PDA

View Full Version : [Photo evidence of prior life on Mars]



Dean Sloan
2010-Dec-21, 08:19 PM
There is very clear evidence for the existence of prior intelligent life on Mars in an image taken by NASA’s Rover Spirit’s “Left Panoramic Camera Non-linearized Full frame EDR on Sol 913.” Click on the image¹ after it downloads to enlarge. There is an artificial object that has the appearance of a round half shell like thing with part of it curved over and with a clearly machined cut out on the end as though it was designed to attach to something else, and is located about 1/3 of the way up and slightly to the right of center. There is also another somewhat roundish object with the appearance of a machined hole in its side that’s located perhaps 2/3 of the way up and on the left side. The area is littered with strange looking objects that certainly don’t look like rocks, especially the large object at top left.
This is the first time I have posted on this forum, consequently, I’m not sure if I’m posting the URL (links) correctly, because of the differences in forum software.
¹ http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/913/2P207413587EFFAS00P2278L6M1.JPG
The main page this image is from can be found here², and the object is most clearly shown in the third row down & 3rd image from the left, but is seen in the other images, consequently, it’s not an image artefact or effect of image processing, and is very definitely an artificial, machined object.
² http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p913.html

pzkpfw
2010-Dec-21, 09:53 PM
Post above moved from a thread in the Life in Space sub-forum. Dean Sloan, sorry, but claims of this nature are not considered accepted mainstream science. If you'd like the thread title changed, please report this post.

Swift
2010-Dec-21, 09:56 PM
Dean,

I would also suggest you read the Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters). There are specific requirements you will need to meet if you wish to put forth this idea: things like answering questions put to you and providing evidence to support it. If you are not prepared to do these things, please say so.

Oh, and welcome to BAUT.

eburacum45
2010-Dec-21, 10:27 PM
I love to see what a geologist would make of these rocks, especially one who was able to examine them on the spot (that is to say, on a manned expedition). But I'm pretty certain that is all they are, interesting rocks. Perhaps the main reason they look so intriguing is that they are carved by wind-powered erosion; perhaps there is another reason.

It seems unlikely, but not entirely impossible, that they are artificial; but any artificial object would probably be eroded by age, wind and sand into unrecognisable shapes, so it would be very difficult indeed to detect the difference from a photo alone.

Kinetic
2010-Dec-21, 10:56 PM
There is an artificial object

How do you know it's artificial?


with a clearly machined cut out on the end

So you're saying the appearance of the end can only be created by artificial means?


The area is littered with strange looking objects that certainly don’t look like rocks, especially the large object at top left.

In what way is their appearance dissimilar to rocks? Are there no examples of rocks with this appearance on the Earth?

Garrison
2010-Dec-21, 11:15 PM
About all you can say is it looks odd in that series of pictures. At a different time with a different position of the sun it might just blend in with the rest of the rocks. It certainly doesn't seem like strong evidence for the object being artificial let alone alien. And if it were NASA would be shouting it from the roof tops because evidence of a technological civilization on Mars, albeit an extinct one, would practically guarantee them whatever budget they wanted to put humans there to investigate it.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-22, 12:08 AM
I'm not a geologist, but to me this looks like a field of partially weathered volcanic rock mostly covered with dust. A bit like:

http://www.desertusa.com/geofacts/rocks_igne.html

(scroll down for image)

or here (where you see bubbles in rock):

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2189688_detail-of-igneous-rock-formation.html

Anyway, I don't see anything in the Mars images that would indicate artificiality to me. I just see different views of rocks.

baric
2010-Dec-22, 12:26 AM
And if it were NASA would be shouting it from the roof tops because evidence of a technological civilization on Mars, albeit an extinct one, would practically guarantee them whatever budget they wanted to put humans there to investigate it.

And therein lies the conspiracy. Why would NASA do this, and how many aliens have infiltrated the San Bernandino city council as a result?

