It's a Rock III - Page 2

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 Next
Author Message
ups


Posts: 992

Reply: 21



PostPosted: June 13, 2005 6:06 PM 

It looks a lot different than most of what we have seen so far.
_______________

In what way does 'it' look different from the 'things' we have seen so far?

If you want to be taken seriously you must learn to be specific.

---ups

Hynee


Posts: 200

Reply: 22



PostPosted: June 13, 2005 6:14 PM 

You can say shit? That's fantastic news! I'll be using it heaps from now on. For instance, "How can you deny that this is not shit?" Then I'll deftly move between claiming that it is evidence of biology, technological stuff, and just nothing at all.

Anyhoo, I haven't killed anything off, you believe it is a skull, put it in a catalogue, and then we'll see if we can see any common features etc. So far I'm convinced that all these anomoly claims are just random rocks that fit into vague categories, with no common features between them, other than generic three holes==skull sort of things.

LWS


Posts: 3062

Reply: 23



PostPosted: June 13, 2005 9:59 PM 

Hi favonio

I wasn't referring to the pig's head rock at reply #0 in my reply #17. I was referring to your demonstration of fmr's own words in your post.

As far as the rock is concerned. It looks like a pig's head but I can't say if it is or is not one. Imo, it is probably a rock shaped like a pig's head as I can think of no good reason why a fossil of a pig's head from Earth should be at Gusev.

When Spirit started its exploration, I was also looking for artifacts on the surface that might provide evidence of a past civilization or of an existing below ground culture that could have downed the Russian Phobos spacecraft. None were forthcoming.

However, I did see some small car-like objects, an extremely tiny and perfectly formed vertebra and also a perfectly formed, bilaterally symmetrical and very small helmet looking almost exactly like a Darth Vader's helmet. I still have a crop of that helmet which I've posted a few places but no one has ever commented on it. However, If those objects were real artifacts they would have to be of a sub-lilliputian civilisation.

There are several anomalous looking rocks, some of which you have highlighted in your posts that beg for an explanation, but none that I could opine was a smoking gun Earthlike fossil or artifact that would suggest the current or past existence of an earthlike humanoid civilization on mars.

Current life is another matter.

Winston

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 24



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 2:38 AM 

As far as the rock is concerned. It looks like a pig's head but I can't say if it is or is not one. Imo, it is probably a rock shaped like a pig's head as I can think of no good reason why a fossil of a pig's head from Earth should be at Gusev

Winston, you are hijacking the main question under a ridicolous light...

Earth's pigs... Keep on stating that stupid things.

Why can't it be a skull of an ancient native martian animal?

Doug Ellison


Posts: 1077

Reply: 25



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 6:32 AM 

Just to further the case for geological origins of odd looking rocks, the excellent work done by the mars analogue bases gets documented very well..

They've found some fantastic rocks that cant POSSIBLY be natural Wink


CLEARLY a monkey skull..oops..no..it's just, well, a rock Smile


Eye sockets of a 12 eyes mars monster..oops, nope, wind errosion


WOW - To me this can not be natural, thats a brick from an ancient mars base on the left....or...no, just a rock.

WOW - THIS IS CLEARLY NOT NATURAL -(insert pink lines where ever you want them really )

See - lots of very odd very unusual rocks that, actually - look far more unusual than ANYTHING any of the hoaglanderati have pointed out, right there on earth, from geological origin - actually found by people pretending to be on mars (I like the poetic justice)

Doug

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 26



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 6:57 AM 

Doug, why can't it be a skull of an ancient native martian animal?

I pose that question, you're simply ignoring it.

Doug Ellison


Posts: 1077

Reply: 27



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 7:15 AM 

Why cant it be a skull?
Primary reason - it looks like a rock, not a skull. It's the same colour as surrounding rocks, it has rock like features. Why cant the glass on my desk be a small dog called Borris? It looks like a glass, not a dog.

Let us suppose, however, that there was a species of animal - something around the size of a cow? What did the cow survive on, clearly a very large, complex, verbose food chain involved in the sustainance of an animal of that size, billions of years of evolution to get to a situation like that - and the remaining evidence is a rock?

Simplest solution is often the right one - are we to assume there's a rock on the surface, or a long lost species of massive animals, for which there is no evidence save for a skull which, given the millions of years it must have been lying there - would be long erroded to dust.

Ask me this one - how CAN it be a skull of a long lost martian species? Look at all the variety and odd-ness that normal geological process can generate in rocks. This sort of thing is ORDINARY - yet you use it to make unfounded extraordinary claims.

Doug

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 28



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 7:33 AM 

It's the same colour as surrounding rocks

Your assumption, it is a greys scale.

it has rock like features

Your opinion, as the front part of the object presents a "three-pointed" and symmetrical feature, unusual for rocks but not for biological skeletons.

Why cant the glass on my desk be a small dog called Borris? It looks like a glass, not a dog.

By such statements you demonstrate very very bad reasoning. Avoid it please.

Simplest solution is often the right one

Why an animal skull is a complex solution, as everything concerning such an hypothesis is POSSIBLE, Doug? Isn't it complex for you only?

how CAN it be a skull of a long lost martian species

Why don't you understand? It can be a skull, and it can be a rock. I just want you to admit that it is logical to assert that it can be a skull.
We are doing the same thing, that is looking at the same picture.
So, as it looks like a skull, why can't it be a skull indeed, Doug?

yet you use it to make unfounded extraordinary claims
NEVER SAID THAT IT IS A SKULL!
I'm just saying that it CAN be a skull.
Liar.

