Mars Image: Building (Pics)

Ok, I have studied the same photograph a bit closer and found this. I have no idea what this means but these traces seems interesting to me. Any suggestions ?




[edit on 8-7-2008 by LonelyWolf]

I agree ArMap that with your statement and affirm to you to that geology is not my field. All the experts in their respected field gain knowledge through work and experiences. I geologists and other Terra researchers/scientists who have worked in this field for a long time and have gained experiences of witnessing some unique formations doesn't really have to necessarily mean that these formations are natural.

All I am saying if a scientist sees a rectangular rock in China and then sees another rectangular rock in Canada whose dimensions are similar. This scientist after careful research might form the notion of these formations being natural and who knows his research will make it into studying materials and future scientists will refer to such formations as natural.

Natures does have mystique qualities about its formations some of which are still not understood and can never be duplicated by nature again. I am just offering another side of what some find natural could have been made a long long time ago. Obviously I have no proof to back my opinion as it is only an opinion.

Originally posted by LonelyWolf
Ok, I have studied the same photograph a bit closer and found this. I have no idea what this means but these traces seems interesting to me. Any suggestions ?

[edit on 8-7-2008 by LonelyWolf]

MikeSingh has a thread started on the above photographs of the tracks. Quite interesting theories on that. Mars Tracks

reply to post by prionace glauca


I knew I had heard of this before.

Stone movement on hillslopes in the Mojave Desert, California: A 16-year record

Previous research has shown that either hydraulic action or creep may be the dominant process transporting coarse debris down hillslopes in the American Southwest. This study analyses the movement over 16 years of painted stones on two hillslopes in the central Mojave Desert to ascertain which of these two processes dominate in this region. The distance moved (M) is found to be directly related to length of overland flow (X) and hillslope gradient (S), and inversely related to particle size (D). The fact that M is more highly correlated with X than with S suggests that hydraulic action rather than creep is the dominant process. It is concluded that this is probably the case over most of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts on slopes up to at least 24°, and that it is only at higher elevations where winters are more severe that creep may become dominant

Source: www3.interscience.wiley.com...

and

www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

[edit on 8-7-2008 by sos37]

Originally posted by Ferengi
Your talking about earth, not mars.
Not everything is like earth.

So you are saying that geology would be different on Mars than on Earth? Interesting theory perhaps you could share...

Maybe we can find some of these on Mars?



Those are granite... but on occasion granite 'breaks' into regular rectangular blocks... I see a few other ones in ArMap's pick... so they probably fell off the higher cliffs

The Basalt columns people keep posting are not crystals, just the way that basalt fractures when cooling in rare cases.... and pyrite and diamond crystal are minerals not rocks and the difference IS important Its like comparing apples and oranges



[edit on 8-7-2008 by zorgon]

The Mysterious Wandering Rocks of Death Valley










No one has ever seen one actually move but they THINK the wind did it

that pic that started this topic is obviously a fake. why else would the only object vastly more pixalized in the picture be the very object of interest. please....

I'd like to share some more parts of the initial bigger image which I have found interesting:




could be an alien ship.



old and rusty underground ventilation system or tunnels.



big house or village in ruins. some stuff is still standing outside.



maybe a plant ? who knows..



this thing just looks out of place to me.



I don't know who that guy is. It could be Chuck Norris.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by LonelyWolf]

Originally posted by prionace glauca
(snip)

All I am saying if a scientist sees a rectangular rock in China and then sees another rectangular rock in Canada whose dimensions are similar. This scientist after careful research might form the notion of these formations being natural and who knows his research will make it into studying materials and future scientists will refer to such formations as natural.
(snip)

And show the same two "rocks" to archelogosits and they would say that the same form of "building material" was used in both areas.

Depends upons one's "research starting point".

If you are a geologist then everything is just "rocks" like the Giza Pyramids...after all are just "rocks"

If you are an archelogists...then one looks at the "context" around the rocks and their arangement...something the "rock hounds" of the Rovers are and NASA/JPL et al are NOT doing...especially with this image of a piece of petrified wood the rover rolled right over...took some NavCam images of it...but NEVER...according to the PDS data dase...put the PanCam suuite of instruments on it to determine color, minerologic spectrum, nor the 3D meshes to re-create the scene in 3D:

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

Bob...
commonsensecentral.net...

Originally posted by rhw007
If you are an archelogists...then one looks at the "context" around the rocks and their arangement...something the "rock hounds" of the Rovers are and NASA/JPL et al are NOT doing...especially with this image of a piece of petrified wood the rover rolled right over...took some NavCam images of it...but NEVER...according to the PDS data dase...put the PanCam suuite of instruments on it to determine color, minerologic spectrum, nor the 3D meshes to re-create the scene in 3D

Why are you insisting on bringing this subject (used in at least two previous threads) to this thread? I hate it when people mix other subjects in the middle of the threads, it only makes the signal to noise ration worse.

That rock (and yes, I think it is a rock, it looks like all the other flat rocks around it) is not similar to these (as far as I can see) and that area is only related to this one because it is on the same planet and more or less at the same latitude (I think . )

reply to post by Kruel


True to the meaning of NASA = Never A Straight Answer

reply to post by super70


Dude, thats a Mars Barn. They grow corn and stuff in that area.. few moo cows and sum po-tot-oes ..

who thinks NASA just got caught with there hand in the cookie jar?

I believe the truth is already coming out!


We've finally got the proof we've been waiting for, for a very long time.

The proof is not LIFE is out there and or did exist.


Because we didn't build that house or building!


WE NOW FINALLY KNOW THE ANSWERS!

its actually a crevasse

I've seen things that look very similar to this in minerals. Could be , may be... are cause for more scrutiny.






Anyone that tells you he knows it all, run don't walk in the other direction.

Originally posted by Ferengi
reply to post by Quazga

 

Your talking about earth, not mars.
Not everything is like earth.

Oh do crystals somehow form differently on Mars?


I suppose all the elements are different on Mars eh?

God what *Morons* we have on the boards these days.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by Quazga

 

Totally agree with you. I've got some of these crystal formations at home. But check all these images out. These are naturally forming rocks.

Iron Pyrite Cube


Odd naturally formed causeway


Naturally formed Octahedral Diamond

Amazing Links! Thanks for all of the pictures of *incredibly* squared crystals.

When I originally posted I googled for a few minutes and didn't find any good specimens, but you've hit the nail on the head with these pictures.

Ahh... ok so anyone else out there think the square shape doesn't appear naturally?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by rhw007
If you are an archelogists...then one looks at the "context" around the rocks and their arangement...something the "rock hounds" of the Rovers are and NASA/JPL et al are NOT doing...especially with this image of a piece of petrified wood the rover rolled right over...took some NavCam images of it...but NEVER...according to the PDS data dase...put the PanCam suuite of instruments on it to determine color, minerologic spectrum, nor the 3D meshes to re-create the scene in 3D

Why are you insisting on bringing this subject (used in at least two previous threads) to this thread? I hate it when people mix other subjects in the middle of the threads, it only makes the signal to noise ration worse.

That rock (and yes, I think it is a rock, it looks like all the other flat rocks around it) is not similar to these (as far as I can see) and that area is only related to this one because it is on the same planet and more or less at the same latitude (I think .

)

Noooo it does NOT look like any other rock in the area at least according to the PDS person I spoke to and as can be seen when looking at the object and other navcam 115 for oppie.

bob

Pixels of the "box" do not match the pixels of the rest of the image. Nice try. Sorry, there is still no evidence of past sivilisation on Mars. Busted!

larsG