I am posting anomalies from Mars, the which I believe to be more obvious evidentiary PROOF that LIFE EXISTS ON Mars RIGHT NOW!!!
These four similar/same life-forms have been found in 3 different places, by 2 different Rovers. I have attached a "four-plex" photo which shows all four of these life-forms, with specific details for each.
#1 and #2 life-forms I found in September 2011, on the ground, at Concepcion' Crater, Rover Opportunity Sol day 2138, 2140, and other days.
#3 life-form I found in October 2011, on the ground, at the Nautilus Crater, Rover Opportunity Sol day 2011.
#4 life-form I found in September 2013, in the air, Rover Curiosity Sol day 120. Yes, I said "in the air"!!
So, three of these are on the ground, and one is flying. From the time I first found #1 & #2, I thought these were bird-like, because I could see what looked like quills of feathers on the visible front leg of #1. I also noticed how tiny the "lower part" of the rear legs are on #2 and #3. These legs certainly aren't made to hold much weight. Also, notice how wide the front leg areas are on #'s 1, 2, & 3. I assumed that was because #2 & #3 likely had front-leg features same as #1 - Quills of feathers!
One can see that #4 is "in the air", as its shadow is obvious, even from the original no-mag photo. #4 "facial features" are similar/same as the others, and the shadow depicts the same facial shape (squarish nose area). Also, whatever these life-forms are, they do appear to have ears, and the shadow of #4 show us its left ear.
All four are magnified significantly. All of these are likely very small creatures, as we can see in the original photos. For clarity and interest, #4 flyer is in the same area of Rover Curiosity Sol 120 as is the bird that I recently posted. I am posting a screenshot of the original Sol 120 pic that shows them both in the same general area.
Doncha think that there is probably water somewhere around here, on the surface, for these life-forms to exist?? :)
http://www.nivnac.co.uk/mer/images/B2140_Concepcion_full.jpg
http://www.nivnac.co.uk/mer/images/B2011_nautilus_full.jpg
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA16700_fig1.jpg
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10008/Species_MAG_Four-Plex_w_Descriptions-_Screen_shot_2013-11-03_at_4_18_48_PM.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10008/2_1_-_Smaller_Flyer___M_rs_Birdie_w_Locarers_-_Screen_shot_2013-11-11_at_2_47_59_PM.jpg)
Well, I posted this yesterday - a slow Veteran's day on the forum. While a only few have viewed this post, there have been no replies.
By this reply, I am making it available again, in case some might have missed seeing it. I know there are very few active anomaly researchers here anyway, but I also know that there are some folks here who do have an interest in the subject of "life" elsewhere. This is just one more example that there is much evidence of life on Mars!!
Ok, ya got 21 posts and no replies. I think what your missing here is some kind of workup of what you see and then put them side by side or gif them. If you just present something thet looks like a rock, no will touch it. The floating rock, Can you seperate them, does it make sence then? Can you draw outlines of what you see to show it better?
Seeing life where others see rocks and shadows puts you in instant defence mode. You either have to step way out on that perverbial limb next to the break point or just get what you get. I suggest better workups and more drawings to back up your thoughts. If you don't have the tools, get them, Most everything you need can be found on the net for free. Even paint comes with your computer.
Gif programs can be found for free, I use Falco. Learn Gimp if you don't have PShop. It is free. I think the zoom function is clearer in Gimp. We have tested that. If all fails then at least you are a better researcher and have more tools at hand... I love tools and when they are free I love them better. lol
Maybe start a Rdunk Mars Research Thread of your own and keep all the files in one place instead of 100 threads.
Your dedication shows. Your presentation needs work at a higher level. If you don't know how, there are many people here who can help you out. Say even if you were to place a piece of tracing paper over your screen, draw what you see, then remove it and fill in the details, even color it with colored pencils then snaped a photo with a phone or scanned it, then sized it and either placed it next to the original or mage a gif. That would be great. My local paper store will do a scan for 2 rmb and put it to my usb. About 30 cents. I now have my own scanner but I used him for years. 30 cents vs 100 bucks.
Lay that monitor down flat to work it if you have too.
If I have time latter I will try the M'rs Birdie that way.
