posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by tauristercus
Not to speak for the OP, but I believe the intent of the second pic was to provide a "compare and contrast" between the Mars image (pic 1) and
a real trilobite fossil (pic 2). A cursory image search didn't turn up that particular one, but there are plenty to choose from. It is symmetrical
because is (was) biological.
As much as I'd love to believe this is a 100m worm fossil (does that mean we can harvest Spice?), I like the basalt pillars explanation the best. The
source says that this is in the north polar region. Geologically, could it have been some sort of molten uplift from beneath a softer crust, perhaps
into a glacier or ice flow? The ice receded and left this soft ridge to be battered by a consistent north wind? A repeating melting/freezing of the
ice could also contribute to the fracturing.
Man what I wouldn't give for a good pair of moon boots and a 7 day pack for some Mars hiking to see this stuff in person.
edit on 24-12-2010 by
Tripnman because: Content