Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

Kannon · 2004-08-09 16:45:35

I haven't seen this website mentioned on this board so I thought I'd post it.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsind … rsindx.htm

I met this guy's assistant here in Orlando and she turned me on to it. The author seems to have a background in anthropology or something similiar and makes a very good argument for fossilized life on Mars. I have not verified the photos he uses are actual NASA/JPL photos. But this does not seem like a hoax. It's obvious he has spent a lot of time researching the photos and references them back to the JPL site.

Go http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsk.htm]here and click on the "my data" links to see his evidence of fossil organisms on Mars. When viewing the pictures move your mouse over them until you find a link. That link will take you to an explanation of that particular object in the photo.

He also has an interesting conspiracy theory on a cover up at NASA/JPL. Check it out http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK.htm]here and http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASASKIES.htm]here

My favorite is http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk009.htm]this one. Within a meter or so of each other there seems to be three different types of shells and a shark's tooth. Granted, rocks can form to look like all kinds of things but what are the chances of four rocks so close to each other naturally forming to look so similiar to sea life? The area this picture was taken in NASA has already said they believe it is the bottom of a dried up sea.

Check out the data and tell everyone what you think

atomoid · 2004-08-09 18:34:27

My favorite is http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk009.htm]this one. Within a meter or so of each other there seems to be three different types of shells and a shark's tooth. Granted, rocks can form to look like all kinds of things but what are the chances of four rocks so close to each other naturally forming to look so similiar to sea life? The area this picture was taken in NASA has already said they believe it is the bottom of a dried up sea.
Check out the data and tell everyone what you think

Thats a great site, Ive been following it for the last several months. He puts forth some interesting observations, sometimes in a more skeptical fashion than most fossil-fanatics out there. I sent him a description of one of my dubious "fossil finds" and he refuted it.

That sharks]http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk009.htm]sharks' tooth and snail shell image is actually http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1M1289 … JPG.html]a microscopic image that would barely fit a US penny across the whole field of view. Those shells and teeth are extremely small, not that that negates the fossil-origin argument, but as the first image of the soil that Oppy took, its intersting that we havent seen much more of these types features. This image has the best Martian snails shells ive ever seen.

RobS · 2004-08-09 23:29:30

Sorry, but I don't find any of this persuasive. It is easy to find something that looks like an urchin but has three arms instead of five and say Mars has sea urchins. This is a meaningless assertion because all it can call up for evidence is apparent similar appearance under limited imaging conditions. An astronaut walking around on the surface might not see any of these things as fossils. NASA scientists look for more persuasive evidence than this, evidence that is testable and verifiable.

Evidence of this sort is just like seeing the virgin Mary in the ghostly patterns on windows (or seeing the Hindu god Ganesh weeping milk, as has happened in several Hindu temples in the US recently), or seeing Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, flying saucers, and a dozen other pseudophenomena.

You want to see "fossils"? Go outside, stare at a slab of concrete, and connect together the bumps. You can probably also see faces in the concrete. It's like seeing patterns in the clouds.

-- RobS

lunarmark · 2004-08-10 05:25:25

I completley agree with Rob

I don't doubt that Nasa alter images, but for no other reason than presentation. Images dont arrive perfectly exposed and cropped, they need putting together contrast matching etc. even Raw images arrive as encoded data with a high reduncency factor.

As for Fossils, well, just because something looks a tiny bit like sea urchin in no way what ever makes it one. Some of those spherules look like candy, but I dont thing anyone assumes they would taste of strawberry.

humans see patterns in things, it's what has kept us alive for 10 million years, look at the moon on a clear night, is there really a face staring back at you... No!

It's a shame this guy doesnt spend more time constructivley studying the pictures rather than trying to claim they are falsified!

GraemeSkinner · 2004-08-11 06:00:43

It's a shame this guy doesnt spend more time constructivley studying the pictures rather than trying to claim they are falsified!

I have to agree with you on that, a constructive assessment of the images would have been far better than whats on the site at the moment. Some times it comes down to the fact that if you want to see something badly enough, you will see something (even if its not really there).

Graeme

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-09 16:45:35

Re: Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

#2 2004-08-09 18:34:27

Re: Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

#3 2004-08-09 23:29:30

Re: Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

#4 2004-08-10 05:25:25

Re: Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

#5 2004-08-11 06:00:43

Re: Fossils, Geysers and Ice - Fossil Organisms and the NASA/JPL Cover

Board footer