Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

reply to post by ArMaP


Exploded view is engineering term for zoomed in

alienreality
Exploded view is engineering term for zoomed in

I understand that, thanks.

But it still doesn't make sense, how can one corner be more zoomed in than the rest? And I say "the rest" because there are more corners than two.

reply to post by ArMaP


use the brick overlay to guide your eyes to the corner feature




'the picture which is more zoomed in, out of the two I posted'

or

'the more exploded one of the two (pictures)'

funBox

funbox
use the brick overlay to guide your eyes to the corner feature

The brick overlay doesn't help, it only makes things more confusing.

'the picture which is more zoomed in, out of the two I posted'

or

'the more exploded one of the two (pictures)'

The problem is that the above sentence has the added "(pictures)", which does not correspond to what we were talking about, which was "corners", no wonder I couldn't understand what you meant, as you started talking about "corners" and changed to "pictures".

reply to post by ArMaP


I added that two help you understand

I suggest you read back from this text

if you follow the line of rocks from around 10 oclock you will notice that it zig zags rectangler,as if buildings once stood there.

it should all fit into place like swiss clockwork

funBox

reply to post by funbox


For someone that spends so much time making animated GIFs I was expecting you to make just a quick image edit to point to the corner in question, at least that's how I would do it if I wanted to make people understand what I meant.

reply to post by ArMaP


unfortunately I do not have that luxury atm, but, I thought on each rexplaination I offered enough for anyone to clearly see the corner.. and I may be wrong ,.. see, it was a question to Symptomsoftheuniverce, I was asking if I had the right foundations/rockfromations blown up/ exploded / zoomed .. he hasn't retorted yet , so we both could be far far from the right corner

the anticipation is killing me , but I think he could have been referring to at least one of the corners ive tried, it seems in vain , to example

recap

the closest zoom to my asserted corner/ foundation



enhanced with brick and fire , but slightly less zoomed



any clearer and I might start thinking your winding me up / bear baiting

BearBox

funbox
reply to post by jeep3r

 

are you seeing a ships figurehead in that mass?
funBox

No, although I think I know what you mean if you were referring to the right-hand section of it. I was mostly intrigued by the four (or more) nearly equidistant holes on the left-hand side of that formation.

In the cross eye view, you also get a sense of light reflections behind those openings, indicating that the rock is not solid but rather hollow (with an overall round shape, slightly twisted & bent, lengthwise).

When combined with that circular impression in the center, I was wondering whether this arrangement of interestingly lined-up features (all in one chunk) is a pure coincedence or not ...

reply to post by funbox


Now I think I understand what you mean.

You see, when you wrote "few artefacts there, but their outlines are still clearly noticeable", the "their outlines" made me think that you were talking about individual rocks, and your answer to my "few" post (one of my shorter posts ever), "geometric rock outlines", made me think that you were really talking about individual rocks, that's why my answer was about "outlines of the rocks".

Then you said that "the corner is not affected by the compression", without specifying which corner, and as I was thinking that you were talking about individual rocks, I answered that the "image is full of corners", as many rocks in that formation have sharp corners.

The "more exploded one of the two" only confused me more, as I was still thinking that you were talking about individual rocks, and the fact that you wrote "ide say that forms a rough right angle" reinforced my thought of individual rocks, as that rough right angle (if it's a rough right angle) is made with two individual rocks. That's why your sentence didn't make sense to me and the brick overlay only made things worse.

Now that I'm not half asleep I think you have been talking of the corner made by the two rocks that make that possible rough right angle and not about a specific corner of a specific rock.

Is that it?

reply to post by ArMaP


excellently written ArMaP, we have hit the finish line, and ready to crack open the blueberry Wine

and when I say hit the finished line , I don't mean with a mallet...

but yes, I think we have the right rocks that make up the corner feature



funBox

reply to post by jeep3r


I was thinking that the holes at the left end ,would have been there to attach to the boat, struts push through and hold it in place, a long shot I know but the right side looks to me like its the 'looking out to see part'

funbox

reply to post by funbox


Well, that's an interesting interpretation, indeed ... I didn't want to stretch it too far, but when looking at some of these formations, certain earthly scenarios such as here, here and here do come to mind from time to time.

Also, a lot of things would need to have happened to preserve any such structures, if they existed. And another big question could be: would we actually recognize it? Just trying to add some food for thought here ... highly speculative, of course!

reply to post by jeep3r


was that a case of bu7ilding the ship before the ocean is even found ? I think I played to much catchphrase a a child . an errant one too .. but it certainly has a coral feel about it .. but these spaced holes, Im still struggling to understand the significance .. and after viewing the photos ! portholes

preservation .. would this be increased in an oxygen starved atmosphere?
things could look pretty good after the great atmosphere burn off

funBox

funbox
preservation .. would this be increased in an oxygen starved atmosphere?
things could look pretty good after the great atmosphere burn off

It depends. On Earth, part of the destruction of any thing comes from living organisms, so if there were living organisms on Mars that died with the change of conditions, they wouldn't be available to live of the processing of the possible objects left behind, so those things would decay by themselves and by any atmospheric (including chemical) influence.