Dean Sloan
2010-Dec-22, 04:21 AM
From the looks of the artificial object in the image, I suppose one could say that JPL & NASA are conspiring to withold the truth about evidence for a previous civilization on Mars. That idea shouldn’t prevent anyone from doing what I did, i.e., copied & pasted the image into “Paint” which, after saving, exiting, and then opening up again, enabled me to zoom in on the object, and the part that’s curved over towards the Rover is very clearly machined with a curved pincers-like design on the end and a slot in the center of it that anyone can easily see. A rock isn’t going to end up looking like this from wind & erosion. The clear physical “evidence” is there. If the evidence isn’t clear to anyone else. Okay.
I also found evidence of what looks like a large, white rectangular building (several stories high) with a large square opening in its side on the surface of Mars moon Phobos: images provided by HiRISE camera on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The object is, obviously, not a rectangular boulder, is very clearly artificial and can be seen in several images also. Seeing is believing - scroll down in the astronomy section¹ of my website.
¹ http://www.qdeansloan.com/Articles.htm#astronomy

Tedward
2010-Dec-22, 09:47 AM
Looks more like some rocks and pebbles you find down on the coast near me.

chrlzs
2010-Dec-22, 11:06 AM
Apart from the fact that this is not a particularly high resolution image, at least in terms of what would be required to examine the object in question, I know of at least a dozen places in coastal Australia, where similarly shaped eroded rocks can be found. Mars has very clear evidence of being a once very watery planet, as well as having numerous other erosive forces, and then there are the other possibilities like bubbles in molten rock from volcanic action or meteor impact - this sort of thing is hardly unusual. Sorry, but I see no evidence at all of anything artificial, 'clearly machined' or 'prior intelligence'.

I agree they aren't image artefacts.. but other than that, they certainly do just look exactly like rocks to me.

Swift
2010-Dec-22, 02:08 PM
From the looks of the artificial object in the image, I suppose one could say that JPL & NASA are conspiring to withold the truth about evidence for a previous civilization on Mars.
Why? Why would they do such a thing? Such a finding would mean lots more money for both and a serious effort for a manned trip to Mars. Why would they do such a thing? If anything, I would more likely believe NASA & JPL would conspire to convince people (Congress) that there was life on Mars, so as to obtain funding, not conspire to cover up such evidence. It make absolutely no sense at all.

Jason Thompson
2010-Dec-22, 03:07 PM
From the looks of the artificial object in the image, I suppose one could say that JPL & NASA are conspiring to withold the truth about evidence for a previous civilization on Mars.

By publishing photographs of 'obviously artificial' objects? That's some impressive way to hide something, isn't it?

Bobbar
2010-Dec-22, 03:24 PM
If you stretch out an image to the point that it looks like this (http://www.qdeansloan.com/images/Phobos%20&%20zoomed%20in%20structure%20on%20right%202.JPG) it is obvious that you are using software that is blending pixels and have zoomed in far beyond the usable resolution of this image. So what you are seeing is an algorithms interpretation of that blob of pixels; it's been slightly distorted. You took an area that is maybe 37 by 24 pixels and blew it up to 460 by 300, that is grossly overzealous.

Here (http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5816/phobosresize.png) is the image without the blending. Notice how it looks nothing like a building on the surface of a potato shaped moon, and more like just a bunch of pixels.

You can't conclude anything from these images except that it's around 6 to 7 pixels wide which makes it around 120 to 130 feet in size. To conclude that it is obviously a building shows that you are exhibiting a cognitive bias. How could it not be a large boulder?

Seeing is believing? But there is obviously nothing that can be seen in a blob of 14 pixels (each pixel representing 22 feet!), so why are you believing?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-22, 03:37 PM
That idea shouldn’t prevent anyone from doing what I did, i.e., copied & pasted the image into “Paint” which, after saving, exiting, and then opening up again
Paint? Jpeg?
Either you are grossly unaware of how those can misrepresent something (as Bobbar explained), or you are doing this on purpose.

Some years ago, Count Zero presented a perfect example of how bad it is to use paint and a compressed image.
It's in this thread - post 49 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/37664-Can-you-hear-me-Major-Tom....?p=672676#post672676).


Seeing is believing - scroll down in the astronomy section¹ of my website.
¹ http://www.qdeansloan.com/Articles.htm#astronomy

Scroll down to what exactly?

