Thursday, July 19, 2007





A phenomenon related to this might explain some of the unusual "cellular" landscapes photographed on Mars.

(Hat tip: Reality Carnival.)
Posted by at
Labels:

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a brilliant example of a natural formation that looks artificial -- heagonal pillars! -- I mean, how artificial-looking can you get? It is a good idea to keep this kind of example in mind when looking at Mars pix (either orbital or Rover).

In fact, I'd seen pictures of these before and always kept the idea in the back of my head during my recent Rover pix obsession with looking for "evidence."

The pile of them, especially, look eerily like a collapsed building -- possibly a temple of some sort. Since they are volcanic in orgin and Mars was once HIGHLY volcanic....

--WMB as Anon

11:06 PM
Carol Maltby said...

But it's also important to observe more closely, and realize that many of the six-sided stones do not have equal edges or angles, and there are pentagons and other polygons. I've collected images of them over the years, have always wanted to visit.

More importantly, what's the scale on the Martian features? I don't think the ones on Earth tend to be more than 5 feet across.
I'd say that the difference in scale is quite large, even allowing for Martian gravity.

6:58 PM
Anonymous said...

Carol -- I wasn't thinking so much of the Martian "grids" that Mac mentioned as of the Rover pix. It was my thought too that a phenomenon like these "pillars" is too small-scale to account for any artificial-looking patterns (like the grids) seen from orbit.

As to their shapes, I didn't count but the majority seem to me to be hexagonal (I think hexagons are the natural form things like this take while still malleable and squeezed tightly together), especially the ones still stacked tightly together with their tops smoothed to produce that wonderful, artificial-looking "patio effect." But yeah, some of the fallen pillars even look four-sided (and perfectly square at that).

I sometimes wish I had the dedication really to pursue ideas like these. I'm convinced there's a trove of something (who knows what?) just waiting for the dedicated anomalist to unearth (or un-Mars!)

--WMB as Anon

12:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Let us not forget that scientists other than Hoagland, using an array of differnt methods, have all arrived at a similar conclusion: that the best working method to arrive at a de cision as to artificialty VS. natural formation, comes through mathematics, and geometric redundancy-such things as bilateral symmetry either doesn't occur in nature, or very, very rarely. As well, the math looks at redundancy-nature plays the redundant tune only with shape and form, not with precision geometry. what many have found, at least at Cydonia, is a redundant (that being repetetive)geometry, in that math forms are recursively encoded in the very structures themselves. Unlike natural formations, which, while being hexagonal and such, offer no such precision of pplacement, equally measured sides and lengths and whatnot.

8:14 PM
Greg Bishop said...

I've been to this formation. It would be eerie if there was no geological explanation for it. The Giant's Causeway in Ireland is an even more dramatic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Causeway

The bumpy landscape in the photo reminds me of the "mima mounds" areas that are found in various places in the western U.S. No explanation has been found for these.

5:20 AM
Anonymous said...

I have to say I'm pretty suspicious of all those arcane math analyses that seek to "prove" Martian artificiality. Frankly, I don't think anything can really "prove" (or disprove) it. (I'm not even sure actually going there will even do the trick.)

--WMB as Anon

10:56 PM
Mac said...

I think going there will do the trick. But perhaps nothing less.

11:02 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)