Why is there a squirrel on Mars?

Quote from: Junker on July 22, 2013, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 21, 2013, 04:06:25 AM

Here's the thing about the FES. This whole website and forum is not about any sort of controversy about the Earth's shape. There is no controversy. This place is about these PEOPLE who claim the Earth is flat. They are the subject that needs to be examined, not the Earth.

Keep your low-content posts out of the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Erm, whatever. You know I'm right. Ban me if you want.

There is no need for a ban, just follow the rules.

I'll admit, when I saw the rock on NASA's website I was a bit surprised. But here's the rub:

NASA has produced thousands of pictures of the surface of Mars just from Curiosity alone, not to mention Opportunity and Spirit (may it rest in peace). As curious as the rock is, it would take a whole lot more than a few shadows to convince me that all of the thousands of images are fake.

Sadly, MSL has long since moved on from that place, so no second picture of the same rock will be available until a) NASA diverts MSL from its intended destination just to snap another picture; b) NASA sends another probe to the same crater; c) humans to go Mars and can bounce around and take a picture of the rock. However, considering how the infamous Face on Mars turned out, and the anatomical anomalies have been indicated, it's safe to say this is a rock.

As for NASA faking the Martian photography, where would they do it? The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't look like Gale Crater in any of the panoramas provided. The Earth isn't that big, and Curiosity (and Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, etc) have taken many thousands of photographs and to date none have been matched with Earth terrain.

Maybe I'm an indoctrinated fool, but having seen thousands of pictures of Mars (and tens of thousands from NASA's other missions), a squirrel-esq rock isn't nearly enough evidence to discredit them.

It's not Mars, but there is a turtle ?.....or is it a rock ?.....on the desert on this website.
http://www.notcot.com/archives/2008/10/roadtrippin.php

Quote from: rottingroom on July 22, 2013, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: Junker on July 22, 2013, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 21, 2013, 04:06:25 AM

Here's the thing about the FES. This whole website and forum is not about any sort of controversy about the Earth's shape. There is no controversy. This place is about these PEOPLE who claim the Earth is flat. They are the subject that needs to be examined, not the Earth.

Keep your low-content posts out of the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Erm, whatever. You know I'm right. Ban me if you want.

There is no need for a ban, just follow the rules.

Ahem  !.......And.........Why doesn't FE follow their own rules ?
I am referring to people like thork, Tom Bishop and sceptimatic for example...and what about sandokhan ?

Quote from: Junker on July 22, 2013, 10:15:24 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 22, 2013, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: Junker on July 22, 2013, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 21, 2013, 04:06:25 AM

Here's the thing about the FES. This whole website and forum is not about any sort of controversy about the Earth's shape. There is no controversy. This place is about these PEOPLE who claim the Earth is flat. They are the subject that needs to be examined, not the Earth.

Keep your low-content posts out of the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Erm, whatever. You know I'm right. Ban me if you want.

There is no need for a ban, just follow the rules.

Ahem  !.......And.........Why doesn't FE follow their own rules ?
I am referring to people like thork, Tom Bishop and sceptimatic for example...and what about sandokhan ?

Everyone gets a warning when they break the rules.  Consider this a warning.

It's about time to movie this to "complete nonsense" as Junker agrees,
If a mod has the courage to do so.

I am referring to people like thork, Tom Bishop and sceptimatic for example...and what about sandokhan ?

Tom, Thork, and Sandokhan have all been banned in the past.  As for Scepti, rampant stupidity still isn't against the rules.

Now, this isn't the place to dispute moderation, but I thought this post was crying for a response.  You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

It's about time to movie this to "complete nonsense" as Junker agrees,
If a mod has the courage to do so.

The courage to do so? What does courage have to do with anything? Are you trying to Proudfoot us?

When was the last relevant post in this thread?

Oh I know... It was mine.

When was the last relevant post in this thread?

Oh I know... It was mine.

This post wasn't relevant?

I'll admit, when I saw the rock on NASA's website I was a bit surprised. But here's the rub:

NASA has produced thousands of pictures of the surface of Mars just from Curiosity alone, not to mention Opportunity and Spirit (may it rest in peace). As curious as the rock is, it would take a whole lot more than a few shadows to convince me that all of the thousands of images are fake.

Sadly, MSL has long since moved on from that place, so no second picture of the same rock will be available until a) NASA diverts MSL from its intended destination just to snap another picture; b) NASA sends another probe to the same crater; c) humans to go Mars and can bounce around and take a picture of the rock. However, considering how the infamous Face on Mars turned out, and the anatomical anomalies have been indicated, it's safe to say this is a rock.

As for NASA faking the Martian photography, where would they do it? The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't look like Gale Crater in any of the panoramas provided. The Earth isn't that big, and Curiosity (and Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, etc) have taken many thousands of photographs and to date none have been matched with Earth terrain.

Maybe I'm an indoctrinated fool, but having seen thousands of pictures of Mars (and tens of thousands from NASA's other missions), a squirrel-esq rock isn't nearly enough evidence to discredit them.

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

It isn't a photo-realistic squirrel on Mars either.  It only vaguely looks like a squirrel.