R.A.F.
2010-Dec-22, 04:16 PM
Seeing is believing - scroll down in the astronomy section¹ of my website.

You're confusing actual evidence with "it looks like". Also Richard Hoagland does not have the answers you seek. He is a pseudo-scientist and his ideas have been completely debunked.

senua
2010-Dec-22, 07:02 PM
The rocks look volcanic. The object that you thought was artificial looks like a rock, just a guess here but maybe an eroded geode.

These rocks look similar to those on the Mars picture.

http://geology.about.com/od/more_igrocks/ig/extrusives/basalt_hawaii2.htm

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TyCuPLoGeM8/TLOHWdw3ANI/AAAAAAAAAFs/TjLiVJM16R4/s1600/Scoria.JPG

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOL101/Labs/Igneous/images/Ign10.jpg

Geodes

http://gemsandrocks.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=26&osCsid=9mnl73pg54r9q8bkb78bd7s031

http://www.gemsandrocks.com/images/GuesserGeodes1%20%28Small%29.JPG

Garrison
2010-Dec-22, 07:51 PM
From the looks of the artificial object in the image, I suppose one could say that JPL & NASA are conspiring to withold the truth about evidence for a previous civilization on Mars.

And you would need to provide a credible reason for NASA and JPL to do the very opposite of what they would be reasonably expected to do with such evidence. Do you have a reason why NASA would suppress evidence which would practically guarantee them a massive budget increase and the sort of manned Mars program many at NASA have wanted to mount for decades?


The clear physical “evidence” is there. If the evidence isn’t clear to anyone else. Okay.

No not okay really. You need to provide some reason why we should accept your interpretation as being the superior one rather than simply a case of someone seeing what they want to see.

Dean Sloan
2010-Dec-22, 09:02 PM
Scroll down in the astronomy section to just below the link posted on 8-2-09. There are 4 images. The first one shows where the two objects are located with respect to Stickney crater. The 2nd image shows what they look like on eveyone’s computer screen after clicking on it to enlarge, because it shrinks back down after downloading into your computer (at least it does on my computer). Copying & pasting into paint doesn’t alter the images, but does enable you to zoom in gradually to see the artificiality. I don’t have PhotoShop, but a friend of mine does, and zoomed in close enough to get a better view without overdoing it as “Bobbar” did. Keep in mind that Buzz Aldrin¹ has said, in an interview on C-SPAN that there is a “monolith” on Phobos, consequently, it’s not a stretch to conclude that there might be other artificial structures there as well, and it also follows that there might have been a civilization on Mars at one time which, apparently, lost most of its atmosphere and water.
Despite what anyone thinks of Richard Hoagland, the close up imagry of Phobos² provided at his website also clearly shows the artificiality. His alleged contact at ESA confirms this and says: In describing the internal geometric structure of this "moon" as revealed by MARSIS, our European ESA contact repeatedly emphasized that "several of these interior Phobos compartments also appear to still be holding some kind of atmosphere ...." Our source repeated this several times ... raising all kinds of fascinating questions regarding "how" the radar could, in fact, determine this -- that some of the vast "rooms" inside Phobos (remember "from a quarter to half-a-mile in diameter ...") were STILL "maintaining an internal pressure" ....
The reason for JPL & NASA to maintain secrecy regarding evidence for intelligent life in the universe goes all the way back to “Roswell”, which another astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell³, as well as Col. Philip Corso†, has said was, in fact, an extraterrestrial spacecraft. The conspiracy theory is real, and the foregoing individuals are not paranoid fools, nor are the individuals in the links below. The secrecy also has to do with the “back-engineering” of the captured ET vehicles at “Area 51” which, because of the truth regarding the ET presence, is also real and not foolish paranoia. The unwarranted (based on current scientific paradigms) presumption of the impossibility of intersteller travel with advanced propulsion systems has prevented many good minds from investigating the evidence for the reality of an on-going ET presence.

