First Moon Picture from Japanese Orbiter, page 9

Originally posted by zorgon
There will always be those that mo matter what you show them will say 'its a blurry image' or its 'just a rock'... In this case look at it a bit The shadow shows sharp right angles... the surface texture is nothing like any of the rocks around it... there is no geological explanation for that 'rock' to form in that shape in that location... and the surface is brightly reflective...

These are the reasons I will bet money on that its NOT a rock...

Hmmm... So basically what you're going on is that there seem to be saying is that given enough straight lines, unusual surface texture including unusual brightness, and a lack of a geological explanation for its formation, it becomes something other than an unusually straight, bright rock? At what point does this happen? Is it a measurable percentage, or is it just something you "know?"

Because for me, the rock there does certainly stick out from the surrounding terrain, but mostly because that particular spot is relatively dull and the human eye tends to exaggerate differences like that. On the original photo, you have to admit there are other rocks on the left side of the image that seem to have pretty much the same brightness and shadow. They just don't stick out so much because they're in an area with more contrast. I mean, the object in question doesn't appear to be glowing internally or sparkling like a diamond or anything obvious like that. So I don't know how much more bright it is than some other rocks in the same image. Not much, in my mind.

As for surface texture, I really can't make out much from a few pixels, but there doesn't seem to be a recognizable artificial pattern or anything, or writing. That would be a clincher.

The straight lines and right angles are interesting, although I think they would be more interesting if they were on more than just that bright side. The shadow side doesn't seem to have those same straight lines. And the shadow that the feature casts on the ground is certainly not straight. It seems to indicate that the top of the object is a kind of irregular lump. So the object is not perfectly symmetrical or anything, which is too bad. That makes me think that it fortunately lines up with the pixel scan enough, and it's contrasting enough, to maybe look straighter than it actually is. It does seem to be kind of naturally straight and angular, but it's also helped a lot by the photo. There are straight-edged, angular rocks in nature, after all, formed by volcanic action and so on. Not sedimentation in this case, though. Again, it's too bad we can't see it at a higher resolution. But for you it looks straight and angular enough to not be natural. Fair enough.

I admit I don't know what specific kind of geological processes happen on asteroids. I suspect, however, that because of its low gravity, at least some of the geology involves low-speed impacts from other debris floating around in space. The surface is cratered, which is some evidence of that. Some appear to be older than others, since they seem more worn down. But I don't know if that's a good way to tell an asteroid crater's age. I'm not an expert. Anyway, I do think it may be possible that the object in question might be a relatively recent (like within the last billion years or so), low-speed impact. Like dropping a small pebble into the soft dirt from a few inches. It wouldn't make a big splat, and it would stick out in that same way. Again, there are other smaller rocks on the surface that aren't worn down or buried. They got there somehow, too. Maybe you know more about asteroid geology than I do, though, so you can rule out low-speed sticky impacts. But for me, it seems like a plausible mechanism as to why that thing is where it is.

So what I'm seeing is a rock that's sort of bright but really not brighter than other rocks on the asteroid, kind of straight and angular on one side but not obviously symmetrical, and that could have bumped into the low-gravity asteroid without making much of a dent. I absolutely agree that it's interesting and eye-catching, but it for me, it just doesn't quite make that leap from being an unusual rock to a probable artifact. Obviously, for you, in your opinion, the existing evidence is good enough. I guess we'll just have to wait until another probe visits the asteroid to find out for sure.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Nohup]