Egyptian Statue on Mars?

[fedr808]

Thats not a 2x4. any professional and amateur stage and set constructer can tell that.

I work on a tech crew for a theatre. 2x4's are perfectly smooth on either side unlike that rock which is rounded off on the top, also it has a lot more 3-d texture (like the kind of texture of tree bark). Also it is too thick to be a 2x4.

At the most id say it is a tree log that was split in half which could explain why it is rounded, the texture, the cut off sides, but it does not explain why they would use that on the set, and also the fact that the most efficient way to fake this is to make a computer simulated environment and that log would not be part of it.

 

[tuberculatious]

The ancient martian egyptians had everything, including electronic toothbrushes.....

Electric tooth brushes are the best invention since sliced bread.

 

[KernNeart]

Electric tooth brushes are the best invention since sliced bread.

Really?.. cause i thought it was the slinky.. (disappointment):bawl:

 

[Burada]

Really?.. cause i thought it was the slinky.. (disappointment):bawl:

The ancient martian slinky was one of their greatest technological achievements........It's still marvel even today, especially how it's able to navigate down a flight of stairs without any energy source.

 

[Orleander]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Badlands Guardian in Canada??

 

[Burada]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Badlands Guardian in Canada??

It looks a little like one of the Foster Farm chickens (before 'plumping').

 

[Orleander]

looks like a native american in headdress to me

 

[Burada]

looks like a native american in headdress to me

It looks like Sitting Bull to me..................

 

[Lord Vasago]

The're lifeforms on earth that survive in the most hostile places. These are called extremofiles. Creatures that survive in acid, without light, in freezing temperatures, without oxygen, in extreme hot places. Many scientists believe that if these extremofiles can survive here they can survive anywhere. Even Venus and Mars.

And what about lifeforms beyond our knowledge. Who's to say that there aren't creatures that are totally engergy based ???? We know allmost nothing about our own planet so what the hell could be know or even think we know about other planets????

 

[rpf_81]

There are possibilities... Cos we havent explored completely beyond our boundries

 

[Burada]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88561

Look like Mars had some ancient lakes and rivers after all in it's distant past..........That so-called piece of petrified driftwood in the Mars rover photo is beginning to look a little more like very ancient petrified Mar's driftwood, doesn't it?

http://news.yahoo.com/space/20090618/sc_space/evidencefoundforancientmarslake

 

[Orleander]

no, its rock. Plain old rock, not petrified plant
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/01/pining-for-mars/

 

[Ophiolite]

That so-called piece of petrified driftwood in the Mars rover photo is beginning to look a little more like very ancient petrified Mar's driftwood, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. the 'driftwood' continues to look like a rectangular section of bedrock with the same strike and dip of lineations as the adjacent bedrock and thus is shown to be an in situ outcrop of normal appearance and mundane origin.

 

[nietzschefan]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Badlands Guardian in Canada??

Been there.

I hate to admit it, I don't really believe a lot about what is released about Mars. Now they are admitting there was probably a lot of water on the planet. It's kinda like how doctors tell you something is good for you one year, then the next year it's bad. It just "feels" like total bullshit.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now they are admitting there was probably a lot of water on the planet.

There have always been two camps in regard to the amount of water on Mars in the distant past (definitely a lot, but the actual amount and the rate of loss have always been disputed) and at present (very little, or quite a lot preserved frozen at depth).

Simplified media reports may give the impression of inconsistency, but those two contrasting threads have been in place for decades. Why? Insufficient data to arrive at a firm conclusion. As we get more and more data the "warm, wet Mars in the past/much buried water today scenario" has become more solid.

This is just good science being applied in a frontier area. If you don't understand that, or can't be bothered to read the original research rather than absorb popular media interpretations, then that's a reflection on you, not on the science.

 

[Burada]

No it doesn't. the 'driftwood' continues to look like a rectangular section of bedrock with the same strike and dip of lineations as the adjacent bedrock and thus is shown to be an in situ outcrop of normal appearance and mundane origin.

Can we assume by your most recent post that Mars with it's very ancient so-called lakes/rivers produced no life at all (assuming you have the science and facts to prove it), including plants, various lifeforms of assorted types from the microscopic and up? Or is it to early to rule out the possibilility of even a humble piece of very ancient petrified driftwood that may have survived the eons since the ancient Mars wet period?

 

[Ophiolite]

Can we assume by your most recent post that Mars with it's very ancient so-called lakes/rivers produced no life at all

You can assume whatever you want. Making assumptions is not very scientific behaviour, but if you wish to indulge yourself, go ahead. There is certainly nothing in my post that gives any clue whatsoever as to my view on the possibility now, or in the past, of life on Mars.