At least that's how I see it.

reply to post by ArMaP


right you Ar-MaP

oxygens a great eater of things, and anything wooden would suffer under its reactive force, but as I think of the acid environment of mars, hmmm swings and roundabouts , I think , between rates of erosion and corrosion amongst compeating forces

heres my top list of erosive forces

1: wind and sand erosion /attrition
2: acid
3: salts
4: water / combination with acids and salts
5: dust devils/ a rare phenomenon , subset phenomena from position 1
6: meteorites and space objects
7: blue it resource consumption
8: mermaids tears *

did I miss anything ?

funBox

*highly speculative/improbable

reply to post by funbox


The proven erosion factor of mermaid tears emits from the chemical makeup (literally) that they use. The chemical makeup applied as an eyeliner contains an acid base which mermaids prefer because it doesn't run when swimming in water. The makeup will only mix and start to run when the mermaid cries (and you do not want to know what makes a mermaid sad enough to cry, the soul devastation which comes from that knowledge changes people's worldview and sunny-dispositions, tragedy of the first order doesn't even start to scratch the surface of what causes those tears to flow), and as she cries her own internal chemicals mix with the makeup, and before you know it rocks have holes in them, sand is no longer sand, and places like Mars (mermaids were plentiful in Gale Sea, according to Wikipedia huffed talk pages) don't stand a chance so it doesn't even try.

reply to post by funbox


Well, if it actually was something along those lines (something extraordinary and non-natural) it would indeed require making some additional and probably hilarious assumptions. But what does 'hilarious' mean in the context of a martian past that, at some point, was dominated by various cataclysms and unknown geological processes ...

As long as we're just scratching the surface, everything's possible, isn't it? An ocean is likely to have existed, but where are signs of past marine life? That's a problem and we're still searching. Which is kind of inconvenient when assuming something artifical might be there, unless we consider some visitors having left behind some of their technology in the distant past.

At the same time, we need to acknowledge that there are no close-ups of marine looking formations. A lot of it is always in the farfield of the cams, no way to get any details. Only vague hints, no visual evidence which is frustrating, in a way ...

With regard to preservation: it could be possible in case certain events (such as burial under sediments) prohibited complete degradation of potential structures. An example for this is the rediscovery of the Mary Rose. And that was an example of a construction made of wood(!). Nearly 430 years underwater and buried beneath sedimentary layers, yet rediscovered in an extraordinary shape.

All that is highly speculative and provocative, no question ... but I sometimes 'am' reminded of such things when looking at some of those formations.

reply to post by Aleister


I feel a little guilty putting them at the bottom of the list now , below blue its too
who would of thought it , hopefully there will be a hidden underground underwater cave , with a small bounty of them shimmering beauty's

could be an opportunity to rival the chowder market or the blue-it soup market.. a whole new line of mermaid tear sink un-
blocker!

funBox

funbox
1: wind and sand erosion /attrition

From what I have seen, wind erosion is not that strong, as the atmosphere is too thin to carry the larger particles that would hit the objects with more energy.

2: acid

Acid is good at eroding things, but where did it came, acid is not that common in nature.

3: salts

Salts are also good at eroding things, but they are good at preserving others, like living organisms.

4: water / combination with acids and salts

In an environment where the water is disappearing I think salt would become increasingly common, and we should be looking at a salty lake bottom if there was salt in that water.

5: dust devils/ a rare phenomenon , subset phenomena from position 1

Same as 1, obviously.

6: meteorites and space objects

Those would make the biggest changes, but more localized than global environment influences.

7: blue it resource consumption

For that we need to know what they consume.

8: mermaids tears *

Those may be included in 4.

Well, if it actually was something along those lines (something extraordinary and non-natural) it would indeed require making some additional and probably hilarious assumptions. But what does 'hilarious' mean in the context of a martian past that, at some point, was dominated by various cataclysms and unknown geological processes ...

As long as we're just scratching the surface, everything's possible, isn't it? An ocean is likely to have existed, but where are signs of past marine life? That's a problem and we're still searching. Which is kind of inconvenient when assuming something artifical might be there, unless we consider some visitors having left behind some of their technology in the distant past.

what like the possible extinction of ancient martian boat builder's ?, I wondered how far the Vikings really travelled to think they did that to Mars

At the same time, we need to acknowledge that there are no close-ups of marine looking formations. A lot of it is always in the farfield of the cams, no way to get any details. Only vague hints, no visual evidence which is frustrating, in a way ...

frustrating indeed , and not forgetting the great 75% compression .. terrifyingly cruel thing to do to a picture ,
'in a way?... '

do you think this information would be curtailed by Nasa/associative authority's at this time?

With regard to preservation: it could be possible in case certain events (such as burial under sediments) prohibited complete degradation of potential structures. An example for this is the rediscovery of the Mary Rose. And that was an example of a construction made of wood(!). Nearly 430 years underwater and buried beneath sedimentary layers, yet rediscovered in an extraordinary shape.

I remember them raising that Boat , seeing them get all excited about it on Bluepeter was one of my great childhood memorys
I didn't share that excitement of course , to me it looked like a huge dead whale being lifted , all those carefully placed balloons , it was almost like watching the sea giving birth traumatising

it was well preserved though , on restoration

funBox