¹ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws
² http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html
³ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUe8f9L0_o
† http://www.metacafe.com/watch/621048/ufo_crash_col_philip_j_corso_the_day_after_roswell _part_2/
See also: http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-honolulu/eisenhower-briefed-about-extraterrestrials-claims-former-new-hampshire-state-rep
And http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-honolulu/55th-anniversary-of-eisenhower-nuclear-diplomacy-with-et
And http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-2/vol-2-3-Salla.htm
And http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-1/1-4-Salla.htm
And Dr. Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project held at the National Press Club in May 2001 with very credible witnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk
And a very informative interview with William Pawelec
http://www.youtube.com/csetiweb

LaurelHS
2010-Dec-23, 02:04 AM
Are you aware that the term "monolith" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith) can refer to a natural structure? Please show me where Buzz Aldrin said there were aliens or artificial structures on Phobos.

Dean Sloan
2010-Dec-23, 03:56 AM
Are you aware that the term "monolith" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith) can refer to a natural structure? Please show me where Buzz Aldrin said there were aliens or artificial structures on Phobos.

Logic dictates that Aldrin wouldn’t have referred to the monolith, unless he somehow had inside information that it is artificial. Be that as it may, the object on the surface of Mars and the two objects on Phobos certainly appear to be artificial.
BTW, anyone who did not copy & paste the images of the object on the surface of Mars, or the images of Phobos into Paint, which would enable zooming in on them for examination, including the large rectangular, white structure on Phobos, then they, of course, are disqualifying themselves from discussion of the subject, and are displaying a closed mind that doesn’t investigate the evidence, or what’s referred to as “pathological scepticism.”¹
Remember also that the Russian spacecraft Phobos II² was mysteriously lost when it was near Phobos, and is why the Russian’s are sending Phobos-Grunt³ to investigate again in 2011.
The very credible witnesses in the Disclosure Project of Dr. Steven Greer and Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s testimony are more than sufficient evidence to convince anyone of the existence of extraterrestrials, except to the foregoing sceptics.
I have more than adequately provided clear evidence and, because there really doesn’t appear to be open scientific minds here, there isn’t any reason for me to stick around, so, good by, good luck and merry christmas.

¹ http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pathological_skepticism
² http://www.ufodigest.com/marsprobes.html
³ http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090925-sn-phobos-grunt.html

djellison
2010-Dec-23, 06:59 AM
There is very clear evidence for the existence of prior intelligent life on Mars in an image taken by NASA’s Rover Spirit’s “Left Panoramic Camera Non-linearized Full frame EDR on Sol 913.” Click on the image¹ after it downloads to enlarge.

OK.


There is an artificial object

What makes you think it's artificial?


that has the appearance of a round half shell like thing with part of it curved over and with a clearly machined cut out on the end as though it was designed to attach to something else,

What analysis demonstrates this to be true. I just see a rock - like hundreds of thousands of rocks - they all have shapes, and some of those shapes can sometimes look like something familiar. What is it that you think sets this apart.


and is very definitely an artificial, machined object.

Again - what qualifies this rock to be categorically artificial. If you can state, as fact, that this rock is artificial - then what description can you provide that defines, without doubt, what a natural and what an artificial rock look like.


I suppose one could say that JPL & NASA are conspiring to withold the truth about evidence for a previous civilization on Mars.

How can you make that claim when there are >100,000 images taken by that rover alone, available online for anyone to look at. If they're conspiring to withhold the truth they must be doing an exceptionally poor job.

Moreover - you're looking at uncalibrated, compressed stretched JPG's. Have you looked at the best available data ( calibrated RAD IMG format files from the PDS available here : http://an.rsl.wustl.edu/mer/merbrowser/browserFr.aspx?tab=solsumm&m=MERA )?

If you've not looked at the best available data.. why not?

And as for your HiRISE rectangular building - please provide a direct link to the HiRISE image in question, and provide an image of the 'building' specifically in this thread so we can take a look.

Swift
2010-Dec-23, 01:56 PM
BTW, anyone who did not copy & paste the images of the object on the surface of Mars, or the images of Phobos into Paint, which would enable zooming in on them for examination, including the large rectangular, white structure on Phobos, then they, of course, are disqualifying themselves from discussion of the subject, and are displaying a closed mind that doesn’t investigate the evidence, or what’s referred to as “pathological scepticism.”¹

Dean Sloan,

You do not determine who may or may not participate in this discussion. And do not accuse other members of pathological behaviors.