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

The face was shadows and rocks. The squirrel is shadows and rocks. My point was a single rock that looks a bit like a rodent isn't enough evidence to condemn the thousands of other photographs. If you actually read my post, you'd have gotten that.

The rock has clearly been shown to be a rock in previous posts:

Two pictures.

1. The outline and features your eye wants to see:


2. The outline my best judgment could find:


Edit: I'm actually enjoying looking at #1 and trying to imagine a rock and then looking at #2 and trying to imagine a squirrel.

Yes, if you draw arbitrary outlines ignoring the features that are varmint-like, then it does not look like a rodent. Hardly surprising.

Ski is correct. If you view the original photo on page one of this thread, which is not marred with outlines, the rodent is realistic.

Ski is correct. If you view the original photo on page one of this thread, which is not marred with outlines, the rodent is realistic.

come on Tom, do you really think that is a squirrel? It just seems like flat-earthers are always so ready to dismiss any sort of solid evidence and then they see a blurry picture that hardly looks like anything and that is proof?!

"The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or ceins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59792.msg1535935.html#msg1535935

"The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or ceins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59792.msg1535935.html#msg1535935

"The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or ceins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces."

How often do people see photo-realistic animals naturally etched into the side of a rock or tree?

Quote from: garygreen on September 07, 2013, 08:20:18 AM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59792.msg1535935.html#msg1535935

"The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or ceins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces."

How often do people see photo-realistic animals naturally etched into the side of a rock or tree?

Robowtham seems to believe that it depends upon the state of mind of the observer.  I tend to agree with him.  You see what you want to believe.

You don't seem particular interested in discussing the many other objects which have been found in the Mars rocks, like the cow's head, or the tiny big foot, or any of the other objects that are just as 'photo-realistic' (I have yet to see a photo of a rodent that looks much like the photo you've presented) as the rodent.

Look at the high resolution version. You can see its nose, the shading of its face, its arms, and the contours of the muscles in its body. It definitely looks like some kind of rodent, perhaps a hamster, which are desert animals.

Quite a leap of coincidence that a rock can form in the shape of a rodent, of all possible configurations.

This must be a constant worry for all the space fakery. How to keep animals out of pictures. Not unlike trying to keep air bubbles out of the space walk movies. Maybe they use some sort of high-pitch or low-frequency sound waves to repel animals, and experience occasional failure.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2013, 03:21:41 PM

Look at the high resolution version. You can see its nose, the shading of its face, its arms, and the contours of the muscles in its body. It definitely looks like some kind of rodent, perhaps a hamster, which are desert animals.

Quite a leap of coincidence that a rock can form in the shape of a rodent, of all possible configurations.

This must be a constant worry for all the space fakery. How to keep animals out of pictures. Not unlike trying to keep air bubbles out of the space walk movies. Maybe they use some sort of high-pitch or low-frequency sound waves to repel animals, and experience occasional failure.

Where would they fake it? The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't look like Gale Crater in any of the panoramas provided. The Earth isn't that big, and Curiosity (and Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, etc) have taken many thousands of photographs and to date none have been matched with Earth terrain.

While it could be a mars rodent, it seems more likely we are just dealing with a pixelated Rorschach test. This is typical behavior of the non-zetetic as Rowbotham points out as quoted above. It doesn't, however, hurt anything (and actually serves to help us) to keep an eye out for similar paradoxes. Cross reference is a good enough metric.

Its just weak inconclusive evidence.

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

To paraphrase you - The SQUIRREL on mars wasn't a photo-realistic SQUIRREL . It only vaguely looked like a SQUIRREL .

This is a ridiculous thread that again weakens the credibility flat earth movement.

It's a perfect example of my thesis, that a fraud needn't be perfect. Imperfections reduce the price considerably, and create evidence for the tiny percentage of questioners to squabble over.

Small children who have no concept of the earth being round or flat can see that its just a rock.

The evidence that your thesis is built on is frequently disproved and thus your thesis itself is flawed.

The person who made this video clearly wasted hours looking for something earth-like, like they did with all the moon photos. Photos which were later shown to be actually taken on the Moon. Whoever made this video could have achieved the same effect staring at the clouds trying to see shapes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2013, 01:05:01 PM

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

To paraphrase you - The SQUIRREL on mars wasn't a photo-realistic SQUIRREL . It only vaguely looked like a SQUIRREL .

This is a ridiculous thread that again weakens the credibility flat earth movement.

I think it looks quite like a squirrel. Is it possible to file a freedom of information act to get the actual full-res pic, and any memos attached to it?

Quote from: danger2007 on September 09, 2013, 12:36:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2013, 01:05:01 PM

How is this compatible to the face on mars? The face on mars wasn't a photo-realistic face. It only vaguely looked like a face.

To paraphrase you - The SQUIRREL on mars wasn't a photo-realistic SQUIRREL . It only vaguely looked like a SQUIRREL .

This is a ridiculous thread that again weakens the credibility flat earth movement.

I think it looks quite like a squirrel. Is it possible to file a freedom of information act to get the actual full-res pic, and any memos attached to it?

That's because you want to see the curvature... I mean squirrel.

Well, it looks like none of you have figured out why NASA put a squirrel on Mars. A little furry technician for the rover, perhaps? Maybe guided computer systems are a bit expensive these days? Hmm, what could it be!