It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ruins, or natural formation?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I would like to conduct an experiment. In the interests of examining the effects of the phenomenon of "Seeing what you want to see", I will post a picture in the thread:



Now, I would like to see who thinks this is:

A) An ancient and mysterious ruin of dubious origin

B) A naturally created formation resulting from the erosion of a bedrock uplift above the surrounding terrain.

If you would like to extrapolate on your answer with an argument in its support, that is perfectly fine. I am simply curious as to how sharp the eye here in this subsection of ATS is.

RESULTS ARE IN:

The final score is:

A) 3 votes (Ancient and mysterious Ruin)

B) 8 votes (Natural Sandstone Formation)

and unfortunately 2 votes that had to be discarded due to not voting on the available options.

Now, as to what it really is....Drum Roll......................

The picture in question above is the ancient walls of the city of Balkh, Afghanistan, as photographed by Steven Roecker in 1998!

Yes indeed, the crumbling edifice above is in fact the time damaged remains of a city that once rivaled Babylon and Nineveh, and outlasted both of them. More information can be found at the link above, or on the wiki page: Balkh

Now for the explanation. To be honest, I am surprised at the amount of people that chose option B. However, this does support the argument I am about to put forth. Well over 50% more people voted for Natural Formation than Ancient Ruin, despite there being many identifiable features in the image that would peg it as option A.

The purpose of the thread, therefore, was to demonstrate that despite the number of people who jump into threads here naysaying pictures of possible ruins or relics as simply a trick of the light on natural geology, or a case of "Seeing what you want to see", they are not always right.

Given the results of the voting here, while a relatively small sample I admit, it supports that one should always take the Ruin & Relic debunkers here with a hefty grain of salt. After all, if a ruin that was inhabited up to the 15th century can be mistaken for a windswept bit of Sandstone, who is to say what something abandoned for several thousand, or even hundred thousand, years might look like? Looking at the results of the voting, certainly not the majority here on ATS!

[edit on 12-11-2009 by D.E.M.]




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I would have to say B) but A) is still plausible.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


I'm going for natural formation. It's very interesting, though!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
you know........ the photo reminds me a lot of the area around Arches National Monument in southcentral Utah. The formation in the picture appears consistent with sandstone or other sedimentary rock, and the sparse foliage supports that as well.

I fairly strongly feel that it is a natural formation, most likely caused by a windstrike area -- usually at the base of a mountain or elevation.

Upper Goblin Valley in Utah also has some spires and rock cutouts and such.

close?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I would say natural. Looks like a few of the formations in Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs.

Garden of the Gods

I know it's a tourist site but there are some cool pics that look similar to the picture you posted.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
So the current tally stands at:

A) 0 (Ancient and mysterious ruin)

B) 4 (Natural Sandstone formation)


Interesting results, interesting indeed. I'll check again before I go to bed and then update the OP in the morning to reveal the results of the study!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It really could be either. Most likely natural, but hard to determine without bigger photos that are closer up and without photos from all angles.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I'll lean toward natural formation for now, but like HotSauce said, with just one picture, and being very small at that, it's difficult to make a decision. At first glance it looks natural, but then it could be any number of ancient ruins across the globe, probably in the Middle East or Central Asia.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I gotta say A)....that's a castle now quit playing with us and tell us where that castle is!
______________________________________



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I vote ruins. To be exact, ruins on mars. Yes mars. Rover tracks! The rover "ruined" the soil. Am I close ?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Current tally:

A) 2 (Ancient Ruins of mysterious origin)

B) 6 (Naturally eroded sandstone formation)

Off to bed gents, I'll update the OP in the morning with the final tally and the origin of the photograph.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I'm going to need a negative of the original photo to give you a definitive answer.
Seeing the trail to the left and the angle of what seems to be another wall to left.
I'm going to say man made.
(A)



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
On a side note: If you really want to see we are seeing what we want to see.
You should have picked a picture that is less obvious one way or the the other.
Like some of those Martian pics!
I never see anything but rocks!

[edit on 11-11-2009 by flyingfish]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


A Painted Picture



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Hmm can we make an option C , airbrushed in by NASA ?

If so I will vote C



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.
I would like to conduct an experiment. In the interests of examining the effects of the phenomenon of "Seeing what you want to see", I will post a picture in the thread:



Now, I would like to see who thinks this is:

A) An ancient and mysterious ruin of dubious origin

B) A naturally created formation resulting from the erosion of a bedrock uplift above the surrounding terrain.

If you would like to extrapolate on your answer with an argument in its support, that is perfectly fine. I am simply curious as to how sharp the eye here in this subsection of ATS is.

Vote away!

B)

Looks very similar to the rocks in the valley where my folks live.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Natural.

The game trail gives it away.

The game trail is a little wider than usual, but that's due to human use.


Living here in the N/W Arizona desert I see a lot of very interesting natural formations.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The OP has now been updated with the final results and the origin of the photo. Thank you all for contributing for the experiment, it was a very interesting look into the nature of the situation indeed.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Love this thread, good job!
______________________




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I'd have to say man made.
When I magnafied the image to 400%, the 'window' openings seemed to be at the same height as each other and about the same distance from the 'door' opening in the center.
Also the 'windows' would be at the correct height for a window and if this were a natural erosion process, would the 'window' openings be so square or should they be more rounded?
The 'door' opening is also of an 'arched' design which would be consistent with the age of said 'ruins'.
The corners on the foundation are also too much of being right angles to be consistent with the surrounding natural erosion.

If I am wrong, please send me pictures of space rocks and I'll back you up on whatever you want them to be.

Ahh!! I missed the buzzer!

[edit on 12-11-2009 by geo1066]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join