Man on Mars?

Ben Dawson · #1 January 25, 2008, 4:48 AM

Ok, this has been all over the news, a picture has been taken by a probe on Mars that shows a figure that looks a lot like a humanoid creature...a lot like the supposed "Bigfoot" I suppose.
Here's a link to an ITN news report, and you make your own mind up.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m5lnavfxZWo&feature=related

I say it could be faked, but the photo is from NASA apparently, so why would they fake it?
It does look suprisingly like the creature shown in the "Patterson Bigfoot" video.
Here's a link below, so you can compare them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OJIMbBcZgwc&feature=related

So what do YOU think? I'm very interested in what people make of this.
I personally think that the thought of it actually being true is intriguing, and so I'm interested in it. But I also think that it could be easily faked.

Jez · #2 January 25, 2008, 4:03 PM

To me, they're rocks, but we haven't had a half decent story for people to produce 10,000 theories on for ages so I'm going to humour everybody.

Chris Britton · #3 January 25, 2008, 5:13 PM

I think aliens are out there, but most certainly not on Mars.

The fact is, all these so called pictures of monsters or aliens are almost always grainy, blurred, small and taken at long range with no hope or zooming in.

The other fact is those Mars Rovers have been damaged and battered and a lot of bits are not working, they are hardly in the best condition at all.

Ross Hendrie · #4 January 25, 2008, 6:26 PM

Apparently, it's "a 2-inch sedimentary rock that has been eroded by the wind".

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

I think aliens are out there, but most certainly not on Mars.

If so, we'll never meet them. Not with the size our universe is, and the astronomical chances of ever travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

Recurring Villain · #5 January 25, 2008, 7:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ross Hendrie

If so, we'll never meet them. Not with the size our universe is, and the astronomical chances of ever travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

You don't need to travel at the speed of light. Conventional speeds work just fine. The only limit you have to break is that of the human lifespan. Once death is corrected, the amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B is a trivial matter.

Superkid11 · #6 January 25, 2008, 10:49 PM

RV's solution is best if it turns out Hyperspace doesn't exist.

Then there's that whole "relativity" deal...

Chris Britton · #7 January 26, 2008, 7:32 AM

RV makes a good point. If humans can perfect the cryo-stasis technique then it's just a matter of time. Right now we can only freeze dead bodies so we can find the technology to revive them later. Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

Ross Hendrie · #8 January 26, 2008, 4:18 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

Yeah go anywhere and return to a world completely different from the one we left.

Recurring Villain · #9 January 26, 2008, 7:30 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

RV makes a good point. If humans can perfect the cryo-stasis technique then it's just a matter of time. Right now we can only freeze dead bodies so we can find the technology to revive them later. Perfect that and we can go anywhere.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about temporarily stopping death, I was talking about permanently stopping death. There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Ronnie Rowlands · #10 January 26, 2008, 7:32 PM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Piece of piss. How hard can it be?

Superkid11 · #11 January 26, 2008, 9:18 PM

I thought age was just entropy, cells can't keep repairing degraded cells. So I thought the way to prevent death would be to refine and perfect the cells' regeneration capacity. I mean, computers and cars age but they don't have any genetic programming to do so. It's just not as visible as on people.

Chris Britton · #12 January 27, 2008, 8:34 AM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about temporarily stopping death, I was talking about permanently stopping death. There are actually gene sequences that make us age and die. If you modify those so that you only age up to a certain point, you'll live forever.

Yes, in hindsight I did. My mistake. <blush>

Recurring Villain · #13 January 27, 2008, 8:17 PM

Originally Posted by Superkid11

I thought age was just entropy, cells can't keep repairing degraded cells.

From Wikipedia:

Some researchers (specifically biogerontologists) are treating aging as a disease. As genes that have an effect on aging are discovered, aging is increasingly being regarded in a similar fashion to other genetic conditions, potentially "treatable."

Indeed, aging is not an unavoidable property of life. Instead, it is the result of a genetic program. Numerous species show no sign of aging, the best known being perennial plants (e.g. trees) which can live thousands of years and be multiplied by cuttings without limit. Most microbes and some animals, e.g. amphibians and large fish, also seem to be free of aging. In these species, adults constantly reproduce only to destroy their young, usually by eating them. Therefore, "immortal" species evolve more slowly than "mortal" species.

Originally Posted by Superkid11

I mean, computers and cars age but they don't have any genetic programming to do so.

They also have no genetic programming to repair or replace their parts, unlike we do.

Aging is believed to be favoured by natural selection because it accelerates the evolution rate of a species by increasing the number of generations per unit of time. By dying away, the old individuals liberate the resources for their offsprings, thus increasing their chance of survival. Essentially, aging is the result of investing resources in reproduction rather than maintenance of the body, the "Disposable Soma" theory.

Mankind is almost at the point where natural selection will become irrelevant in the face of genetic engineering and technological developments, particularly nanotechnology. Check out this article if you want to know more.

Ben Dawson · #14 January 28, 2008, 9:06 AM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

From Wikipedia:

They also have no genetic programming to repair or replace their parts, unlike we do.

Mankind is almost at the point where natural selection will become irrelevant in the face of genetic engineering and technological developments, particularly nanotechnology. Check out this article if you want to know more.

So what you're saying is that it IS a possibility to become pratically immortal, and that that possibility could become a reality very soon.
There are people who would think that was bad, but maybe it isn't. It COULD be deemed as a god send for it would give humans the chance to look at greater potentials than what we are right now.

Chris Britton · #15 January 28, 2008, 11:51 AM

Does overpopulation come into this discussion at all?

Superkid11 · #16 January 28, 2008, 12:44 PM

That's true, I think anyone who gains this kind of longevity should be made sterile to prevent that.

Chris Britton · #17 January 28, 2008, 1:32 PM

Indeed, otherwise with an ever increasing birth rate and no death rate, we would multiply faster then an Australian rabbit on Viagra

Recurring Villain · #18 January 28, 2008, 4:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson

So what you're saying is that it IS a possibility to become pratically immortal, and that that possibility could become a reality very soon.

Very soon as in 30-40 years.

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson

There are people who would think that was bad...

Only because they're delusional and would be scared we're 'playing God'.

Originally Posted by Ben Dawson

It COULD be deemed as a god send for it would give humans the chance to look at greater potentials than what we are right now.

Much greater potential.

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

Does overpopulation come into this discussion at all?

Breeding would become centralized or heavily controlled (think China x 9000). We would only breed to replace those killed in accidents or to fill a quota for some kind of expansion into new places. The manner of the breeding, whether it's that we're grown in some kind of tanks or more 'naturally' produced is up in the air.

The best part about immortality is not so much the fact you live forever, but it makes people realize that the problems they create now will effect them in the future. It will also completely negate any need for religion to provide false hope, which is another nice bonus.

Chris Britton · #19 January 28, 2008, 5:15 PM

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Breeding would become centralized or heavily controlled (think China x 9000). We would only breed to replace those killed in accidents or to fill a quota for some kind of expansion into new places. The manner of the breeding, whether it's that we're grown in some kind of tanks or more 'naturally' produced is up in the air.

So we would have reached an equilibrium of sustainable development where we are only putting out as much as we are taking in. If you can see what I mean.

Recurring Villain · #20 January 28, 2008, 5:34 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Britton

So we would have reached an equilibrium of sustainable development where we are only putting out as much as we are taking in. If you can see what I mean.

You are correct.