Deuem
Thanks Deuem, don't worry about it. Regardless of what one does, those that are really interested in anomalies usually see them, and those that aren't, and the skeptics of course, don't see them.
Three of the four creatures in this post are abut as clear as can be with the elements of the original photos. The fourth is a bit of stretch for some anyway, but no one should have any trouble recognizing that whatever that object might be, it is "off-the=ground". But in any case, the first three are enough to confirm the Martian species anyway!
I do appreciate your advice, but right now I will stick with the raw photo data with the anomalies, and that way I don't have any changes to defend if I did otherwise. :)
Actually, I posted this same anomaly post on Facebook's Alien Life......Group site a week or two ago, and most commenters saw these creatures right away, just as they are. They are pretty odd, and it is obvious they are not rocks!! I certainly will admit that without seeing these three "move", no way to prove they are not constructed statues! But the flyer, well that is different!! :)
Again deueum, thanks for the helpful thoughts!!
I was also thinking that I had the originals and founs a M'rs Birdie in a photo and the boss said get rid of it, What would I do. If I errase it is shows like a sore thumb so my best option is to make it look rockish. Make sence? Then sit back and watch what people write and do better next time.
How many probes have been sent to Mars? If it was ROCK Dead they why all the money spent. They are after something for Sure.
deuem
Some of the thought probably has been, "well, with mars 50 + - million miles away, who is going to know the difference in our lifetime"? One thing for sure, there is no way to vacuum the whole planet of the evidence, before some get there.
There have been 20 different spacecraft sent to Mars that we know of, including the Rovers (3), the 2001 Mars Odyssey, Dawn, the Mariners (3), Mars Express, Mars Climate Orbiter, The Global Surveyor Orbiter, The Pathfinder Lander, the Pathfinder Rover, The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the Mars Science Laboratory, Phoenix Mars Lander, and 4 Vikings.
I expect that all of the Rovers have gone to where they went, for very specific reason and purpose, on the basis of what other spacecraft had clearly found. I expect there has been a long term Mars plan in place, likely being executed in the "Black" world!
Quote from: rdunk on November 13, 2013, 03:49:05 AM
Regardless of what one does, those that are really interested in anomalies usually see them, and those that aren't, and the skeptics of course, don't see them.
I disagree, I'm interested, and I have no reason to be biased on the subject... But all I see are rocks.
Do the whole 'yellow' highlight thing, it may help us blind folk.
QuoteThree of the four creatures in this post are abut as clear as can
Mehh.
QuoteI do appreciate your advice, but right now I will stick with the raw photo data with the anomalies, and that way I don't have any changes to defend if I did otherwise. :)
And we've nothing to comment on...
This is where the rovers SHOULD land.
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/3-115-68deg-150-closer_zps90eb685f.jpg)
Instead they land (or do they?) in a barren desert, that could easily be any remote desert on earth. and could well be for all we know. im sure
if they landed in the heavily forested area as shown above there would be life all over to observe.
Dont despair Rdunk, keep it up mate.
Elvis.
Facebook and peggy are 2 different animals, FB has millions of members we have a thousand. With millions they tend to find people with like interests, here you have many interests. Your call......Besides if you're looking for a larger audience then you need to figure out what the new needs are....I would do my best to step it up, even the FB people should love that.
Deuem
Love the woods Elvis....
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on November 13, 2013, 10:11:42 AM
if they landed in the heavily forested area as shown above there would be life all over to observe.
That's no forested area, those are the marks left by the (supposed) CO2 "geysers". A closer look shows that there are no shadows, those are flat features.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 13, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
That's no forested area, those are the marks left by the (supposed) CO2 "geysers". A closer look shows that there are no shadows, those are flat features.
Armap with respect i just dont buy that at all.
Just because NASA tells us that, dosnt mean shyte to me.
If it looks like a tree, its probably a tree.
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm228/stem50/MARS-MarsLakesandTrees.jpg)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm228/stem50/Mars_Trees_02-1.jpg)
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/mtrees3_zpse97abffa.jpg)
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/images/E07/E0701717.html
I think the joint Decisions thread is spilling it's THC over here.
A casual observation.... Those do look like tree's lmafo!
