There is life on Mars, but we know it not from them.

Stingray fossil from Mars:
Lamb statue from Mars:
Martian outpost:
Animal skull from Mars:


More at site
Welcome to Mars

Welcome to the board, extrasense.

Here is another helpful link: pareidolia

There have been many past threads regarding "fossils on Mars" photoanalysis, it might be useful for you to read those threads to get an idea of what kind of response you will expect for your claims.

YATR

Yet Another Rorschach Test...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I am aware that people are conditioned to believe own eyes only if they are watching TV :P

ES

The goal of that test is to grade people by their ability of image recognition.
I expect viewers to be normal people in that regard :P

ES

Just goes to show that you can find anything you want in an image of some sort of cloudy black and white nothing in particular.


Oh, by the way... I made the entire image in Photoshop. It took me all of ten mintues to get everything ready.

__________________
h00!

Link from that link:
Jesus in a tortilla

We actually went looking for this. One year when my son and I went to New Mexico to see the Leonids Meteor Storm, we came across info on this tortilla in a city Chamber of Commerce publication, I can't remember which city, but we went out of our way to go there. The tortilla was no longer there and the locals we asked had never heard of it. And, it was a very small town so you'd expect the locals to at least have heard of it. This explains it! It was in 1978. So the memory had faded over 20+ years. Amazing that the claim was still in print in the local tourist ad.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

From Grizzly's link on the other thread:
Pancam shot of crater walls
Take a look at the shull carved into the rock at the bottom center!

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

What's it look like to you? It looks like a cow butt to me.

__________________
h00!

This claim is incorrect.
Some people might, and it is considered medical condition.

What percentage of people have this condition - I honestly do not know.

ES

Medical condition? No. It is a human trait that we all have, if to differing degrees. Your first post demonstrates you are quite adept at it.

You think it is true if you say so. A baseless assertion is not the same as the Truth 8)

ES

No, it is well-established that a normal human sees recognizable patterns in random patterns. That is a survival trait.

Also, we have had a half dozen or more people come in to this forum, point out random patterns, and claim they are evidence of life on Mars. You have to do better than that.

For rebuttal, read my Lenin page and the Hoagland pages. Then come back here and defend your claims.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Extrasense, the one thing I have always wondered when people tell me that things on Mars look like Earth things is, "Why? Why should Martians create, for example, a statue of a lamb, or a fisherman tent?"

Because, of course, it's humans on Mars... And ancient humans on the Moon. But it's Lizards on Venus.

P.S. I don't recommend following those links.

Now, extrasense hasn't actually said that he (she, it?) believes these things. He has alluded to the fact the he does, but not come right out and said it. So, with that in mind... extrasense, do you actually believe these things are what the person who owns that website says they are?

__________________
h00!

Worse than that is the faulty belief that photographs alone are a sound basis for arguing the existence of extraterrestrial life.

This assertion is certainly not baseless - beyond yours I could cite you countless examples of people who believe this is the way to do it.

Erm... Note that the link to the website is mywebpages.comcast.net/extrasense
I think that the OP may be the owner of the website... Just maybe. :wink:

A lot of people base their scepticism on this erroneous idea. How would anyone drive on the crowded road, if he would "recognize" arbitrary images in front of him?
How such nonsense become so popular? An absolute, unadulterated nonsense, how does it become popular in our culture?

ES

The question "Why" might take years to answer. My point is that it is the things we observe on Mars.

ES
8)

I'll give it a try....
Extrasense, there is a statistics program I use that, as an example of how humans look for patterns in everything, talks about "there are no horses in clouds". This is not a new, pop culture thing. Every person I've met looks up at the clouds and picks out things they see in those clouds. Because a person sees a "horse" in a particular cloud does not mean that cloud has any "horseness" about it.

Now lets assume you're right. Maybe one of those objects in the pictures is not a simple rock. But science, like the courts, needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Without some other evidence that this object was a lifeform, an eyeball look at a blurry picture is not going to be considered proof, or even good evidence, because shape alone can't prove such things.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

You are 100% wrong. If the question to the person is "what this cloud look like", the answer might be "horse". If the question is then "is this a horse" the answer will be "no". We are able to distinguish between "it is like A" and "it is A". Period.

Some people hear voices in their heads. The healthy people dont.
Lets do not be schisophrenic about what we see.

