far I see no investigative thought going on at all, only "that does not fit in with accepted science, so I will dismiss it" I have argued why this is bad science above.

reply to post by roughycannon

I don't wanna hear your excuses! The rock has to be at least....... three times bigger than this!

reply to post by qmantoo


Disappointed, thought this thread was going to be a several part series about building a colony on mars. Instead it's yet another thread about what someone thinks some rocks look like.

I think what we may have here is a communication problem.
Let me try and explain what I see and then someone can let me know what is seen as 'rock'.
I have supplied different views of this shelter and I assume that if there were other rocks which MADE IT LOOK LIKE a shelter, these other views would expose the other rocks which made up what I am seeing. But I cannot see this. Now, this may be because my eye is not tuned to the other view which happens sometimes. So, I will show you what I see and then maybe someone can put me in the right frame of mind to perhaps see the other rocks which make up this 'shelter'?

So, I have marked out the awning', the 'overhang' that I see which to me looks as if it is the front of a what we know as a tent on Earth. I have supplied a similar image of an Earth tent which gives some comparison to what I think is being shown in this photo.

Ah Sweetie, I'm so sorry, I gave you a flag and everything for your effort and your enthusiasm.

But sometimes a rock is just a rock.

My thoughts on priorities for establishing a colony, before even sending the first colonists:

1. Establish Power Source - Build solar array
   
2. Establish Safe Landing Zone - Excavate an area where the colonists could land safely, you dont want to just crash them into the planets crust and hope they survive (or do you?)
   
3. Establish Constitution - Ok, we have to get some kind of legal framework in place here, but this is possibly my bias from a legal background...
   

All the above could be build without a single human hand, we have that technology. Then we send colonists...

reply to post by BellaSabre

Ah Sweetie, I'm so sorry, I gave you a flag and everything for your effort and your enthusiasm.
But sometimes a rock is just a rock.

Honey, I love you too, unfortunately I am not a flag-whore, so flags mean little to me - but thanks anyway. However the animal looking out of its shelter is NOT just a rock. or maybe you missed that?


Since you are saying these are all rocks, would you care to point out the rocks which make up the shelter image I drew on(to show the "awning-like" overhang), in the post above this one?

Hey qmantoo, good to see you again. Interesting that the nay-saying 'it's a rock' crowd have made their appearance. Really do wonder WTF they even bother to display their denialism when they are on a conspiracy website (shake head time).

On to an analysis of your OP...

My first impression was 'heck, we're going back to Sol75/Sol76 and Spirit?' Well, okay - some cool pics came from there, even if I have not examined them for, like, ages.

The first two images are pretty good examples of what appear to be synthetically adapted objects. In my opinion maybe - and this is a big maybe - the object has some key characteristics perhaps common to this category of objects that make it a non-natural object:

(1) Apparent symmetrical shape.

This does not mean that the object is of synthetic design. It is simply a quantifiable marker that can be measured and used for data comparison against other samples.

The object of interest has an angled, flat and bevelled appearance. The lower section of the object seems to be in shadow, suggesting it reaches back and under the object. This could be explained by the object having been, either (a) eroded by something naturally occurring on Mars, such as fines, sand, wind, water, or gaseous flow (e,g, CO2); or (b) to have been deliberately designed and created that way.

This flag marker of 'shape' is highly questionable however, due to the inability to adequately see or predict with any certainty, the shape of the submerged or shaded areas of the object. If we could investigate the object by removing the sand and other objects in the vicinity, we could make a better analysis.

(2) Unusual design element

The object has some obvious characteristics that suggest purpose and structural design. As with the vast majority of objects of interest found on Mars, these elements are neither complete nor proven. They are merely observable characteristics that may or may not be actual. In other words, whilst a viewer may perceive that an object has a groove, ridge, curvature or other design element, the fact is that without tangible proof - such as a scientist holding the object in their hand and turning it around, and measuring the object, and having their findings peer reviewed and held to scientific rigour - no viewer can be certain that what they perceive is what they perceive. They may be correct; they could be wrong too.

The first object of interest has design characteristics (be that natural or designed) that lend evidence toward the synthetically adapted object category: (a) The straight-ish ridge along the top (left) edge, and; (b) the lower (jaw-like) protuberance from the object.

It is obvious that a viewer cannot allege any specific purpose or reason for these apparent characteristics, other than to theorise. Indeed, the true characteristics and shape of the object cannot be 100% certain, thus the existence of these characteristics (particularly, in this case, the lower protuberance) cannot by confirmed. What we see could be in fact a trick of the light, or other factor.

The unusual design elements are important because they can suggest purpose and/or deliberate design. For instant, an object with and slot in it can be given a theoretical (even if scientifically unproven) purpose. An object with a ridge along a side can also be theorized over. Note that the major object of interest you begin with has symmetry, curvature of the upper side, flat-ish side, a running ridge, the lower protuberance (maybe a mechanical or locking piece), and a possible symbol or character on the side (left as we see it). This latter observation cannot be confirmed due the poor image quality and is equally likely to by an image artefact picked-up via processing at some stage.

