Life on Mars is not in question anymore
Check the fair report at
Welcome to Mars
Yes, there are a lot of interesting looking rocks on Mars. As of yet, no life though.
Some fragments of life are probably on Mars ... what is put there with the Rovers and other previous robots from earth.
Welcome to Physics Forums, extrasense!
AFAIK, geologists use a number of tests before deciding whether a particular rock is a fossil or not - to what extent has the author of the website you link to:
a) written down the criteria he (she?) uses to distinguish between plain rocks and fossils?
b) compared these criteria with those commonly used by geologists?
If the author of the site is claiming the objects depicted are living (and not fossils), then we could ask the same set of questions, but using biological criteria - has the author written these up anywhere?
Finally, do you know if a paper is in pre-print, ready for peer review distribution?
Nice find extrasense...
However, whilst I agree with your basic premise, you're on the WRONG Forum for putting forth this hypothesis...
Nothing but CLOSED MINDS will you encounter, if it is not "peer-reviewed" (perhaps the FUNNIEST two words in the English language)...
(I just realised that I sound like Yoda...)
Here are some new images from Mars!
The plot thickens
Stingray fossil from Mars:
Lamb statue from Mars:
Animal skull from Mars:
More at site
Welcome to Mars
I suspect this thread is spam - - an ad for extrasense's own website/forum. On that, I should probably delete this altogether. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and move this over to the skepticism forum for further discussion. However, I agree with Russ...what you have there is a collection of photos of rocks. On what basis can you characterize them as fossils/artifacts/life?
Nommos - lighten up. In this example alone, we have 3 PF staff members who disagree with the OP but are still giving it a second chance.
Those seem well fake... it seems to small to look at, thumbnail size and its like flashing and change the parts of pics. To me its no differnece from looking at the clouds in the sky and saying "oh mommy I see a sheep" and therefore basing that there are sheep in the clouds.
What you do not understand here, that those are photographed images.
You can do all sorts of measuremens on them.
Martian cabbage lol?
Ok, Please dont take me as one of those people who assume that there is life on mars I am not a geological expert or an expert on many things most things even !?. But this photo looks like almost biological to me. As I said before I am not claiming anyhting I also posted a indirect link to this image so well so this post in a way does qualify as a sort of spam especially if I post a link to ure nutty goverment https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31097 whatever anybody here know about stuff like this ?
Does "almost biological" count?
I see nothing but rocks. Phooey!
You dont see anything unusual about the circular cabbage like formation of this particular rock formation ? Certaintly NOT ure average rock as I said i am not an expert.
OK, let's see the "measuremens" that you've done on them.
At a minimum I'd be looking for:
a) a clearly stated, objective protocol for selecting which rocks from among the tens (hundreds) of thousands in the various Spirit and Opportunity photos to study
b) a clear, unambiguous description of the classes of measurements that you will be making on the selected rocks, and how you will make those measurements
c) the results of the measurements
d) clear description of why particular 'biological' objects were chosen for comparison (and not others)
e) a published database of measurements of stingrays, lambs, outposts (etc)
f) detailed comparison of the two sets of measurements
g) the results of running the same exercise on a set of a similar number of Earthly rocks, say a lava field, or a talus slope (which are fully described, so, for example, any PF member could go there are make the same measurements).
Oh, and a statistical analysis of the significance of any noteworthy findings would be nice too.
Seems like a lot of hard work, doesn't it? Well, that's what the nitty-gritty of actually *doing* science is all about :surprise:
You dont see anything unusual about the circular cabbage like formation of this particular rock formation ?"
No, not all. See for example:
well according to www.flat-earth.org , there were Anglo-Saxon civilisations on Mars, and according to THIS link, maybe THEY planted the evidence!! http://www.flat-earth.org/projects/mars.html :rofl:
whoever dug that site up (zooby i think)... pure genius!
Don't get too formal. Image recognition is a routine human activity. Even mad scientist can recognize a flower, or leaf, without using supercomputer
Sure doesn't look biological to me...looks like a blurry microscopic picture. Are you loony or something?
Image recognition does not constitute proof of anything. If a picture looks like something then it looks like something. So what? This only means that it might be worth following Nereids protocol to determine if this is really something interesting or not. If someone is going to declare the discovery of life on Mars then they had better be formal or they will be laughed out of the room.
The so called "science" have get really sick
Here is a berry. Can we get a consensus as to what it is?
Because any protocol that gives a result that contradicts human perception is a bogus one.
Separate names with a comma.