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.]