Interesting find. When I looked at it via the original image though I didn't see anything too special about it.

I am more impressed by the soil/salt/water that shows up in the Rover's tracks.

Originally posted by Beamish
I so want to see something completely mindblowing in an image from Mars. What we are getting are teasers, and as such have to be careful before we jump to conclusions.

I guess we all have our different ideas about what is "obviously" a manufactured artifact "too symmetrical" to be a natural formation. Some folks will take something half buried that kinda sorta looks like it might have a marginally straight edge on it that isn't just a shadow and immediately imagine they see a piece of an engine or a skull or a shoe tree or an alien GameBoy that has been eroded over millions of years, but still recognizable, by golly.

But if you just look at the difference between say, the Mars Rovers themselves, which are actual pieces of machinery, and the scrubby little bits of whatever that vaguely resemble something, there's really no comparison. Yeah, yeah, erosion. Too bad about that, but that's not my problem.

I want to be shown something as blatant and obvious as a Mars Rover component sitting there on the surface. If these other things can be seen, why not something as obvious and undeniable as a Mars Rover wheel?

Oh, yeah, the erosion. Well, if we're just going to make up assumptions, like the aliens only existed millions of years ago and this is all that's left, then why can't I make an assumption that there were never any aliens to begin with? I mean, fair is fair. Right?

even with the yellow outline to persuade me i have to say "nope. it's just a rock." i realize the shadow that sort of bisects the object might be leading you to think it's concave in some way but i think it's just a shadow of a bulge or that they are 2 separate rocks and you're getting a shadow from the one on top.

Originally posted by icblue
No-one jumped to these conclusions in this case, it was just stated that this object or rock seemed to show sings of tampering since nature doesn't produce such stand alone, rectangular artifacts that present a rectangular excavation. Of course, if you fail to see or recognize it then by all means it's just a stone with a wierd shadow.

But that's just my point. Some people think it "seemed" to show signs of tampering, since in their opinion nature doesn't produce similar shapes. That's just a matter of opinion, really, isn't it? That at a certain point a shape can't be produced by nature. But there's no absolute, agreed-upon line that specifically defines where the natural ends and the artificial begins. Some people think that if something has a kind of straight edge (or used to, allowing for the erosion), then that qualified it as probably artificial. Others would rather see a bit more measurable order, symmetry, construction, linear script, etc.

The thing is, I can post a lot of images of things nature has fashioned into very artificial-looking shapes, and others can post photos of Mars rocks where they've drawn lines to highlight what they perceive are the artificial aspects of the object. But neither of those things prove anything. That's right, neither. Because it's not dealing with the object, but rather images of the object or other images, and images don't prove anything, anywhere, anyway.

So all anybody is left with are their opinions. The person who thinks a particular thing on Mars is an artifact can claim this as a victory, I suppose, but it really isn't. It's not even a victory if suddenly a whole ancient city is discovered on Mars using subsurface radar. Because even that wouldn't say anything about the particular object in question. It would be like saying that because there are people living in New York City, the squarish rock I found in Arizona must be manufactured.

And you know, I think I've already written too much in another one of these pointless threads. If you get a thrill out of looking at a blurry image and thinking a rock on Mars is some kind of decayed alien carburetor, hey, knock yourself out. No skin off my nose.

Ridiculous.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Nohup]

Nice find. Flag for you can you post the link please. As I know theirs, a few people who would be interested including my self Thanks

Originally posted by Nohup
[But that's just my point. Some people think it "seemed" to show signs of tampering, since in their opinion nature doesn't produce similar shapes. That's just a matter of opinion, really, isn't it? That at a certain point a shape can't be produced by nature. But there's no absolute, agreed-upon line that specifically defines where the natural ends and the artificial begins. Some people think that if something has a kind of straight edge (or used to, allowing for the erosion), then that qualified it as probably artificial. Others would rather see a bit more measurable order, symmetry, construction, linear script, etc.

AND there is one more thing to this you say Nohup; we are al under the assumption that nature works in a way we know it should. While in fact we are still investigating (and discovering) how nature works. So how can we know how nature works on an other planet (if you can call it "nature").