I think I will make a thread about those "forests". :)
Now, back on topic, one question to rdunk: what characteristics do you see on those photos that make you think those are living creatures?
Quote from: ArMaP on November 14, 2013, 12:37:10 AM
I think I will make a thread about those "forests". :)
Now, back on topic, one question to rdunk: what characteristics do you see on those photos that make you think those are living creatures?
ArMaP, now you will have to admit - "making a thread" would be a little unusual for you!! I am all for it!!
Question - What characteristics do you see on those photos that make you think those are living creatures?
#1, 2, and 3, have no rock appearance to begin with. They each have common similar features. All three have two rear legs, head and facial features. I described the common feature of the wide front leg area - only #1 front leg area is visible enough to see what look like quills of feathers. #2 seems to be looking directly at the camera. One can see the squarish mouth.nose area on #2 and 3. #1,2, 3, and 4 bodies all seem to be roughly covered with some type of surface "fluff".
#3 is certainly the most clearly visible in the ninvac photos. Obviously the same species as #1 and 2. One can even see the knob on #2's nose
I did not put locater circles around these in the posted photos, because they are so obvious in each of the screenshots. Their color is darker than most of the rocks around there, and their features are generally common with each other.
However, I did comment that without #1,2, and 3 moving, there is nothing to cause distinction from a statue. It is #4 which more definition to the "alive" possibility. Its shadow even shows the squarish mouth/nose of the others, and a left ear point in the shadow.
For anyone interested, go to the OP links, and bring these into the best view you can get, just for kicks. Magnification is a must.
I can't rule out statues for 1/2/3, because Concepcion and Nautilis craters have some indications as being places of burial, which might include statues.
Quote from: rdunk on November 14, 2013, 03:09:29 AM
ArMaP, now you will have to admit - "making a thread" would be a little unusual for you!! I am all for it!!
It's true, I never know how to start, so I never start. This time I think I should. :)
Quote#1, 2, and 3, have no rock appearance to begin with.
That's debatable, I don't see any thing that is not possible (or common) in rocks.
QuoteThey each have common similar features.
I agree with that, now you just need to show that at least one is alive. :)
QuoteAll three have two rear legs, head and facial features.
Are you 100% sure that what you see as legs isn't part of the ground or a brighter rock in front of the "living species"?
QuoteI described the common feature of the wide front leg area - only #1 front leg area is visible enough to see what look like quills of feathers. #2 seems to be looking directly at the camera. One can see the squarish mouth.nose area on #2 and 3.
One can see a mouth and eyes in just some pixels, like this :) but it's not a living creature, just something that makes us think of one.
Quote#1,2, 3, and 4 bodies all seem to be roughly covered with some type of surface "fluff".
Don't the other rocks have the same type of surface "fluff" (whatever that may mean)?
Quote#3 is certainly the most clearly visible in the ninvac photos.
What's a "ninvac"? ???
QuoteI did not put locater circles around these in the posted photos, because they are so obvious in each of the screenshots. Their color is darker than most of the rocks around there, and their features are generally common with each other.
The "features" are visible, I don't have any problem seeing them, but, just because they remind me of something it doesn't mean that they are what my imagination tells me.
QuoteHowever, I did comment that without #1,2, and 3 moving, there is nothing to cause distinction from a statue. It is #4 which more definition to the "alive" possibility. Its shadow even shows the squarish mouth/nose of the others, and a left ear point in the shadow.
I don't think that what you call the "shadow" is really a shadow, to me it looks more like another rock, a shadow does not have the area closer to the light darker than the rest.
QuoteFor anyone interested, go to the OP links, and bring these into the best view you can get, just for kicks.
I will look for the originals instead, the closer to the source the better, specially when working with JPGs.
QuoteMagnification is a must.
Obviously, haven't you noticed that all of the "animals" found on Mars are not close to the camera and/or small? It's the lack of detail (with the help of JPEG compression) that makes our brains see things in a different way.
QuoteI can't rule out statues for 1/2/3, because Concepcion and Nautilis craters have some indications as being places of burial, which might include statues.
But you rule out rocks?