What my post very clearly reveals is that I am skilled enough in the interpretation of photographs of geological features to be able to recognised a segment of bedrock lying in situ. We know there is bedrock at or close to the surface over much of the planet, so finding some here is hardly surprising and says nothing, either way about the possibility of life.

Or is it to early to rule out the possibilility of even a humble piece of very ancient petrified driftwood that may have survived the eons since the ancient Mars wet period?

If there were something here that was not so obviously part of the bedrock then you might look for alternative explanations for its character. Since it is so obviously, to the trained eye, part of the bedrock there is no need to consider alternative explanations. (I do not stand at the roadside, look at an approaching truckand think 'That might actually be an illusion brought about by refraction through a cloud of fine dust stirred up by the wind. It should be safe for me to step in front of it.)

Moreover, the possibility of trees developing on Mars are vanishingly remote for the following reason:
It took over four billions years for trees to evolve on Earth. On Mars the planet was effectively dead after one billion years. So there never were any trees on Mars.

For the record I strongly suspect that microscopic life does exist on Mars and that it was detected by experiments on the Viking landers, then ignored and explained away because of the ambiguous nature of data. Equally I would not be surprised to learn that this was not the case. My mind is open on the issue, I merely lean in one direction until the data are clearer.

That, however, is a long way from deluding yourself with the fantasy of high speed evolution generating trees in two or three hundred million years from scratch and compounding it with an amateurish misinterpretation of some simple geology.

 

[Burada]

You can assume whatever you want. Making assumptions is not very scientific behaviour, but if you wish to indulge yourself, go ahead. There is certainly nothing in my post that gives any clue whatsoever as to my view on the possibility now, or in the past, of life on Mars.

What my post very clearly reveals is that I am skilled enough in the interpretation of photographs of geological features to be able to recognised a segment of bedrock lying in situ. We know there is bedrock at or close to the surface over much of the planet, so finding some here is hardly surprising and says nothing, either way about the possibility of life.

If there were something here that was not so obviously part of the bedrock then you might look for alternative explanations for its character. Since it is so obviously, to the trained eye, part of the bedrock there is no need to consider alternative explanations. (I do not stand at the roadside, look at an approaching truckand think 'That might actually be an illusion brought about by refraction through a cloud of fine dust stirred up by the wind. It should be safe for me to step in front of it.)

Moreover, the possibility of trees developing on Mars are vanishingly remote for the following reason:
It took over four billions years for trees to evolve on Earth. On Mars the planet was effectively dead after one billion years. So there never were any trees on Mars.

For the record I strongly suspect that microscopic life does exist on Mars and that it was detected by experiments on the Viking landers, then ignored and explained away because of the ambiguous nature of data. Equally I would not be surprised to learn that this was not the case. My mind is open on the issue, I merely lean in one direction until the data are clearer.

That, however, is a long way from deluding yourself with the fantasy of high speed evolution generating trees in two or three hundred million years from scratch and compounding it with an amateurish misinterpretation of some simple geology.

Sorry, ancient petrified wood or not, you'll have to do better than that to discourage the fact that Mars may have had some ancient life forms (microscopic or otherwise) that evolved during it's wet period.

 

[Stryder]

Sorry, ancient petrified wood or not, you'll have to do better than that to discourage the fact that Mars may have had some ancient life forms (microscopic or otherwise) that evolved during it's wet period.

Reminds me of the "Can't see the Forest for the Tree's" saying. Let's nurture the fantasy that it was a petrified piece of wood, you'd then have to ask to the question "Why only a piece of wood, was there only one tree?"

I know in the North sea (North of the English Channel) they've had fossilised tree stumps found in the past from when it use to be just a river with forests. Wouldn't Mar's have fossilised tree stumps too?

As for micro-organisms, if they existed there would be the potential of oil. But I'm pretty sure the landers would have taken soil samples and used microscopes to look for either living organisms or fossilised remains. Since there has been no public announcements on the subject, it would suggest they either didn't build that sort of equipment into the landers or there was nothing found of significance in regards to lifeforms or evidence there has ever been life.

 

[Orleander]

Sorry, ancient petrified wood or not, you'll have to do better than that to discourage the fact that Mars may have had some ancient life forms (microscopic or otherwise) that evolved during it's wet period.

may have had? Well, they may have had an entire civilizations that packed up and moved to Earth, right. Can you discourage that fact??