Ruins, or natural formation?, page 1

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.]

reply to post by D.E.M.

---

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

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.

reply to post by D.E.M.

---

A Painted Picture

Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
  Posted 14 days ago with 102 member flags

Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 9 days ago with 96 member flags

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags

The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 17 days ago with 70 member flags

Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 6 days ago with 45 member flags

Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 18 days ago with 29 member flags

42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
  Posted 5 days ago with 26 member flags

R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 13 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: