PDA

View Full Version : Strange shapes on planetary bodies.



ocpaul20
2009-Feb-26, 05:42 AM
I just want to inquire whether there are any shapes that would be out-of-place on other planetry bodies?

For example looking at photos of the Moon, I would not expect to find tree-like objects, or square building-like objects or recognisable machine-like objects. (found in two or more photos of the same place by different missions). We are led to believe that the Moon/Mars etc are rocky, cratered, uninhabited places, so there are shapes that would be normal and usual and some that would be unusual. Is that a reasonable assumtion?

I realise that everything is open to interpretation, and very few of us are experts, however rocks, riges, rilles, craters and other natural moon structures do not usually come in the shape of everyday Earth things - or do they? Maybe I have not looked at enough photographs to say.

So I am launching a search for NATURAL things that look like trees or poles, or aerials, square buildings, etc so that if anyone see them in the future, they wont immediately think "Oh that should not be there".

There must be enough people on this board who look at photographs of the Moon Mars etc and so if there are any of these things out there, they have probably been noticed as you are looking at other things.

Please move this if the moderators think it should be in a different section.

Amber Robot
2009-Feb-26, 06:09 AM
Trees on Mars??

http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/marstrees.jpg

From http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-trees.html

cjameshuff
2009-Feb-26, 06:38 AM
So I am launching a search for NATURAL things that look like trees or poles, or aerials, square buildings, etc so that if anyone see them in the future, they wont immediately think "Oh that should not be there".

Well...notice my avatar? It's a plot of electron trajectories as they flow from a point source through a slightly "bumpy" environment. The result is rather tree-like, and I wouldn't rule out something similar occurring in a larger scale through sorting out of charged dust particles on the moon over millions of years. Mars is worse, it has a history of liquid water, and wind and evaporating CO2 ice in modern times, and superficially tree-like formations have been spotted that seem to be results of these. Here's a close-up that reveals those "Martian banyan trees" to be something closer to cracks or outgassing channels in a dust layer on evaporating CO2 ice:

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003443_0980

timb
2009-Feb-26, 07:36 AM
Well...notice my avatar? It's a plot of electron trajectories as they flow from a point source through a slightly "bumpy" environment.

I thought it was an electrical discharge into air from a tesla coil. Not too far off.

astromark
2009-Feb-26, 08:11 AM
.... ocpaul20; Are there? Yes. Knowing what they are is a different question. Remember the now famous face... it was just a mound, a hill that when lit from the appropriate angle seemed to reveal the features of a face. Subsequent images have revealed it as nothing of any interest. Those images provided by Amber Root. Look like ice melting away from rocks, not trees. The square building ? Just rocks and shadows.
There is always an answer to these questions. Finding it can be fun...
Jumping to conclusions is easy, but with knowledge comes wisdom...
"Tis better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and confirm it." said by some famous notable... and right.

Van Rijn
2009-Feb-26, 08:35 AM
Here's an example of natural geometric shapes:

http://jon-atkinson.com/Large%20Images/La_Vik.jpg

Kiwi
2009-Feb-26, 10:31 AM
...looking at photos of the Moon, I would not expect to find tree-like objects, or square building-like objects or recognisable machine-like objects.

I don't understand why you say that, because I certainly would.

I wouldn't at all expect to see trees, square buildings or machines on the moon, except for the man-made machines that crashed or soft-landed there, but I certainly would expect to see tree-like, square-building-like and recognisable machine-like forms or objects, plus plenty of sights that look like other familiar things. I've already seen, in photos taken on the moon, forms that look like a skull, faces, a loaf of bread and many others that I've forgotten.

The key word is "like."

If you hang around here long enough or read old threads, you'll see that among the many faults in hoax-believers' thinking, many of them seem to think that if something looks like X, then it must be X. That is nonsense, particularly in the case of just a vague resemblance. On the moon you will see heaps of things that look like rectangular buildings, but are they indeed buildings? That is what's important.

Being a photographer, I'm continually on the lookout for such things. Last night in the "chemtrails" thread I mentioned some of the cloud types that are often about when aircraft produce contrails. Today we had exactly those conditions, including sundogs, which is unusual in the hottest summer month, but foul weather is on its way for the weekend.

Anyway, I watched the sky quite a bit throughout the day and was amused to see one cloud had formed a very good representation of a duck taking flight from water, except for the head and beak which were a little messed up. The body and wings were right, feathers were splayed, the tail was down to provide lift, one leg with a webbed foot was stepping across the water, and there were even drops of water falling off the "duck". But it was only like a duck that had a distorted head and beak and was taking off from water. It wasn't really a duck, it was a cloud.

Enjoy things that merely look vaguely like something familiar, but don't waste time over them.

Swift
2009-Feb-26, 03:01 PM
Here's an example of natural geometric shapes:

http://jon-atkinson.com/Large%20Images/La_Vik.jpg
And of course, there are natural formations like The Old Man of the Mountain (http://pix.epodunk.com/NH/nh_old_man01.jpg) in New Hampshire. Or everytime we see a "horsey" in the clouds.

As others have said, the problem is with "like". Humans have a natural tendency to look for patterns, even when none exist, and look for familiar shapes, like faces, even when such things are created by random forces.

I'm not sure there is any shape that just by looking at a picture of, I could just assume is "unnatural".

schlaugh
2009-Feb-26, 03:18 PM
A fancy word for when humans "see" shapes that look like other shapes. For a more detailed explanation on Pareidolia please click here (http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html).

Examples include The Man In The Moon and the Face On Mars.

ocpaul20, I think you'll be searching for quite some time simply because the image collections are vast and the human mind is complex. :)

Elukka
2009-Feb-26, 03:29 PM
There's a hexagonal cloud formation (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia09188.html) on Saturn.

People commonly think natural formations are always random and never hard, regular shapes.

Swift
2009-Feb-26, 05:52 PM
People commonly think natural formations are always random and never hard, regular shapes.
It is even worse than that. People assume random is, well, more random. Toss a coin 10 or 50 times. Odds are you will, at some point in that, get four or five heads in a row. That's not a pattern, that's just random. Alternating heads and tails would actually not be random, yet that's what people expect. This statistics program I used to use (EChip) said it very nicely, "Randomness comes in bunches".

Amber Robot
2009-Feb-26, 06:23 PM
It is even worse than that. People assume random is, well, more random. Toss a coin 10 or 50 times. Odds are you will, at some point in that, get four or five heads in a row. That's not a pattern, that's just random. Alternating heads and tails would actually not be random, yet that's what people expect. This statistics program I used to use (EChip) said it very nicely, "Randomness comes in bunches".

In fact, I once read, but have never verified myself, that if you told people to make up a list of numbers randomly, you would be able to statistically show that it would have a different distribution than truly random. It might be worth trying sometime.