To Me These Are Not Rocks - Page 2

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 Next
Author Message
Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 21



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 4:56 AM 

es...

They could call you "troll" for such an assert...

Extra Sense


Posts: 1471

Reply: 22



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 5:29 AM 

A nice way to avoid real discussion it is, calling the opponent a "troll".

MG might be 80% cases wrong in her assertions, but what does it mean for the big picture? 20% right means 100% right on the question of existence of the Martian Civilization

e Cool s

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 23



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 7:28 AM 


As title states.

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 24



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 9:55 AM 

Whatever the actual numbers, even if I'm 20% percent right, that's enough for me.

If 100 people say they saw flying saucers and only 20 really did see flying saucers, that's still enough to say that flying saucers are real.

Very Happy

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 25



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 10:03 AM 

If 100 people say they saw flying saucers and only 20 really did see flying saucers, that's still enough to say that flying saucers are real

In fact this is one of the most simple and true concepts.
But almost every time skepticals miss it.

Bye

Raptor Witness


Posts: 2255

Reply: 26



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 10:31 AM 

The odds increase greatly in your favor, if you can find associations of the same artifacts in more than one location.

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 27



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 10:37 AM 

There are plenty of other things in other locations. But I think you make a much stronger case when a bunch of artificial objects are grouped together in one tiny little spot.

newboy


Posts: no

Reply: 28



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 11:26 AM 

Marsgal,
This is an excellent image you have chosen. You have selected just a few of all the rocks in this image which exhibit the same type of weathering pattern. Why did you ignore the biggest one above and to the right of A and D?
As we 'rock' guys have discussed on numerous occasions in the past on this blog, this is classic weathering of a rock such as a vesicular basalt or volcanic tuff with rock clasts. Do a google to see examples from Earth. We see nothing weird about this and certainly no need to invoke an 'artificial' explanation.
Now, if you could explain to me WHY they are artificial and not natural, it might help your argument. I have given one geological explanation but there are others.
It's a pity more people don't get to know rocks better. Art in nature every day.

ups


Posts: 992

Reply: 29



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 11:46 AM 

Well, certainly we’re not seeing anything machined or manufactured. I do feel there are interesting shapes that could have been past life -- fossils. However, this image is over a year old so obviously we will never have a second chance to study the area in depth. Thus we are stuck with blurry enhancements on the fringe of visibility.

There have been a few areas the rovers have passed over on their journey that resemble fossil fields. The 'bird skull' area is one that comes to mind – several objects really jumped out.

---ups

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 30



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 11:50 AM 

It's easy to see what I'm saying but once again someone is making an unsubstantiated claim that they're rocks as seen commonly on earth. I believe you are way past due to put out something to back up your words that keep saying things without any support.

I have posted an image to back up my claim. Now it's your turn to post an image to back up yours. Because I think you are incorrect.

Rolling Eyes

mann


Posts: no

Reply: 31



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 12:18 PM 

If the Large pile above this Field of rocks is volcanic tuff, the odds are More likely that they are fossils.

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 32



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 1:42 PM 

Even though I don't agree that they are fossils, it's nice to see a different opinion besides "rocks".

Very Happy

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 33



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 4:36 PM 

It's really very simple. If these pieces are so common and natural like people like newboy say they are, then just show us some earth rocks that have similar artificial features. And if you can find a collection from one spot like this mars image, that would be even better.

\

All this talking and all it would take is just some earth rock images to make a much stronger point.

Rolling Eyes

Whyte August


Posts: no

Reply: 34



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 4:59 PM 

Mg #33

Hey MG! It's that old canard again.

I will never tire of repeating this. I did show you a collection of objects, all from one place. You didn't like them because of one of your post hoc criteria ("not as good as mine nahnahnahnahnah").

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 35



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 5:56 PM 

I just didn't think your examples were very convincing. But please continue to post them when you think you have examples that would help explain your position better.


Whyte August


Posts: no

Reply: 36



PostPosted: May 29, 2005 6:54 PM 

MG #35

help explain your position better

My position? I have no position. Your position was that you needed to see examples of rocks that looked like mechanical objects to be convinced that ordinary rocks could look like other things. So I provided various examples, from *three* photos - the first I found on the web. And then I went back to the *first* photo I found and discovered even more "rocks that looked like other" things.
If my examples are unconvincing, think what that implies for your pix. Because I *clearly" see a cruse missile, a solar array, and a pig sniffing bricks. They are convincing simulacra.

I'm sorry if you can't see them, but then, some people have, like, a talent for sports and writing, and stuff and no talent for seeing things in earth rocks.

I just didn't think your examples were very convincing.

Why?

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 37



PostPosted: May 30, 2005 9:53 AM 

Take a look for yourself why I don't think your examples are very convincing.

Confused

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 38



PostPosted: May 30, 2005 10:05 AM 

Whyte August.

If you wish to find REAL GOOD EARTH EXAMPLES and proceed with valid comparisons, you should:

1. Post pictures in greyscale.
2. Stop kidding, as you obviously do not see such things in those rocks, but are just trying to rib those honest poeple who simply express their points of view.

So, such a contribution is not enjoined anymore.

PS: Find something similar to sushi rock (triangle feature included) and you'll get a prize.

newboy


Posts: no

Reply: 39



PostPosted: May 30, 2005 10:29 AM 

Marsgal,
I'm having difficulty taking you seriously. You're just having me on, right? Did you google the words I mentioned to have a look at a few images? Do you know the scale of the rocks in your image? Obviously you are incredibly lazy, as you sit back and lecture us all on how 'they can't be rocks', without bothering to provide any evidence other than saying: 'I don't agree'. Well that's convincing.
To be honest, most of us rock guys don't care what you think. Why? Because you haven't gone to the trouble of checking what we are saying so that you can tell us why we are wrong. We could have quite an interesting debate if you bothered but of course you prefer cheap shots. Which brings me back to my first point. You're only doing this to get a reaction.
Just in case there is a 1% chance you are actually interested in why we think these are rocks, here are 2 sites where similar rocks from Earth and the Moon are pictured.

[link]

MarsGal


Posts: no

Reply: 40



PostPosted: May 30, 2005 10:46 AM 

Is that your example of an earth rock that looks mechanical or manufactured?

I checked the link you posted and I didn't see much better.

You guys are making it too easy.

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 Next


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys