A humanoid skull on Mars?

Hobbes

It is light and shadows. Nothing more. Like the smiley or face on mars. If you take a picture of them from another angle then the likeness goes away.

What you are experiencing is Pareidol.

Sam Vimes

So Glad wrote:

No matter what, it still looks like a feckin' skull ok?

it does look like a skull but its not a skull. yesterday i looked up and i saw a massive sheep looking object floating by. does that mean it was a sheep?


here's another face on mars:
http://www.matrixofcreation.co.uk/mars/face-on-mars.gif

of course it only looks like a face from space. up close its just a mountain.

So Glad wrote:

True. But how would they hide the pictures?

well they could start by not putting them on a website. if there is a conspiracy i think homer simpson is organising it

chamlis

I guess we just have to send some people down there. I volunteer myself, and anyone of the lovely ladies on my list

The "Face On Mars" is probably the least significant object in the region of the planet called Cydonia. There are distict geometrical objects resembling pyramids there also. And other shapes at 90 degree angles. One or two things maybe it's coincidence. But there are loads....

About 10000 years ago when the cataclism hit Mars and obliterated it (3 giant comets in a row) If you were to stand on top of the biggest of the Martian pyramids and looked at the "face", you would see the Earth rise out of the "mouth"........

But anyway, there are far more unexplained things closer to home. The Sphynx, anyone?

armitage_skanks

Its elvis

Kermitt

He he- Elvis it is!! Come on If there was any chance that this was real then the media would be all over it like a shot. Biggest news in history if it were true.. but its not!

Spalk0

Real or not - and im inclined to think not based on what ive seen in this thread.......It doesnt detract from the fact that its interesting in my opinion.

Some pics are rubbish though.....the first skull lookalike one is mad!All likely hood is its a strangely shaped rock but its surreal looking!Imagine it was a skull the type of Jaw it would have had!

Someone said Predator comes to mind:D

weemcd

monkeyfudge wrote:

Shergar! Is that you?

nearly spat cofee everywhere when I read that, thank you good sir!

Pherekydes

It's total rubbish. We all know from "Mars Attacks" that the Martians had no skulls!

Degsy

So Glad wrote:

Browse this site for loads of stuff about Mars and the Moon.

MarsAnomalyResearch

Some of the things on that site are probably not as conclusive as you would like but due to the bad quality picture distributed to the public domain and it is all that they are left to work with. Some things will amaze you.

Also, I realise this is all ludicrous stuff to be saying but what were you expecting? In what form where you expecting to discover life? When the discovery of life comes along the implications are GOING to be ludicrous so I don't see the point in the whole sarcastic wave of cynicism that usually occurs when people are confronted with such things. Give it a chance then criticise.

You should be locked up!!
Its called a Simulcra..

Pherekydes

It is a skull. But is it Mars?

Who says so, and why believe them?

Zulu

WOW a rock that looks like a skull!
I'll show you clouds that look like skulls. ...wait a min, does that mean people are actually living in clouds?

Dustaz

Its a rock that looks like a skull!

ZOMG.

Also, that image has been altered somehow. Open it in a text editor and youll see the creator is Adobe.

Gurgle

Son Goku wrote:

There is no way it is a skull.

Please enlighten us:
Are the requirements for forming fossils present on Mars?

Is there enough atmosphere/weather on mars to uncover a fossil several thousand years old?

I'm so skeptical in general that I find it as hard to believe that its definitely not a skull as that it definitely is.

Heres a relevant though though:
How long have homosapiens as we know us existed?

From http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm:

the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago

But we have what 1,000 to 1,500 years of reasonably well documented history and definitely < 6,000 years of any history?