But I can appreciate the attempt to show something "out of the ordinairy" on Mars, there is much to show...

And who knows: maybe we will be wiped from our feet by some amazing find. I for one still expect such a thing to happen, but maybe only if we are really standing on Mars' surface so we can pick up anything looking suspicious and deal with the arguments on the spot, i stead of heaving to do with only a distant one-sided picture.

Icblue. had a quick look at the post this morning( just got up) didn’t see you had the link up. My apology. still a nice find . Keep looking and posting.

I could just as easily draw a curved outline around the object. The resolution is not high enough to draw any conclusions. This kind of exaggerated speculation distracts attention away from the really obvious anomalies which the authorities want you to forget about.

What is far more interesting in that photo is the darker (wet?) tracks and the white stuff (ice?) on the very same tracks.

Originally posted by Nohup
And you know, I think I've already written too much in another one of these pointless threads. If you get a thrill out of looking at a blurry image and thinking a rock on Mars is some kind of decayed alien carburetor, hey, knock yourself out. No skin off my nose.

Ridiculous.

I can agree with you to a point.

Consider this: I believe we're hardwired to recognise patterns that indicate artificiality, familiar shapes that would suggest intelligent construction etc.

This is supposition based on observation, but would it not be feasible to assume that our ancestors had deduced systems of territorial marking, as "primitive" tribes do up to the present day?
A bent twig here, a pile of stones there, a bone left in a tree would all mean something to a wandering tribe or individual. To ignore them would mean missing out on food, placing onesself in danger, or losing a path.

Now, if this ability to "read" the landscape is still inherent, hardwired, as I described earlier, then maybe it is being utilised for a different purpose in the study of Martian photographs?
An example; we use road markings to navigate journeys. Many are numerical and use text, but a large amount are symbolic, artificial shapes that stand out from the background noise. Their import triggers an acquired knowledge. We obey them because we know they are significant.

I fully realise that this is a tenuous hypothesis, but any hypothesis is valid until disproven. For centuries we have used this faculty to not only survive, but prosper. It's only a manufactured version of scent marking. Now, it is part of us, and we use it without thinking every day.
Indeed, many years ago I walked an archeological site on the Greek island of Thassos. Amazingly, the site was open to the public. It consisted of rocky ground and centuries of natural detritus.
However, I was able, without too much trouble, to spot potsherds, pieces of Hellenic glass, and fragments of decaying metal amongst the litter. And I wasn't really looking. This might not sound remarkable, but it goes someway to illustrate my point.

I admit we don't always get it right. Humans are stubborn and wilfull and will ignore the obvious, even at the risk of danger or retribution. What those who pour over NASA photos are doing, IMO, is utilising this primal skill, albeit unknowingly, to validate the widely held theory of a once, or presently occupied Mars.

What they find, they post, and for that I am personaly gratefull. The findings may well not be artificial, indeed, most of the time they're not, but it doesn't, and shouldn't stop them looking.

Is it ridiculous? Hardly. Anyone who spends time searching for the seemingly immposible is only following a long tradition of explorers and researchers who had faith in the existence of the legendary and ellusive.

To actively hunt for something that the majority of people vociferously believe mythical or invented is both foolhardy, but wonderfully, completely, undeniably human.

the rock below it also looks concave.

I'm just saying I find the tracks WAY more interesting, is there an explanation?

I mean we are all talking about this stone, but damn look at those tracks! lol.

I want to pull up an image from my computer files and it won't let me.

Interestin thread. I downloaded and put the pic through a high pass tonality filter. Result. IMHO its an edit and was never in the original that was taken. As the small rock? is in the NASA original, the edit was made before they posted it. Reasons for my opinion is this. When The filter is applied the shadows on the anomally are darker than the other few rocks in the surrounding are. Also the object at 2 o`clock to the anomally is to identical and can be oplaced almost perfectly over iether the front left or right sections of it. P.S. Credentials : I am a professional photographer and designer.

Link to www.4thdimensionimage.com/portraits/imagepages/image1.html
and click on the thumbnail.