-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Timber on Mars?
- Thread starter ddd999
- Start date
Free episodes:
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
This image makes it around every few months. We have had 2 other hreads about Mars photo's and it made it on both. Its just a rock. Probably a facinating rock, but a rock none the less.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
why couldnt it be wood?
Judging by the photo provided (with my amateur laypersons eye) the linear object in question does look like it could be wood but it also looks like it could be stone and that means I, at least, can not say that it couldn't be wood.
If it was posing as a piece of wood on a Hollywood film set I doubt that the audience would think it unconvincing.
There appears to be Rover wheel track nearer to the object so the Rover team might have had a closer look; if they did, then there may be close up photos of this object which have not been published. I am suspicious.....
You could suggest that it is petrified wood and occuring naturally but, whatever it's made of there is a tantalising though ridiculously slim chance that some cheeky alien put it there just for the camera. Is that way out there enough?
If it was posing as a piece of wood on a Hollywood film set I doubt that the audience would think it unconvincing.
There appears to be Rover wheel track nearer to the object so the Rover team might have had a closer look; if they did, then there may be close up photos of this object which have not been published. I am suspicious.....
You could suggest that it is petrified wood and occuring naturally but, whatever it's made of there is a tantalising though ridiculously slim chance that some cheeky alien put it there just for the camera. Is that way out there enough?
Irishseekers, if you are right then, are you implying that the obvious erosion of the rock has been achieved with flowing water; that would be interesting. Also, the presence of a large amount of water could explain why the stone seems out of place (comparing it to the ground around it).
It has been suggested that it is a piece of ejecta from an impact crater but, if it is, it must be very unusual for a piece of exploded rubble to be that shape; I also find that very interesting.
It has been suggested that it is a piece of ejecta from an impact crater but, if it is, it must be very unusual for a piece of exploded rubble to be that shape; I also find that very interesting.
Kieran
Paranormal Adept
I cant really explain it for sure i have never been to mars,
but looking at that picture i have seen that type of rock or something like it, near a coastal shore in kerry ireland, there seems to be a hole to the right of the picture it could be a crater who knows for sure,A guy in one of the posts had put up a better picture of this photograph . cant seem to find it in the thread now but it showed a slight dip in the surface that looked like a crater 
One thing cheeses me off about the NASA website; it is so vague. The descriptions that go with the photos are designed for small children. Why don't they provide more in depth explanation so that you could actually learn some of the science behind their reasoning?
And I suspect that the photos they choose to put on their site are not the most interesting ones; it's like a badly managed tabloid newspaper. Presumably, the mundane explanation is that they want as many of the public as possible to feel that the site is accessable however, this is a poor excuse to treat everyone like ignoramouses.:exclamation:
And I suspect that the photos they choose to put on their site are not the most interesting ones; it's like a badly managed tabloid newspaper. Presumably, the mundane explanation is that they want as many of the public as possible to feel that the site is accessable however, this is a poor excuse to treat everyone like ignoramouses.:exclamation:
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
Are there still people who believe everything NASA says? Amazing.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
I'm probably clueless.
I'm feeling mischievous so:
The only sign of dodgy image processing is the missing piece of the picture although this is often a characteristic produced by space exploration photographic equipment; this provides an ideal opportunity for subterfuge.
It continues to astound me that design flaws (concerning photography) have to be built in deliberately because of the need for lightweight and more compact equipment. Relatively inexpensive image knitting cameras are available to the general public and camera technology has made much progress, generally; if their pictures routinely suffered from missing parts they would want their money back. Perhaps the U.S. public should complain to their government that they would prefer expensive missions to have decent cameras.
The missing piece of the photo could be said to be anomalous(is there something to hide; but that's paranoid, isn't it?). Maybe it's a message(the quaint line of missing pixels seems to match up nicely with the piece of stone thus underlining it).
Thus it is easy to make mountains out of molehills and shout conspiracy loud and long and you should not make the mistake of assuming that experts have malicious intent whether they have been economical with the truth or are simply making a best guess which might turn out to be somewhat or completely wrong.
Maybe the public are not ready for the 'truth'; how people react to shattering news is so unpredictable. Suffice to say, if NASA is involved in a cover up, I'm not bothered!
The only sign of dodgy image processing is the missing piece of the picture although this is often a characteristic produced by space exploration photographic equipment; this provides an ideal opportunity for subterfuge.
It continues to astound me that design flaws (concerning photography) have to be built in deliberately because of the need for lightweight and more compact equipment. Relatively inexpensive image knitting cameras are available to the general public and camera technology has made much progress, generally; if their pictures routinely suffered from missing parts they would want their money back. Perhaps the U.S. public should complain to their government that they would prefer expensive missions to have decent cameras.
The missing piece of the photo could be said to be anomalous(is there something to hide; but that's paranoid, isn't it?). Maybe it's a message(the quaint line of missing pixels seems to match up nicely with the piece of stone thus underlining it).
Thus it is easy to make mountains out of molehills and shout conspiracy loud and long and you should not make the mistake of assuming that experts have malicious intent whether they have been economical with the truth or are simply making a best guess which might turn out to be somewhat or completely wrong.
Maybe the public are not ready for the 'truth'; how people react to shattering news is so unpredictable. Suffice to say, if NASA is involved in a cover up, I'm not bothered!