Thats at least 84,000 years of modern homosapiens that we know nothing about. Powered flight in our history is less than 100 years old, and we've got to the moon and pictures from robots on the surface of Mars. How can we say with any certainty that there was never a homo-sapien on Mars?

melekalikimaka

at first i couldn't believe there was four pages if discussion on this, then i realised its mostly sarcasm so its ok.
The Viking spacecrafts carried three biological experiments to the surface of Mars in the late 1970s.The three experiments all looked for changes in chemical composition of the atmospheric gasses trapped over a sample of Martian soil as it was exposed to different temperatures, chemical substances, and other conditions.In general, the results were negative for signs of life, although one of the three experiments gave an initial positive reading which was later interpreted by most scientists as a false positive caused by an abiotic (non-biological) chemical reaction.
No significant amount of organic molecules were found in the Martian soil, in fact the strongest organic concentrations it measured were minute trace contaminants brought from Earth, left over from the assembly and cleaning of the sample chambers and instruments.

so the chances of monkeyheadman in that pic is quite unlikely, rocks don't have specific shapes so it the infinite possibilities that our universe provides, I think the chances of a rock looking vaugely like a humanoid skull, is possible...its also possible theres life by that arguement, but the evidence is against it, good chance there was life at some stage as mentioned before, but the current climate just doesn't look like it could support organic life 'as we know it'

Degsy

Gurgle wrote:

Please enlighten us:
Are the requirements for forming fossils present on Mars?

Is there enough atmosphere/weather on mars to uncover a fossil several thousand years old?

I'm so skeptical in general that I find it as hard to believe that its definitely not a skull as that it definitely is.

Heres a relevant though though:
How long have homosapiens as we know us existed?

From http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm:


But we have what 1,000 to 1,500 years of reasonably well documented history and definitely < 6,000 years of any history?

Thats at least 84,000 years of modern homosapiens that we know nothing about. Powered flight in our history is less than 100 years old, and we've got to the moon and pictures from robots on the surface of Mars. How can we say with any certainty that there was never a homo-sapien on Mars?

Thats easy.Because the conditions necessary for homo sapien development,reproduction and existence arent present on mars.There's no fresh water,no plant life,no animal life and no breathable atmosphere.The conditions for man to exist in his present form are unique to earth at least WITHIN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM!

Gordon

Danger: Giants found in California!

melekalikimaka

Gurgle wrote:

How can we say with any certainty that there was never a homo-sapien on Mars?

Lol I'd be more inclined to believe green men lived on mars at some stage than a homosapien? you believe there is a agruementative possibility that humans(in their (as far as our knowledge preceives) some how made the journey to mars? A far fatched, yet slightly complelling theory(opens tab and starts googling:p )

melekalikimaka

Degsy wrote:

The conditions for man to exist in his present form are unique to earth at least WITHIN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM!

present...we aren't talking bout the present, any number of reasons could explain the climate change from 'earth like' to its current state, in a realatively short space of time

WhiteWashMan

sorry guys, it was an early xperiement with home made rockets and some monkeys i found.

one fo the stupid things decided to get out of the rocket and got left behind.

my mistake.

hope this clears everything up!

monkeyfudge

blu_sonic wrote:

the moon ones are tripe!!! photoshop/new document/open moon.jpg/tools smudge/apply/tools/blur/apply/save image for the web et volia

Sheesh... it's clearly Moon-men cloaking devices bending light around their missile silos.

Gurgle

Degsy wrote:

Thats easy.Because the conditions necessary for homo sapien development,reproduction and existence arent present on mars.There's no fresh water,no plant life,no animal life and no breathable atmosphere.The conditions for man to exist in his present form are unique to earth at least WITHIN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM!

I never suggested development, reproduction or anything beyond short-term existance. We have the technological capability to send a person there now, all developed over the last century.

Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago.

melekalikimaka wrote:

you believe there is a agruementative possibility that humans(in their (as far as our knowledge preceives) some how made the journey to mars? A far fatched, yet slightly complelling theory(opens tab and starts googling )

Yes, an arguementative possibility.
I'm not saying this skull-shaped rock is evidence of such a trip, I'm saying that we don't know enough about our own past to rule it out.

Degsy

Gurgle wrote:

I never suggested development, reproduction or anything beyond short-term existance. We have the technological capability to send a person there now, all developed over the last century.

"Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago."


Yes, an arguementative possibility.
I'm not saying this skull-shaped rock is evidence of such a trip, I'm saying that we don't know enough about our own past to rule it out.

You cant have a short-term existence without development and reproduction.If man has only learned to fly in the last 100 years then i'd say its axiomatic that he didnt fly to mars for a short-lived pleasure trip 40,000 years ago.

