Mars Spirit Rover panoramic image of... What is this?

a reply to: Macenroe82

ahh the blue it tunnel , I see what you mean though , those scattered accretions that appear to spiral up from the entrance , and here's me thinking it was just ornamentals to welcome guests

if you and you're geologist pals are really really bored , feel free to invite them to the discussions/ insane ramblings, we've been hoping for some professional opinions , cheers again for the input and consideration

make Aleister a happy chappy
he's been hunting for a while now

funbox

a reply to: funbox
Ill check it out for sure. Im still a fairly new poster on this site, but have mentioned the site to quite a few others in my circle.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Seriously man, try to be a little open minded and creative to think about the OTHER possibilities of what could be out there. No need to be little johnny anal ALL the time. Smoke a j or something man.


But wait. . . I be you're a photographic analyst aren't you?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

something similar perhaps

funbox

a reply to: iknowyou

I said this in the other thread too, but again....well done.

a reply to: iknowyou

Wmd2008 isnt going to like this , thats his favorite approach ..is that giants causeway ? , heh just like pluto , from micro *80% of your images* to uber massive ya

wonderous nature

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: iknowyou

Wmd2008 isnt going to like this , thats his favorite approach ..is that giants causeway ? , heh just like pluto , from micro *80% of your images* to uber massive ya

wonderous nature

funbox

Funbox, funbox, funbox....what are you saying here?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

which part don't you understand ?

im sure you get what im saying about Wmd2008, see the majority of the pictures above ? what size would you say the majority of them are?

ballpark , easy like

funbox

a reply to: funbox
I get your point but does size matter? Some of those examples are much more symmetrical and cleaner then the Mars rock thing. At first glance there is some implied symmetry in the Mars photo but it seems more like a rock after a little examination. The problem I have with these types of photos is that we only get to see one view and I don't think you can determine anything from that. It seems like it falls within the range of natural rock formations though but believe me, I would love to take a peek on the other side of that thing. So whats your take on this?

Why do people refuse to accept that rocks come in many shapes and sizes. DAFUQ.

What surprises me the most is that the same people who believe NASA was capable of faking the moon landings think they would be so careless as to expose something of any consequence in one of their supplied photos 40 years later.

Seriously looks like a rock. A very pretty rock but a rock no less.

Your princess is in another castle.

Fascinating rock indeed. The first thing that stood out for me was the inconsistency in shadows from surrounding objects. Did you apply a filter to this image before uploading it? Or is it the direct copy? I'm looking at how sharp the shadow is off the object being discussed against all other objects. That aside, great post.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

size matters, most of the anomalies that are posted at least on the anomalies thread are rarely in the macro scale , the majority of them being seen from 100% picture size, havnt seen too many giant causeways or areas where there's a repetition of geometry, ie like the giants causeway, in the sand maybe and in certain calcite seepages , but nothing that would indicate a geological cause , no fields of evidence of similar's or same's. which you would expect if such geological features have formed in that local environ that the pictures are taken in

catch all's like the images above don't explain enough to me , and using them to explain one anomaly is fickle to say the least

again did anyone mention that nature or geological processes don't create geometrically acute shapes and symmetry..

bad form , nice gallery though

to me it looks like sand coated metal , those edges have the appearance of being thin, I have trouble envisaging the wind producing such an effect on one side, again , like you said .. more pictures would be helpful..but then, is the absence of them, telling of something ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox
Good points. I think I agree with most.

to me it looks like sand coated metal , those edges have the appearance of being thin, I have trouble envisaging the wind producing such an effect on one side..

I see what you mean with it appearing to have thin sides..almost like it could be hollow.

again , like you said more pictures would be helpful..but then, is the absence of them, telling of something ?

Probably not...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Probably not...

strange you say that , ive been saying it quite a bit since anomalies thread 2014, and it's surprising , how many things get passed over



would you go back and say , I think we should get a few colour close ups of that ?

I have a few more examples of obtusity if you need

funbox

www.youtube.com...
??????????

originally posted by: Macenroe82
I showed your pics, the one i thought resembled a rib bone and conch shell, to 2 geologist at my mine site i work at. Both of them told me that hollow bone like structure you found appears to be a coral. (Of course this is just an observation)

Really?
They thought it looked like coral? Tabula? Rugosa? Funny that. I didn't get coral at all.

What intrigues me about this picture is the upper right part of the base. It is clearly a u groove type edge which I haven't seen in nature before. That makes me believe it is something manufactured.