Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

a reply to: Blue Shift

the trouble I have seeing it as a moon is its magnitude , it would be much brighter on the star field , and no doubt it would be un-streaked , puzzler about the in-between frames though unless its hiding behind something dark , theres no reason why it should vanish

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
puzzler about the in-between frames though

unless its hiding behind something dark , theres no reason why it should vanish

Well, logically, it might be that the camera is moving in the other frames to such a degree that it doesn't show the streak thing, whatever it may be. When we look at the images, we see all the speckles and they look like stars, but they're really not. They're damaged pixels. So what we're getting are a lot of images of the night sky (maybe) that are not of one spot but are really bounced all over the place. Sometimes it gets the streak or spot, sometimes not. Same thing with your wandering dot. It's the camera moving, and not the dot thing.

Maybe.

originally posted by: JadeStar
Which makes sense given what we know about Mars.

What we're told about Mars... In my opinion the only way to definately know how Mars "operates" so to speak is too physically go there

So, what are the chances of this being natural?


nasa

Or from a different perspective.....how bad ass a stone mason do you gotta be to make that and have it last as long as it has?

originally posted by: Thorneblood
So, what are the chances of this being natural?

100%?

But a very good example of a Martian bridge to nowhere. Nice find, and one of those that emulate something man-made (or Venusian-made, depending on who got there first).

originally posted by: Thorneblood
So, what are the chances of this being natural?

nasa

Or from a different perspective.....how bad ass a stone mason do you gotta be to make that and have it last as long as it has?

Well what about THIS

Or THIS

Just because you don't understand how it was formed doesn't mean it's not natural.

Nature does straight edges as well.

a reply to: wmd_2008

the giants causeway ? volcanically formed. gale creator was supposed to have formed by a meteorite, then aeons of water/ air erosion/deposition .. how are the examples you gave relevant, given that gale creator is formed the way its said to have been?

funbox

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: wmd_2008

the giants causeway ? volcanically formed. gale creator was supposed to have formed by a meteorite, then aeons of water/ air erosion/deposition .. how are the examples you gave relevant, given that gale creator is formed the way its said to have been?

funbox

I suggest you look at what he said no let me show you.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
So, what are the chances of this being natural?

nasa

So I posted other NATURALLY occurring formations that don't look natural.

Hope that is simple enough for you and the people that stared you to understand

a reply to: wmd_2008

so which of the natural geological /aeolian processes do you think occurred in this instance ? and taking into account that of which we know to be true of this region, and that your preponderance towards form, via comparative pictures led you to volcanism in the first instance to be the probably cause, yet there are no volcanoes..

just trying to understand

funbox

a reply to: wmd_2008

Except they aren't straight lines......each of the stones are individual yet they form a perfect arch?

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Except they aren't straight lines......each of the stones are individual yet they form a perfect arch?

I don't think those are individual stones, it looks like a large(ish) sedimentary stone that was formed with that shape.

I have seen several rocks like that in other photos.

a reply to: ArMaP

I suppose, but it seems a little too coincidental to me. I think if you moved the far left stone back into position it would line up just as nicely as the rest.

a reply to: Thorneblood

seems to be a few symmetrical shaped unquantifiables in this picture , but im glad to see that chowder country's back



funbox

a reply to: funbox

Isn't this a meteor crater, or did I mis understand that part.

a reply to: Thorneblood

crater come lake come dustbowl , well asides from the sporadic blue-it tribe

funbox

originally posted by: Thorneblood
I suppose, but it seems a little too coincidental to me. I think if you moved the far left stone back into position it would line up just as nicely as the rest.

I think that's because that far left stone is part of the bigger rock.

To me, that rock was formed when the silt at the bottom of the lake solidified, but while it was solidifying it (for some reason) started to bend, but as it had already lost part of it's elasticity it started to crack on the side opposite to the bending.

a reply to: ArMaP

Ok.

If someone showed you the this picture and told you they found it out in the desert, would you even think twice about it being some kind of old stone archway?

originally posted by: Thorneblood
If someone showed you the this picture and told you they found it out in the desert, would you even think twice about it being some kind of old stone archway?

Sure, because it's only about six inches high.

a reply to: Blue Shift

that sounds like it'ism to me

funbox

a reply to: Blue Shift

True. Its not like centuries/millenia of strong martian winds and loose sand could bury anything that deep.