MrJoeSoap

Gurgle wrote:

Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago.

You want us to prove humans didn't visit Mars 40,000 years ago?

:rolleyes:

Ever hear of Charles Darwin?

melekalikimaka

Gurgle wrote:

Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago.

.

there is no evidence to suggest that man 40,000 years ago could even communicate, bones from that time period are found in only certain areas on our planet suggesting very little travel on their part around our earth, so the chances of them hopping into a space suit kissing their wives and hugging their son(too distracted to notice due to him playing with a portable game console, way ahead of our current models), waving to the video cameras and jumping into their rocket for a few year trip to mars, for purposes i can only begin to imagine....only for them ALL to revert to primate like creatures banging rocks off walls...is bout a likely and seeing elvis dancing on olympus mons in a pink mini

18AD

Gurgle wrote:

Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago.

They visited Earth 40,000 years ago.

Some time between 30,000 and 40,000 thousand years ago modern humans began creating the first deliberate "signs" ever created on earth - perhaps in the universe.
From:
http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/signcon.html

Gurgle

Degsy wrote:

If man has only learned to fly in the last 100 years

think re-learned

MrJoeSoap wrote:

You want us to prove humans didn't visit Mars 40,000 years ago?

Nope, I don't expect anyone to prove that. I want you to consider the possibility that civilizations rise and fall and we have no way to know how high they rose 40,000 years after they fell.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Ever hear of Charles Darwin?

Ahem, yes, see reference above to "anatomically modern humans".

melekalikimaka wrote:

bones from that time period are found in only certain areas on our planet suggesting very little travel on their part around our earth

or suggesting very low survival rate of fossils from 40,000 years ago

DO ALL DEAD ANIMALS EVENTUALLY BECOME FOSSILS?

No, according to VMNH's Dr. Nicholas Fraser. In fact only an exceptionally small percentage (much less than 1 percent) of living organisms ever have the opportunity to become fossils. In order to enter the fossil record once it dies, an organism must be rapidly buried so that it escapes the attentions of scavengers and the destructive forces of the elements. Under most circumstances the bodies of animals simply rot before they are buried by sediment, and even those that are buried may be subjected to weathering processes before they become mineralized or permanently altered in such a way that they are not readily destroyed.

melekalikimaka

18AD wrote:

They visited Earth 40,000 years ago.

Some time between 30,000 and 40,000 thousand years ago modern humans began creating the first deliberate "signs" ever created on earth - perhaps in the universe.
From:
http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/signcon.html

humm i read something on this, bur it was when we were like single celled and what not, a meteor can crash into mars, rocks from mars(containing use as goop) break off and landed on earth.

MrJoeSoap

Gurgle wrote:

Ahem, yes, see reference above to "anatomically modern humans".

The works of Charles Darwin are accepted by the vast vast majority of biologists (I'm talking 99%), and any sort of research into the Middle Paleolithic period will show you that Neanderthal man was not only incapable of reaching Mars, but they used the most primitive and basic everyday tools.

I can't believe I'm actually having to argue that Neanderthal humans never built rockets to Mars.

mloc

some people here should seriously lay off the ould mary jane for a while

melekalikimaka

MrJoeSoap wrote:

any sort of research into the Middle Paleolithic period will show you that Neanderthal man was not only incapable of reaching Mars, but they used the most primitive and basic everyday tools.

http://www.clampettstudio.com/images/archives/hannabarbera/TW1137-Space-Age-Meets-Ston.jpg


there we go, problem solved

18AD

melekalikimaka wrote:

humm i read something on this, bur it was when we were like single celled and what not, a meteor can crash into mars, rocks from mars(containing use as goop) break off and landed on earth.

Yeah. There's still not much of an idea of how single celled organisms came to be from dead matter. I haven't read what you're talking about in particular but it's likely to be as good as some of the other theories out there. Admittedly, I've only read the one theory.

Gurgle

MrJoeSoap wrote:

any sort of research into the Middle Paleolithic period will show you that Neanderthal man was not only incapable of reaching Mars, but they used the most primitive and basic everyday tools.

Any sort of reading of what I typed will show you that I am not talking about Neanderthal man, or making any such ludicrous suggestion.