I couldn't find the "flying" one, but here are the best images I could find of the other three.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/9987/l1d4.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img28/4586/yjd9.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img46/2212/ivev.png)
PS: the colours look messed up because these images are made with photos from the infrared, green and violet filters instead of the orange, green and blue that are usually used.
Thanks ArMaP! for me, some of the original frame black and white "raw images" are more seeable that those you have posted. Here is the B&W #3, and it seems more clear to me that that which you posted - I have to post a link for it, as right now I cannot post the pic.
If you "really" want to see this creature, you need to magnify it a little.
Re your comments, it is one thing to look at a cloud and see it as some familiar object, but, there is very little about these creatures that look familiar, nor like rocks!
AmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.
And, if you can find it the un-magnified photo, you will still see it just as it is here, just a lot smaller! I can't post any more pics right now, or I would post another pic of #4 again. He/she is a cool looking creature - very similar to the others!!
Quote from: rdunk on November 15, 2013, 02:49:58 AM
Thanks ArMaP! for me, some of the original frame black and white "raw images" are more seeable that those you have posted. Here is the B&W #3, and it seems more clear to me that that which you posted - I have to post a link for it, as right now I cannot post the pic.
I made those colour images myself with the greyscale photos, I can post them all. :)
QuoteIf you "really" want to see this creature, you need to magnify it a little.
I see the "creatures", no need for resizing, and I guess that's the problem, you want to see creatures instead of wanting to understand what is there, so you see them as creatures.
QuoteRe your comments, it is one thing to look at a cloud and see it as some familiar object, but, there is very little about these creatures that look familiar, nor like rocks!
OK.
QuoteAmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.
I don't think that I am the one "stretching it" when I see it as a rock instead of a shadow.
A shadow only make things darker, it doesn't change the colours and it's not darker in some places than others, a shadow covers an area with an uniform shade.
QuoteAnd, if you can find it the un-magnified photo, you will still see it just as it is here, just a lot smaller! I can't post any more pics right now, or I would post another pic of #4 again. He/she is a cool looking creature - very similar to the others!!
I'm still trying to find a better version of the photo, but without any reference it's difficult.
QuoteA shadow only make things darker, it doesn't change the colours and it's not darker in some places than others, a shadow covers an area with an uniform shade.
I think you might want to reword this. In RGB [what we are looking at on our screens] a shadow will change the RGB values, that is why it is darker. So the colors do change. [tech wise] We are not really looking at a shadow per say but an RGB make up of one.
I would think that it depends on what is causing the shadow if it is exactly the same or uniform. A stained glass window will create a shadow. What about a piece of gause. It will cause a dark light pattern. And so on.....
Shadows are very tricky and almost have to be looked at one at a time as to what is causing them.
The strange thing about this one Flying creature shadow is you both say it is a shadow But what caused it is really the question..
deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 15, 2013, 10:55:44 AM
I think you might want to reword this. In RGB [what we are looking at on our screens] a shadow will change the RGB values, that is why it is darker. So the colors do change. [tech wise] We are not really looking at a shadow per say but an RGB make up of one.
The RGB values change but the colour (hue) does not. When I said that the colours do not change is that an yellow ground doesn't turn into brown or orange, it turns into dark yellow.
QuoteI would think that it depends on what is causing the shadow if it is exactly the same or uniform. A stained glass window will create a shadow. What about a piece of gause. It will cause a dark light pattern. And so on.....
That's true, but we are not talking about translucent rocks or living creatures, we are talking about something that looks opaque.
QuoteThe strange thing about this one Flying creature shadow is you both say it is a shadow But what caused it is really the question..
No, I am not saying that this is a shadow, I am saying that's a different rock, with the side facing the camera not getting any direct light.
QuoteThe RGB values change but the colour (hue) does not. When I said that the colours do not change is that an yellow ground doesn't turn into brown or orange, it turns into dark yellow.
So if I have a yellow surface and the shadow is 100% black your saying that the hue does not change? If it is a faint shadow like a cloud OK, but a rock shadow on Mars or the Moon should be close to black and the hue changes. So ? ETA: If the yellow was pure yellow Your right it would stay yellow until it hit 100% and turned black. But depending on what color yellow you started with it might go through several color hues to get to black. The possibilities are countless.