As I said earlier in the thread, you need to review our Advice for CT supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters), particularly point number 7.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-23, 02:02 PM
... Copying & pasting into paint doesn’t alter the images, but does enable you to zoom in gradually to see the artificiality...
Please look back on this thread at the points that were brought up as to why this is invalid.

Once you do that, I want to see direct discussion on those points as to why you think those do not matter, in your words.


I don’t have PhotoShop, but a friend of mine does, and zoomed in close enough to get a better view without overdoing it as “Bobbar” did.
Do you think that different image processors can find new information in a photo?
Believe it or not, Paint is probably the most reliable(for viewing only) since it is bitmap based and shows exactly what the pixels say. But once you do any image alteration, then all original information is misrepresented.


The reason for JPL & NASA to maintain secrecy regarding evidence for intelligent life in the universe goes all the way back to “Roswell”, which another astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell³, as well as Col. Philip Corso†, has said was, in fact, an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
So; you jump from "past" civilizations that have long ago died off to "existing" ET's. I see no connection.


The conspiracy theory is real, and the foregoing individuals are not paranoid fools, nor are the individuals in the links below.
Althought there are many paranoid fools:
There are many uninformed people that rely on other testimonials.
There are many people intentionally doing it for the profit.
There are many people intentionally doing it for fame.
There are many people who just want to discredit the government in any way they can.
There are many people that don't want to learn anything technical or scientific, and use this as a way to keep thier head from filling up.


The secrecy also has to do with the “back-engineering” of the captured ET vehicles at “Area 51” which, because of the truth regarding the ET presence, is also real and not foolish paranoia.
If this is a secret of the U.S. Government, then why do so many countries have similar technologies.


The unwarranted (based on current scientific paradigms)
Please look up "unwarranted" in the dictionary. Your paranthetical statement contradicts the definition.



presumption of the impossibility of intersteller travel with advanced propulsion systems
I haven't seen anyone who has said interstellar travel was impossible. In fact there are many threads on this board discussing how we can achieve it. The problem is that the issues of interstellar travel do not match up with the supposed events that happen to these travellers when they arrive.


has prevented many good minds from investigating the evidence for the reality of an on-going ET presence.
So what do we investigate, what do we compare it to, and how?

Tedward
2010-Dec-23, 02:24 PM
Despite what anyone thinks of Richard Hoagland, the close up imagry of Phobos² provided at his website also clearly shows the artificiality.

Snip.

Before anything is looked at what is the provenance of the images. Processing applied and expected results. All this before it reaches the web. The image you link to is altered.

Phobos, I would expect voids if it is a jumble of debris. Many asteroids would appear to follow the same make up. Having trouble finding an alternative link at the moment, the web does like my computer for some reason.

Strange
2010-Dec-23, 02:44 PM
Scroll down in the astronomy section to just below the link posted on 8-2-09.

Have you ever thought of actually organizing your web site, rather than just treating it like a "bucket" for links, words and pictures? You know, using things like structure, introductions, overviews, menus, etc. It might make it easier for people to find things.

I guess I should just be glad it isn't all written in giant block capitals in primary colors...

Halcyon Dayz
2010-Dec-23, 05:31 PM
Are you aware that the term "monolith" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith) can refer to a natural structure? Please show me where Buzz Aldrin said there were aliens or artificial structures on Phobos.
It's only because of pop culture that the word now is interpreted (by most people who aren't geologists) as meaning 'made by aliens'.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-23, 05:54 PM
I have more than adequately provided clear evidence and, because there really doesn't appear to be open scientific minds here, there isn't any reason for me to stick around, so, good by, good luck and merry christmas.

Since the proponent has withdrawn, I've closed this thread. Dean Sloan, if you change your mind and would like to continue this discussion...according to our rules...report this post. But please take note...this forum is not a place for your to hold court on your ideas about ancient civilizations. If you want to present your ideas here, you'll be challenged (and expected) to support them with more than just links and assertions. Ad hominem remarks will not fly.

Anyone else wishing to make a case for reopening this thread may likewise use the report button.