Do you agree with what I've said in this reply?

Doug Ellison


Posts: 1077

Reply: 29



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 7:47 AM 

No, I do NOT think that it can be a skull. The implications are so wide reaching and far fetched as to be not worth considering.

And please, stop with the "I didnt say it was a..." bullshit, we all know what you're TRYING to say, without actually saying it. It's quite pathetic.

Doug

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 30



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 7:58 AM 

The implications are so wide reaching and far fetched as to be not worth considering.

You are elusive and absolutely not scentific.
Explain what do you mean with "implications wide reaching and far fetched".

And Doug Ellison, understand this once for all:
I just say that it can be a rock, but that it can be a skull too. NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING.

Reply please.


OH MAN I ADMIT THAT IT CAN BE A ROCK!!! I'M NOT SURE AT ALL!
Why do you keep on infaming me that way?

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 31



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:02 AM 

Ah, ah...
The last two lines are from a previous version of the post, please ignore it. Laughing

Doug Ellison


Posts: 1077

Reply: 32



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:21 AM 

"Reply please."

YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT IT CAN BE A SKULL.

THAT IS A CLAIM

Now, please substantiate your claim with evidence.

Doug

Daniel


Posts: 991

Reply: 33



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:29 AM 

...and of course there is the obvious reason why we should be suspicious of "fossils" on the surface of Mars. Fossils are usually formed in some other matrix - the organic bits replaced with inorganic materials. As far as I've ever seen, fossils only appear on the surface once they have weathered out - usually thanks to flowing water... something that has been missing from Mars for billions of years...

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong here? Any examples of wind alone exposing buried fossils on Earth? And even then - aren't they usually still at least partially surrounded by the material that surrounded the fossil in the first place?

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 34



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:38 AM 

usually thanks to flowing water... something that has been missing from Mars for billions of years...
_____________________________________________
I like that sureness. Why does he assert billions of years have passed since the last flowing water on particular Mars areas?
I need the geological evidence.

And even if billions of years have passed indeed, why can't it be a skull fossil?

---------------------------------------------

Doug you got "altered" a bit.
IT CAN BE A SKULL; it is logical.
And you have yet to tell me why it can't.
Isn't logic enough in order to claim something?
So, why can't it be a skull, Doug?

They're Rocks


Posts: no

Reply: 35



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:47 AM 

*Yawn* Same old crap here, i see.

It can't be a skull because it's a rock.

And I see you still don't know what ad hominem means. That's truly pathetic, considering you use it all the time; it's an invalid logical tactic; and on many boards, you would be banned for using it -- as you should be banned on this one.

Doug Ellison


Posts: 1077

Reply: 36



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:51 AM 

It cant be a skull for the same reason that this desk cant be an ancient aztec civilisation. It isnt one.

My mug isnt a 4 bedroom house in Cheshire, because it's a mug.

That 'skull' isnt a skull, because it is a rock.

How CAN it be a skull. Demonstrate to me what possible line of evidence might possibly suggest, that maybe, it might, possibly be a skull. Use science, use fact, use evidence.

Do not use "it looks like a skull" because it simply does not.

In a similar vein tell me why the rock bottom left of this image - - cant be a small shark curled up? It's got a mouth, it's got a nose, it's got a curve like a shark. On YOUR reasoning, it could actually be a small shark.

Doug

Daniel


Posts: 991

Reply: 37



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 8:54 AM 

uh... the evidence has been collected by the rovers themselves. One of the conclusions of Spirit has been that the plains were not formed by exposure to water. The age of the plains have already been established in the order of billions of years. There are published papers on this, if you feel like reading.

Why can't it be a skull fossil

Could it be a skull fossil? Sure. But on the other hand, why should it be thought of as a skull fossil? It is one possibility out of an infinite number. Why are you picking out fossil skull as a valid interpretation, when there are an infinite number of other ones?
Why couldn't it be a pencil sharpener, an angel's wing, a neutron star core, my great-great-great-great-grandson's term paper in 22nd century history, or something else entirely?

There is no logic behind picking out skull as the proper interpretation, when there are so many others to choose from. And logic is part of reasoning, not its master. Evidence trumps logic. And so far there is no evidence presented that would suggest a conclusion other than "rock".

Favonio


Posts: no

Reply: 38



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 9:15 AM 

It can't be a skull because it's a rock.

That 'skull' isnt a skull, because it is a rock.

Do not use "it looks like a skull" because it simply does not.

Why couldn't it be a pencil sharpener, an angel's wing, a neutron star core, my great-great-great-great-grandson's term paper in 22nd century history, or something else entirely?

Please, is really no one outraged by these guys?
Isn't there any logic in this acclaimed Open Mars Forum?

I am really really sad for I'm not having a conversation with reasoning minds.

They're Rocks


Posts: no

Reply: 39



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 9:19 AM 

I am really really sad for I'm not having a conversation with reasoning minds.

Oh, the irony...

Say, have you looked up "ad hominem" yet?

Daniel


Posts: 991

Reply: 40



PostPosted: June 14, 2005 9:20 AM 

I am really really sad for I'm not having a conversation with reasoning minds.

Is this your acclaimed logic? Attacking the messenger, instead of the message? There is no CONTENT in post 38. Go back and explain why my suppositions are wrong. I notice that for all your RAGING, you often have little more than emotion to explain yourself.

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