So, so far this thread has been divided into two groups: Those who think it HAS to be a rock (either 'intellectually', or because anything else is
outside their comfort zone)
And those who think its an 'Artifact'. these people are sub-divided into people who think its a: 'fossilised fish', piece of the rover, fallen
debris from a failed mission or...and actual
(notice how the 2nd group are not arguing
with each other? just a thought)
Now I have a serious problem with the "rock" theory for several reasons. I would like the "rock" advocates to explain a few questions regarding
Preferably i would really like people with a background in geology to chime in, but of course, everyone
So, the MAIN issue with this object is the 'slender handle'. We'll leave the 'fish head' for now as erosive forces would have no problem at all
in carving that out
Ok, the Slender Handle.
How does such a thing form? The 'curvature' of the handle is VERY precise!?
Now, I understand that we have MANY types of rock on earth that can break in in a 'linear' shard-like fashion, Slate being one of the more common
Slate is a fine-grained, foliated, homogeneous, metamorphic rock derived from an original shale-type sedimentary rock composed of clay or volcanic
ash through low grade regional metamorphism. The result is a foliated rock in which the foliation may not correspond to the original sedimentary
The way in which the materials are laid down in LAYERS over years is why it breaks off into 'thin/flat' pieces.
But these peices are STRAIGHT!
So how on earth did this piece end up like this....
The blue and yellow lines 'continue' the original trajectory of the 'handle'.
The red lines show the approximate 'thickness' of the handle.
With the B/Y lines we can easily see that the curve is quite uniform
. Were we to assume
that this was metal, we would might say this was
due to the object having rested there for some time, maybe it was extremely warm at some point to 'fatigue' the metal, or we might deduce that the
of this material was such that it has succomb to gravity over time becuase of its 'weak' nature.
Either way, these are the tings we would suggest to fit the apparent uniform curve
with this theory.
do we explain 'bending rock'?
Just now i was trying to find a good example on mars with regards to 'waffers of rock'. can't find any right now, but i remember there were various
areas where these 'carboard thin' waffers of rock are sticking out of the ground.
Any way, we know that mars can do this with rocks/minerals,...but BENDING?
Surely, 'bending' is more plausable than rock splintering off in a parabolic curve?
And lets just take a look at the surroundings....
There is absolutley nothing there that looks remotely similar to this shape.
Similar in TEXTURE yes, but not in shape.
If there is geology present in this area that formed this object, WHY no other objects like it?
It it came from somewhere else, HOW has something so 'brittle' survived?
JPL FULL PANORAMIC IMAGE
If it was water that moved it, it must have been QUITE A FLOW to have lifted its 'head' off of the ground. So why is evidence of heavy/linear water
erosion greatly lacking in this area?
If it 'flew' here from a meteor explosion (as someone had suggested), again, something so 'brittle looking'; landed so softly?
Ok! on to the next picture....
1: Shows just how thin this 'handle' is, and clearly shows the top part of the curve.
2: this clearly shows that theobject is indeed a 'stand alone' object, (or at least the handle is). I read some post stating they could
definately see the Handle as being 'attached' to the rock or some such, but as we can see here, this is ABSOLUTLEY untrue.
The sun is comming down at a rough -12:15- angle (clock analogy). You can very clearly see the shadow of the Handle, AND the light being cast on the
OTHER side (behind) of the Handle.
This is most definately
a 'stand alone' object being propped
up against the rock.
3: Could very well be a rock! Nature would have no trouble at all with forming such an object. Unfortunately, the original picture is too over
exposed to tell for sure; the relationship between the bottom half and the top half.
As seen with this dodgey alteration below, you can quite easily imagine the Handle without the fish head. The bottom of the Handles trajectory almost
looks as if it takes us BEHIND the head.....
...But that still doesn't explain the Handle's origin.
I really do feel this object needs a definative explanation, even if it is just geological
And I feel that Just saying....and i mean literally
'just saying', "It's a ROCK!"
or "It' a ALIEN!"
etc. (as quite a few
people have been doing) really doesn't help.....
...it's the investigation
that really counts, so lets hear some ideas; not just statements
And i'd just just like to thank all you guys/girls fro making this a great thread
I really apprieciate all the 'appreciation' your sending and the input you're all giving.
LONG LIVE MYSTERIES and ATS