ES

Dang, I can never keep those straight! I thought it was aliens on the Moon.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Maybe I need some more coffee, but I guess my pattern recognition skills are down this morning. The photo in the upper left appears (without the "helpful" addition of color) to be a flatish rock with a trailing ridge of sand or dust and nothing like a real stingray fossil (see an example at http://tinyurl.com/3ctsf ). I'm not sure if the photo in the upper right is supposed to be the "Martian outpost" or the "lamb statue". I'm guessing the former, but all I'm seeing is a rock with a missing bit out of it. Again I'm guessing here, but if the lower left photo is supposed to be the statue, I'm not seeing anything particularly lamblike. And even with the color addition, I'm not seeing anything remotely skull-like in the lower right hand photo. And xbck1, I didn't "see" any of the things in your photo until you color highlighted them, but the biggish light blob in the upper right (containing the horse and plant) looked like a face to me. Sorta like the "Scream" if he been hitting the McDonald's "Supersizes" too hard!

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

You are 100% wrong again. In a good company although, NASA idiots use this too.

Lets do some math, using the "stingray with tail" picture.
Lets assume that there is 10,000,000,000=10[up]10[/up] rocks that can be considered for fossils in the area covered by rovers
Lets assume that each of them has a small rock attached, which will play the beginning of the tail

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth.
Since the "tail" has 12 bones, expected number of existing in the area "rock stingrays" will be 10[up]-14[/up] 8)
Lets assume that rovers photograph everyone of them, that exists.

We must conclude based on the assumptions and their consequences, that chances of us to have the existing picture, if the object were of nonbiologial origin, would be less than 10[up]-14[/up] #-o

/14=24-10/

So much for the psedoscience worshippers

ES

Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground?

Check your monitor, glasses, eyes, brains and computer in this order.
You will figure out what is the problem

Stingrays have no bones.

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

Actually he is not really wrong, people do see things in patterns, this how simple symbols like pictograms work, if people didn't have this capability it would just be some lines and dots. Now, most of the time we are capable of seeing the difference between the object and what it looks like. But in some cases the brain will fill in missing details, making a tree stump look like a person hiding in the bushes, for example.

In the picture you posted there are a rock shaped in a way that can remind one of a ray, of course it is not a stingray, but a rock. and so it is not a question of something being seen as a stingray, but something having a shape reminiscent of a stingray.

That of course does mean the question is more along the line of whether it is a rock formed by fossilization or by normal geologic activity. I see a rock that looks kind of like a ray, and sand that may look like a tail. But I will say it is just a normal rock, until better evidence for something else is available.

The next two objects just look like rocks, really. The last picture is of so poor resolution that to even identify it as a rock is hard, so if you see something there, it is a good indication that you are prone to the pareidolia phenomena. The problem is that some people are so prone to this, that they can not accept that it is not what they think, they can not accept that their perceptions are not right. This is similar to how people can't believe that their memories are wrong, even if other people try to tell them, I guess.

Off course, if someone's perceptions of objects in these kinds of pictures are like that, it will not help no matter what I or anyone else say. In fact, some people have been so convinced something is a fossil that when they get analyses rapports that show it to be normal rocks, they just will not accept it, and starts to weave some sort of conspiracy theory.

As for if it is mental problems, yes it may be, I guess, and as with some other types of mental problems, the one afflicted can not identify it in them self, and will remain convinced it is the other people that is the problem, perhaps... But as IANAP, I can't really say anything certain about it..

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another small rock attached on the right side of it and of the right size, so that it forms next bone of the tail. And so on, and so forth.

There's a load of dubious assumptions here: First off, I don't see these rocks of which you speak, just a ridge (and I've seen zillions of those). Second, I don't see any signs of attachment. Even if I did, I daresay the odds of the wind lining up small rocks is a lot better than 1/100.

Really? So, you do not see the end of the tail in air and its shadow on the ground?

If you go here, you can see a whole bunch of images of the same thing, including left and right images suitable for stereo. Combining them makes it clear that there is no "tail in the air." (Scroll down to the "sub-frame EDR" section.)

Check your monitor, glasses, eyes, brains and computer in this order.

You should keep in mind that our host on this board does not have a lot of patience for people who come on here with an attitude.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Then you should say: "This rock looks like a stingray, and that rock looks like a lamb." It isn't difficult for a field of rocks to resemble the shapes of things we recognize.