QuoteNo, I am not saying that this is a shadow, I am saying that's a different rock, with the side facing the camera not getting any direct light.
Ok, he says a flying birds shadow, you say a rock in the shade. I will but that, they are 2 different things, Shadow and non lit. One is a product of light the other is no light. I agree...
An overhang will give you a shadow, A cave will give you no light.
Deuem
Quote from: rdunk on November 15, 2013, 02:49:58 AM
AmArP. now you seem to be stretching it a little to say that what is below the "flying whatever-it-is" is not "whatever-it-is's" shadow!! That is one of the most obvious shadows I have ever seen, and is visible proof that this "creature" is off the ground.
That second shadow is from the thin crescent shaped rock in front of the so-called "flying" rock. The face of the crescent rock is turned away from the camera leaving the flat part twords us obscured in that shadow. You'll also notice the crescent rocks shadow is a different size than the "flying" rock.
Quote from: WarToad on November 15, 2013, 06:11:25 PM
That second shadow is from the thin crescent shaped rock in front of the so-called "flying" rock. The face of the crescent rock is turned away from the camera leaving the flat part twords us obscured in that shadow. You'll also notice the crescent rocks shadow is a different size than the "flying" rock.
Of course there is no gain in debating the seeing of rock vs shadow. As I said, to me, the shadow is quite obvious. :)
Hi wartoad! Concerning the size of the shadow being different - it should be different/shorter than the flying creature because........the flyer is tilted upward. Thus, the length of any shadow cast by overhead sunlight would be reduced proportionally to the # of degrees the creature is "nose-up"!
If one believes the dark place on the ground is a rock, isn't it interesting that the dark place on the ground seems to match vertically the features of what looks like a flyer?
For you that remain skeptical about these 4 "objects" not depicting life, how many of these would it take to begin to give you some feeling of maybe this is a "species"? 1 more? 2 more? 5 more? 10 more? 100 more? ;)
Quote from: deuem on November 15, 2013, 02:28:06 PM
So if I have a yellow surface and the shadow is 100% black your saying that the hue does not change?
No, I'm not saying that, as a 100% black shadow would make everything black, obviously.
QuoteIf it is a faint shadow like a cloud OK, but a rock shadow on Mars or the Moon should be close to black and the hue changes.
Why should a shadow of a rock on Mars or the Moon be close to black? ???
QuoteIf the yellow was pure yellow Your right it would stay yellow until it hit 100% and turned black. But depending on what color yellow you started with it might go through several color hues to get to black. The possibilities are countless.
Open you favourite image processing program and go to the colour selection. Pick one colour and change its brightness. Look at the HSV or HSL values, does the H (hue) value change?
QuoteAn overhang will give you a shadow, A cave will give you no light.
Sorry about the confusion, in Portuguese there is only one word for "shade" or "shadow", "sombra", so I have some trouble finding the right way of expressing what I am thinking about, that's why I talked about not getting direct light, I don't know how to say what I am thinking.
Quote from: rdunk on November 15, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
For you that remain skeptical about these 4 "objects" not depicting life, how many of these would it take to begin to give you some feeling of maybe this is a "species"?
Of these? Looking like rocks? Only if I would see some signs of them being living creatures, as long as they look like rocks and do not show any sign of being alive I will not think they are a living creature.
If you present some photo that shows clear, unambiguous signs of being a living creature, one photo is enough, disregarding the possibility of being fake, obviously.
QuoteSorry about the confusion, in Portuguese there is only one word for "shade" or "shadow", "sombra", so I have some trouble finding the right way of expressing what I am thinking about, that's why I talked about not getting direct light, I don't know how to say what I am thinking.
Ok Call the gubermint and have them add a new word, because one is a result and the other the lack of. We seem to get into this debate often, now we know why. They are different and I think you agree. They even process different for me.
Quote from: deuem on November 16, 2013, 12:34:41 AM
Ok Call the gubermint and have them add a new word, because one is a result and the other the lack of.
No, thanks, we had the last change a few years ago and people are still trying to learn how to follow the new rules (yes, we have official rules for how to write).
QuoteWe seem to get into this debate often, now we know why. They are different and I think you agree. They even process different for me.