(3) Environmental consistency

Taking the design characteristics of the object of interest and looking about the site we can note a number of objects with similar characteristics or markers. The whole area, including those objects, look like rocks. That is indisputable. The objects that display similar characteristics appear to have originated from the same structural element as the object you have discussed. Whilst remotely 're-assembling' those items of debris may be possible through using advanced algorithms, such a task is not being done to my knowledge. As such, the local environment lends support to the assertion that the area is replete with a great number of naturally occurring rocks, stones and sand. The existence of several similar objects of interest lends weight to the theory that debris of a deliberately designed larger-sized object, or objects, may be scattered across the site.

To conclude my observations of your OP regarding the first claim of "a realisation that there is life on Mars" that you originally assert, I would have to say that the OP does not prove this. However, that does not destroy your hypotheses.

Rather than disproving your claims, what I see in those images strongly suggests that there may very well be naturally occurring objects that have been deliberately designed and engineered to produce objects that perform specific functions. Those objects have been destroyed and their debris shattered and scattered across and buried beneath the surface in places.

Thanks for the post, and good luck.

reply to post by qmantoo


Wow! Great find this is amazing!
I agree with you 100% these are not tents this a martian cave dwelling system. Clearly those are entrances and doors all over!!!
Ignore all these "debunkers". Looking to get their rocks off.
THESE ARE NOT ROCKS!
Why does NASA hide the truth!!!!!!!!

reply to post by roughycannon


Yea these are all rocks. I can see the tent shape, but you need more then a tent to live on mars, especially if your tent is made of a solid rock. Lots of other rocks in the pictures resemble the same common shape, my guess is whatever caused them broke them in a similar shape. Some sort of impact or explosion.

Phage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

How could these rocks (or tents even) shelter anything from the environments of Mars?

Well you could stay in the shade because we know how hot it gets on Mars.

Hmm, 'hot'? Just how hot does it get on Mars, Phage? Perhaps a better choice of words could be used, considering Mars does not get hot. Well, not 'hot' by a most people's definition I suppose.

Just an amused spectator.

Comment to six18 -

I can see the tent shape, but you need more then a tent to live on mars, especially if your tent is made of a solid rock. Lots of other rocks in the pictures resemble the same common shape, my guess is whatever caused them broke them in a similar shape. Some sort of impact or explosion.

Really? Why would they need more than a shelter to live on Mars? Impact or explosions do not create similar-shaped pieces. Next try to make it fit your beliefs please. At least I have found similar examples for my evidence.
=========================================

Comment to all
Rocks...
I have already said that I do not think these are tents as we know a tent, so I guess a number of you have come along, read the first post or two and made your comments accordingly - rather than review the evidence presented.

Yes, there are a number of these similar-shaped structures, but you would expect to see that if you have a colony of beings all living in the same area. Rather like a housing estate here on Earth, many houses all together.

No-one has mentioned the small rock with what looks like an animal sticking its head out Maybe that is asking too much for you to believe, but it does look like that to me AND it lends weight to the argument for shelters. Similarly, other examples I have posted show what looks to be beings inside as well as examples of other shelter-shaped structures.

Really, how many different things do we need before we can fairly confidently say that there needs to be more effort made by NASA to investigate these things? It is like you are all content to sit back and say that this is interesting and yet you do nothing about it. So many sitters on the fence it is starting to look like a gathering of wood pidgeons.

If you maintain that what I have shown you are rocks, then show me where the rocks are in the picture. I have shown what I believe to be the 'awning' part and I have shown different views, some extremely close-up to the rover too.

So far, in other threads, I have presented evidence for simple plant life, blueberries being fungi, and now in this thread, evidence for shelters. If any of this is true, then it looks as if there is plenty of life on Mars.

reply to post by qmantoo


Ignore the Deniers - if I could have a delete comment button for their comments then they wouldn't waste their time and mine (sometimes). IMHO.

I fully support your efforts, even if I do not yet agree with your conclusions. Like you, I've been totally dissed. I say keep it up, share your findings, and one day - mark my words - the truth will not be ignored.

Cheers, Blister

I believe the hottest it gets on Mars is less than 25C. It gets much colder which is what would cause a problem for humans. It would be like being in the antarctic and colder - and you know how bad we are at managing there. Aliens on the other hand could probably hack it and they may even be cold-blooded perhaps.

qmantoo
I believe the hottest it gets on Mars is less than 25C. It gets much colder which is what would cause a problem for humans. It would be like being in the antarctic and colder - and you know how bad we are at managing there. Aliens on the other hand could probably hack it and they may even be cold-blooded perhaps.

Even if the temperature was bearable, the low atmospheric pressure would be deadly to humans who were not wearing a pressure suit.

Even if the temperature was bearable, the low atmospheric pressure would be deadly to humans who were not wearing a pressure suit.

Ok, so what features and characteristics would we see if anything lived on Mars?

Would they be like Earth insects with a hard shell exoskeleton? Would they be like Earth reptiles with scaly skin and cold blood? Lets build up a profile of a typical alien living on Mars and see what it would look like.

reply to post by qmantoo

A microbe beneath the surface where there is a possibility of liquid water existing.
Not on the surface and not visible.