Important phrase here:
anatomically modern humans

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h/humanevo.asp

By 150,000 years ago in Africa and Asia and 28,000 years ago in Europe, the transition to H. sapiens was complete, and fully modern humans became the single surviving hominid species.

18AD

Oops, double post. :P

melekalikimaka

18AD wrote:

Yeah. There's still not much of an idea of how single celled organisms came to be from dead matter. I haven't read what you're talking about in particular but it's likely to be as good as some of the other theories out there. Admittedly, I've only read the one theory.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/mars_microbes.html

Gurgle

18AD wrote:

Yeah. There's still not much of an idea of how single celled organisms came to be from dead matter.

I suggest a quick examination of your ovaries or testicles, whichever you happen to possess.

melekalikimaka

Gurgle wrote:

18AD wrote:

Yeah. There's still not much of an idea of how single celled organisms came to be from dead matter.

I suggest a quick examination of your ovaries or testicles, whichever you happen to possess.

life makes life, dead matter doesnt make life...

MrJoeSoap

Gurgle wrote:

Proove to me it couldn't have been done 40,000 years ago.

Wikipedia wrote:

After 50,000 BP, what Jared Diamond and other anthropologists characterize as a Great Leap Forward, human culture apparently started to change at much greater speed: 'modern' humans started to bury their dead carefully, made clothing out of hides, developed sophisticated hunting techniques (such as pitfall traps, or driving animals to fall off cliffs), and made cave paintings. This speed-up of cultural change seems connected with the arrival of modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens. Additionally, human culture began to become more advanced, in that, different populations of humans begin to create novelty in existing technologies. Artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles begin to show signs of variation among different population of humans, something that has not been seen in previous human cultures prior to 50,000 BP. Typically, neanderthalenis populations are found with technology similiar to contemporary neanderthalensis populations.

Any speculation on your part as to collapsed civilisations is purely that... speculation. There is absolutely no basis for it other than pure fantasy, whereas years and years of research has gone into examining actual fossils and archaeological digs.

You have suggested that mankind has only in the last hundred years or so "re-learned" to fly. Whats that based on?

easy_as_easy

my take:

alien astronaut who died on a mission to mars? why not? sounds fun!

mloc

Gurgle wrote:

18AD wrote:

Yeah. There's still not much of an idea of how single celled organisms came to be from dead matter.

I suggest a quick examination of your ovaries or testicles, whichever you happen to possess.

You're saying the production of sperm is life from dead matter? Have you absolutely any idea what you're talking about or are you just taking the piss?

As a student of cell biology, I can assure you that the process of gamete production in mammals is an example of cell differenciation, in this context basically where a cell produces an offspring of a different cell type. It is a live cell producing a live cell.

Dead matter does not produce life outside of a hundred million year timeframe.

So Glad

Since the discussion has changed from sarcastic cynisism to probable theories I shall show you some very interesting human history regarding alien encounters with our early civilizations (REALLY early BC). Ever hear of the Lumarian civilization? It is believed that they were the oldest civilization recorded and they were an astounding race. Drawings carved in stone from this era show open heart and brain surgery, continental tectonic plates (discovered the last 100 years or so), encounters with aliens, astronomically correct maps of the heavens, dinosaurs (which have only been discovered within the last 100-200 years)and humans mounted on dinosaurs(which have only been discovered within the last 100-200 years) as if they were tamed and even mating rituals with the aliens to aid the human race in it's evolution. These were incribed thousands of years ago so these things could not have been known without prior given knowledge. Darwin has not solved everything by the way. There are still HUGE gaps of time where nobody knows how the human form evolved and what we do know is usually based on few fossil (as they are incredebly rare).

It is very probable that alien interference aided human evolution.

Ica Stones

About the Ica stones

More about the Ica stones

easy_as_easy

awww man now you sound like a fruit cake. humans riding around on dinosaurs?? lets forget about the millions of years between eh?

So Glad

easy_as_easy wrote:

awww man now you sound like a fruit cake. humans riding around on dinosaurs?? lets forget about the millions of years between eh?

