Quote from: Trip on August 03, 2013, 01:32:02 PM
What if others found us first?

Or somehow impacted our existence?

That is quite probable, there are so many unanswered questions about the human experiment.
I've never discounted it.

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2013, 01:46:22 PM
That is quite probable, there are so many unanswered questions about the human experiment.
I've never discounted it.

The good wife keeps tell me I am a reject from another planet.   

Old bunker?

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2013, 10:09:06 PM
Old bunker?

cairn image

Interesting image.  I don't think it's big enough to be called a "bunker". It appears to be four, or five feet in height, at max.

I originally did some tracking and tried to use the info in that photo to find the image, getting this URL from the upper right corner:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p278.html

At that URL, I don't see anything among the images that remotely resembles that "cairn" image, not even the specifically indicated "(4th down on the left)".

I then looked at the image URL, and found the obvious source page:

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2006/109/spirit-rock-growth.htm

What's curious about the URL, above, is that he has the amazing evidence of a clearly artificial stack of rocks, a rock cairn, but the URL is only focusing on the "rock growth", or the rocks with  fungus-like covering on them he discusses later in the image.  How is it reasonable to have something which is such clear evidence of intelligent, deliberate manipulation as a rock cairn, and not make that one's main focus? Is it possible that the author does not recognize the significance of cairns?

What is even more curious is that while the article PROMINENTLY displays the source locations for the two lower image cairns, the ones actually ON EARTH,  but I still cannot find any link reference the original source anywhere in the article for that "cairn" on Mars:

• 
  Left Lower Image Source: http://www.acornbedandbreakfast.com/RockCairns.html
  Right Lower Image Source: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/land_travel.htm
  

Would you please look yourself for anywhere in that article it indicates a source URL for the top image of that alleged Mars "cairn"?  I am incredulous... stunned, that it does not equally prominently indicate the source location for the image... the "big proof".

I finally noticed the name on the lower left of that image, Discoverer: J.P. Skipper.    I ran across J.P. Skipper in 2003-ish, when he was commonly known as "Patrick Skipper."  At that time he was partnered with a guy by the name of Jeffrey McCann.  After limited exposure to these two, I could not help but recognize them to be blithering idiots, and not particularly adept at their hand-waving, officious nonsense they try to pass off as qualified analysis.   

Again, how is it possible for Skipper to present a big piece of evidence, a Mars stone "cairn", and not have provided a clear and enthusiastic the source for that image data?   Skipper makes reference to having found two "strips" that he had to work with "a little" to reveal the detail, but as far as I can find, does not anywhere "reveal" where that data actually came from:

• "The above second image and its top closer view demonstrates one of two strips where the object isn't blanked out by too much dark color allowing me to reveal a little more of its detail with a little graphics work. Here it is viewed from the rover camera at a lower elevation causing the object to appear perched sharply right on the terrain horizon line with no lower level background terrain visible behind it. In this still somewhat distant view, we can see some lumpy detail of the object. In fact it appears to look very much like a lone elevated rock or stone cairn very much like the two comparison Earth stone cairns in the bottom two left and right images, especially the one of the left.:

 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2013, 10:09:06 PM
Old bunker?

Check these out. Life, or extinct?



But here's one that makes me wonder if someone is playing around with photoshop, which makes me suspect all the pics this guy posted.


http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=151392

Sooooo  do we know more now then one  year ago.   


NASA's Curiosity rover celebrates 1 year on Mars.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20130805/US-SCI-Mars-Curiosity/

Quote from: Trip on August 05, 2013, 07:02:46 AM
Interesting image.  I don't think it's big enough to be called a "bunker". It appears to be four, or five feet in height, at max.

I originally did some tracking and tried to use the info in that photo to find the image, getting this URL from the upper right corner:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p278.html

At that URL, I don't see anything among the images that remotely resembles that "cairn" image, not even the specifically indicated "(4th down on the left)".

I then looked at the image URL, and found the obvious source page:

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2006/109/spirit-rock-growth.htm

What's curious about the URL, above, is that he has the amazing evidence of a clearly artificial stack of rocks, a rock cairn, but the URL is only focusing on the "rock growth", or the rocks with  fungus-like covering on them he discusses later in the image.  How is it reasonable to have something which is such clear evidence of intelligent, deliberate manipulation as a rock cairn, and not make that one's main focus? Is it possible that the author does not recognize the significance of cairns?

What is even more curious is that while the article PROMINENTLY displays the source locations for the two lower image cairns, the ones actually ON EARTH,  but I still cannot find any link reference the original source anywhere in the article for that "cairn" on Mars:

• 
  Left Lower Image Source: http://www.acornbedandbreakfast.com/RockCairns.html
  Right Lower Image Source: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/land_travel.htm
  

Would you please look yourself for anywhere in that article it indicates a source URL for the top image of that alleged Mars "cairn"?  I am incredulous... stunned, that it does not equally prominently indicate the source location for the image... the "big proof".

I finally noticed the name on the lower left of that image, Discoverer: J.P. Skipper.    I ran across J.P. Skipper in 2003-ish, when he was commonly known as "Patrick Skipper."  At that time he was partnered with a guy by the name of Jeffrey McCann.  After limited exposure to these two, I could not help but recognize them to be blithering idiots, and not particularly adept at their hand-waving, officious nonsense they try to pass off as qualified analysis.   

Again, how is it possible for Skipper to present a big piece of evidence, a Mars stone "cairn", and not have provided a clear and enthusiastic the source for that image data?   Skipper makes reference to having found two "strips" that he had to work with "a little" to reveal the detail, but as far as I can find, does not anywhere "reveal" where that data actually came from:

• "The above second image and its top closer view demonstrates one of two strips where the object isn't blanked out by too much dark color allowing me to reveal a little more of its detail with a little graphics work. Here it is viewed from the rover camera at a lower elevation causing the object to appear perched sharply right on the terrain horizon line with no lower level background terrain visible behind it. In this still somewhat distant view, we can see some lumpy detail of the object. In fact it appears to look very much like a lone elevated rock or stone cairn very much like the two comparison Earth stone cairns in the bottom two left and right images, especially the one of the left.:

Ah, it looks like that growth stuff....  That would be natural, right?

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2013, 12:15:57 PM
Check these out. Life, or extinct?



But here's one that makes me wonder if someone is playing around with photoshop, which makes me suspect all the pics this guy posted.


http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=151392

haha, those circle marks on the one at the bottom seems a little fake...  it makes me question the other images from the same source.

Quote from: taxed on August 08, 2013, 12:00:20 AM
haha, those circle marks on the one at the bottom seems a little fake...  it makes me question the other images from the same source.

Bingo, that's why I said it literally looks Photoshopped.
It also makes me suspect every pic on that forum.
Essence of LNF. 

If there was life, sea and vegetation on mars, doesn't that mean that there is most likely oil there?