That's the problem of using different languages, some languages have more words for some things than for others. For example, in English there are several words for small water streams, in Portuguese we have only two.
I finally found the "floating" rock photo. :)
Here it is, first in the non-adjusted version (all channels from 0 to 255).
(Click for full size PNG version)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/3683/h3rq.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img841/3871/fj57.png)
This is the "stretched" version, in which the values for red, green and blue are taken and stretched through the available range of 0 to 255.
(Click for full size PNG version)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img811/4340/yxen.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/a/img706/8769/5rev.png)
In both images is visible that the "floating" rock is in contact with the ground and has a shadow. That was also visible in the image posted in the opening post, but not as clearl.
ArMaP, all I can say is, I see a lot of rocks in these pics, and none of what I see as "rocks, have a shadow under them like this one does, that matches its general shape. We see different things here obviously.
But of course, your eyes/brain never sees anomalies as anything but rocks, irregardless of its "pose and resolution" to the camera photo!! :)) ~~~~~don't mean that in a disrespectful way, just stating the fact of my experience with you here and at ATS. I do appreciate your "polite approach" to skeptical contribution but....................your eyesight is soooooooooooooooo bad, according to what you say you see!!! :))
Quote from: rdunk on November 18, 2013, 01:02:36 AM
ArMaP, all I can say is, I see a lot of rocks in these pics, and none of what I see as "rocks, have a shadow under them like this one does, that matches its general shape.
A shadow is not supposed to match the general shape of the object projecting it, the shadow is supposed to be a projection of the object on the surface where the shadow is cast. That's why you can look at a cylinder from the side, seeing a rectangle, and the shadow, being projected from top to bottom, looking like a circle.
QuoteWe see different things here obviously.
Obviously, but I noticed you didn't mention the shadow visible under the rock you say is floating or flying, as pointed in the image below. What do you have to say about it?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img812/3310/b8i3.jpg)
QuoteBut of course, your eyes/brain never sees anomalies as anything but rocks, irregardless of its "pose and resolution" to the camera photo!! :))
Or maybe it's because I like rocks and I am used to look at rocks. Or because I am used to look at and work with digital images and have a well calibrated monitor. Or because I am used to work with perspective and projections.
Quote~~~~~don't mean that in a disrespectful way, just stating the fact of my experience with you here and at ATS.
Your experience is a fact, your opinion about me is not, it's just an opinion. :)
QuoteI do appreciate your "polite approach" to skeptical contribution but....................your eyesight is soooooooooooooooo bad, according to what you say you see!!! :))
Well, I don't think that your approach in this post is polite, implying that those that do not see things as you do have some problem.
It looks like you may end like those people that see faces and buildings in all photos from Mars, the Moon or even of their lawn (I know two cases of people like this, one even saw some buildings in a photo of a fried slice of bread). ;)
Thanks ArMaP! You make my point better than did I!
If it is floating then the shadow arrow would be shade and add another arrow for shadow.
If you blink your eyes fast it floats, If I stare with wide open eyes it turns to a rock.
It depends on how the image is entering the old brain, one or the other sticks.
In the large photo I can see a large turtle from this rock about 10 O'clock. Head, flippers and shell head on. I can also make out 2 shark heads on the right and a baby shark in the middle. One of them on the lower right can also be a statue with a face.
There are 2 strange out of place rocks in this photo. The one that sort of looks like it is an old tree trunk just standing straight up and another lower middle that is rounded well. Are they petrified optical illussions or what? One can see a photo very different from another, Again it depends on a lot of things. Sometimes training, sometimes opinions.
On Earth there are fish that look just like rocks, they do this to blend in otherwise they are food or can't catch food. With out a lot of places to hide on that surface I would think that after a million years, all creatures would look like rocks or they would be food quick.
Researchers need to find a rock/creature that has moved from 1 frame to another to prove their point of actual life. Until then it is an opinion on both sides as to what it really is. It is easy to defend a rock, it is very difficult to prove it is not. The burden of proof is not equal. So it is an uphill fight on one side only.