Yes but the fact is, these stones were carved thousands of years ago and that is what they dipict.

easy_as_easy

I had a look at them, and I dont see anything that looks like a dinosaurs, but they could easily be mistaken for dinosaurs if people wanted to believe so.

The Nazca Lines are pretty cool though!

So Glad

easy_as_easy wrote:

I had a look at them, and I dont see anything that looks like a dinosaurs, but they could easily be mistaken for dinosaurs if people wanted to believe so.

The Nazca Lines are pretty cool though!

Dinosaur

Nazca lines?

Zillah

Gurgle wrote:

Nope, I don't expect anyone to prove that. I want you to consider the possibility that civilizations rise and fall and we have no way to know how high they rose 40,000 years after they fell.

No sorry you're talking nonesense. To build a rocket you have to have the appropriate socio-technical systems in place. You can't build a rocket without metals, or plastics or petroleum fuel or ten thousand other advanced materials, and you need the advanced science and mathematics behind it. And you can't have any of those things without a massive well developed industrial society.

So whatever the hell facts about fossils you want to abuse, there's no getting around the fact that such a society would leave a mind numbing crap ton of archaelogical evidence.

Gordon

Ica Stones - the truth...

easy_as_easy

the cone head skulls are pretty interesting..

http://www.crystalinks.com/incanskulls.html

yeah the Nazca Lines

http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html

Zulu

So Glad wrote:

Since the discussion has changed from sarcastic cynisism to probable theories I shall show you some very interesting human history regarding alien encounters with our early civilizations (REALLY early BC). Ever hear of the Lumarian civilization? It is believed that they were the oldest civilization recorded and they were an astounding race. Drawings carved in stone from this era show open heart and brain surgery, continental tectonic plates (discovered the last 100 years or so), encounters with aliens, astronomically correct maps of the heavens, dinosaurs (which have only been discovered within the last 100-200 years)and humans mounted on dinosaurs(which have only been discovered within the last 100-200 years) as if they were tamed and even mating rituals with the aliens to aid the human race in it's evolution. These were incribed thousands of years ago so these things could not have been known without prior given knowledge. Darwin has not solved everything by the way. There are still HUGE gaps of time where nobody knows how the human form evolved and what we do know is usually based on few fossil (as they are incredebly rare).

It is very probable that alien interference aided human evolution.

AAAAHAHAhahahahahaha Classic. Absolutly classic. That's great. <wipes tear from eye>

Aw where do I start... ..."open heart and brain surgery" - carved in stone, in stone! "humans mounted on dinosaurs" "and even mating rituals with the aliens"...


...ahahahahahaha

Zillah

So Glad wrote:

Ica Stones

About the Ica stones

More about the Ica stones

It is very probable that alien interference aided human evolution.

Or...

Allegedly, these stones were found in caves and stream beds. Because they are rocks and contain no organic material, Carbon-14 dating cannot be used. Because these locations have not been disclosed, it is impossible to judge with certainty their age based on the geological stratum. Further, finding that the rocks are themselves significantly old would not prove the engravings themselves are. Neil Steede, an archaeologist who was investigating the Ica stones for The Mysterious Origins of Man (a film attempting to make the case humans existed far earlier than previously thought), found no patina on the engravings although the rocks had patina on them, suggesting that the engravings are indeed younger than the rocks.

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods there was an interview of Basilio Uschuya, who produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to produce the patina by baking a stone in cow dung. This was for a period of time overlooked. However, in 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones. The newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya. Under Peruvian law, it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Basilio recanted that he had found them and instead claimed that they were hoaxes he and his wife created. He was not punished, and continued to sell the stones to tourists as trinkets. He confirmed that he had forged them during an interview with Erich von Däniken, but recanted that claim during a later interview with a German journalist.

From wikipedia.

Aside from that...they're just stones with engravings! There is no way to accurately date them! None at all, they have no organic components. Why oh why would you assume they're ancient and genuine rather than new and fake, when all the evidence points towards them being frauds.

So Glad

easy_as_easy wrote:

the cone head skulls are pretty interesting..

http://www.crystalinks.com/incanskulls.html

yeah the Nazca Lines

http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html

Those skulls are...unbelievable...what the hell are they?