Besides the real question to me is "Where did all of these come from? There are no cliffs near by to roll down" Say the tree stump came from an impact then why is it just sitting there like a prop on a stage. It is not buried in the soil. Just resting on it. Look at that large rock right under the tree trunk. How did that get there, roll, I see no tracks or paths. Maybe filled in but then I see no filled in paths. It also has a hole in it in the face. I don't know how deep the hole is.
SO, Where did they come from? How close is the nearest cliff or mountain ? Stream Bottom, run off trash, lagoon dried up? The how is more important to me.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Framedone.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Framedone.jpg.html)
In this photo, any thing that is 100% black is getting Zero light.
Can anyone see the blue flow on the right hand frame top to bottom ending up or starting in the camp fire area, the horse shoe of stones looks like it was a small pool and flowed out or in towards the top. It also looks like some sort of shallow bay on the top or a sandy beach area. No rocks there!
Why? On Earth, Ice likes to move rocks, did the ice stop there?
Deuem
I can't believe there's a two page discussion happening on a 'floating' rock.
Rocks don't float ::)
ArMap - You've done a fine job in your last response.
ArMaP has more than proven beyond any reasonable doubt these rocks are just rocks.
Quote from: rdunk on November 18, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Thanks ArMaP! You make my point better than did I!
I don't see how, but I see you still didn't made any comment about the image I posted. :)
Quote from: WarToad on November 18, 2013, 01:26:51 PM
ArMaP has more than proven beyond any reasonable doubt these rocks are just rocks.
And now I know the how he does it. lol ArMap
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/NowIunderstand.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/NowIunderstand.jpg.html)
Whats with the mickey mouse button?
D
Ha ha wikid deuem ;D
Quote from: Sinny on November 18, 2013, 12:31:34 PM
I can't believe there's a two page discussion happening on a 'floating' rock.
Rocks don't float ::)
ArMap - You've done a fine job in your last response.
Hey we all once did 3 pages on flying pigs..And to be fair to Rdunk he origionaly wrote it was an un-known flying living species [bird?] ;)
Wikid Deuem on the loose......
Quote from: deuem on November 18, 2013, 03:49:32 PM
Hey we all once did 3 pages on flying pigs..And to be fair to Rdunk he origionaly wrote it was an un-known flying living species [bird?] ;)
Wikid Deuem on the loose......
And I thought PRC was the place to be........... Lmafo!
Yea - Wicked post Deuem :D
As much as I pick on Nasa for being stoopid you all have to remember that most of us use Nasa for Fact's or lack of Fact's right ?
There is no need to pick on someone who hold's some view's which everone feel's derogortory towards MSM Peggy views, who is also a member here which is respected as much as anyone else.
If you were to actually read or know Armap from the previous place you will know he doe's infact hold mystery, and also like's to find out where it come's from.
We could all be spending our time searching for free energy without smelling the solar panel's out in our mind's, along with being being ignorant.
Yep that would be really cool if NOT for the fact that having someone like Armap "who would love to be able to afford Such Luxury's! as most of us can through gov grant's" feel's stagnant.
It's easy to be green, but it's harder to be an individual....
Hey Som, Im with you 100%. We need Armap and i dig him.
D's picture was just funny thats all mate. ;)
Quote from: Sinny on November 18, 2013, 12:31:34 PM
Rocks don't float ::)
OH YE DOUBTERS!!!!(http://cdn.aarp.net/content/dam/aarp/purpose/religion_beliefs/2011_04/420-miracle-rock.imgcache.rev1303486135480.jpg)
(http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/Floating/rock1107a.jpg)
(http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/floating-rock.jpg)
Scientific proof, Monks levitated mega ton boulders??
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304656/pg1
http://www.rense.com/general42/soundlev.htm
http://paranormal.about.com/od/antigravity/a/The-Ancient-Secrets-Of-Levitation.htm
http://www.human-resonance.org/tibetan_levitation.html
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?37083-How-to-Levitate-Stones--Coral-Castle-
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/128/b/b/Yoga_Man_Levitating_Rock_by_Skrabalo.jpg)
I'll re-phrase.
Rocks don't float without intention.
What's more likey in this instance? Someone/something intending to float this rock... Or the rock being a rock on the ground, projecting a fairly regular shadow?