http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2016/06/worm-found-on-mars-moves-nasa.html
Now ya see it, now ya don't. Wrong angle? Wind blew it away?
seems to be them all over
(http://i.imgur.com/qC6DYoU.jpg)
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01371/mcam/1371ML0067150030601186E01_DXXX.jpg (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01371/mcam/1371ML0067150030601186E01_DXXX.jpg)
funbox
the question is .. which came first ? the ripple of sand.. underneath whatever squirms over it ?
funbox
Quote from: Eighthman on June 16, 2016, 03:20:42 AM
http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2016/06/worm-found-on-mars-moves-nasa.html
Now ya see it, now ya don't. Wrong angle? Wind blew it away?
It's the other way, the first photo shows nothing, the second shows the "worm", that appears to be the result of the shooting of the laser that works with the ChemCam, the camera that took these photos.
OK, does that apply to funbox's 'worm' also? Or is that somehow attributable to a non living process?
Quote from: Eighthman on June 16, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
OK, does that apply to funbox's 'worm' also?
No.
QuoteOr is that somehow attributable to a non living process?
It looks like the result of a geological process.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 16, 2016, 09:16:00 PM
No.
It looks like the result of a geological process.
but when ? before the windblown sand shape was formed or after .. y can you see it overlaying the crest of the mini wind-shaped dunette ..?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 02:10:20 AM
but when ? before the windblown sand shape was formed or after
Before, obviously, as geological processes are slower than dune forming, specially at such small scale.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 17, 2016, 09:18:35 AM
Before, obviously, as geological processes are slower than dune forming, specially at such small scale.
so how did the dune form underneath it without its shape and form being perturbed by it ?
funbox
Well, funbox's thing looks like a worm cast. Maybe you could say it was fulgurite but it doesn't look like it.
Quote from: Eighthman on June 17, 2016, 01:01:57 PM
Well, funbox's thing looks like a worm cast. Maybe you could say it was fulgurite but it doesn't look like it.
fulgite ide see as more angular , none of the smooth contours as this thing, but ide still like to know how it formed obove and across the dunette ripple
chicken or egg ?:D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 11:22:51 AM
so how did the dune form underneath it without its shape and form being perturbed by it ?
In the same way other dunes form, why? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on June 17, 2016, 09:18:39 PM
In the same way other dunes form, why? ???
because the dunes are ever changing , which brings in to question the time, this wormy shaped thing formed .. indicative of recent activity? , if so , then begs the question ,how active is Mars ? and how far do these activity range in ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 10:01:57 PM
because the dunes are ever changing , which brings in to question the time, this wormy shaped thing formed ..
The rock only needs to have a little weight at the bottom to keep on that position, leaving the dune free to move without too much interference.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 17, 2016, 10:18:40 PM
The rock only needs to have a little weight at the bottom to keep on that position, leaving the dune free to move without too much interference.
unlike the rocks with the huge sand trails then .. remember them from a few years back ? but they managed to perturb the wind and its accompanying 2 micron sand grains...
is this some form of doublethink your suffering with ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 10:24:00 PM
unlike the rocks with the huge sand trails then .. remember them from a few years back ?
No, I don't remember which ones you're talking about, were they the same size as this rock?
Quoteis this some form of doublethink your suffering with ?
No, different things make me have different thoughts, I don't try to fit an explanation to all things.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 17, 2016, 11:11:35 PM
No, I don't remember which ones you're talking about, were they the same size as this rock?
No, different things make me have different thoughts, I don't try to fit an explanation to all things.
no. they were marginally larger, but you explained the resulting trails as wind perturbation .. so why, do we see not, the same effect on the dunette which lays directly underneath.. or did perchance the wormy thing appear after the dunette had formed, and didn't have a chance to influence its form ?
read just before this page too ..http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990645/pg114
funbox
the question I now have, is why have you accepted in this hypothesis that that's a duneete or wind shaped form under wormy thing...
curious
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
no. they were marginally larger, but you explained the resulting trails as wind perturbation ..
I'll talk about them when you can show them to me, I'm not going to talk about something I don't remember.
Quoteso why, do we see not, the same effect on the dunette which lays directly underneath..
As I said, different conditions create different dunes, if the wind comes from the left how can the rock influence the dune?
Quoteor did perchance the wormy thing appear after the dunette had formed, and didn't have a chance to influence its form ?
I doubt it.
Quoteread just before this page too ..http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990645/pg114
I read your post before looking at that page, but I didn't read all the posts in that page, as I'm tired of your charades. If you want to read something specific say so, don't make me lose time.
Edited to say that it looks like the wind comes from the right. :)
Quote from: funbox on June 17, 2016, 11:20:04 PM
the question I now have, is why have you accepted in this hypothesis that that's a duneete or wind shaped form under wormy thing...
If not a small dune, what could it be?
Perhaps I'm confused here but I am curious as to what created the 'worm cast' and not what exposed it. Wind, water, whatever likely did that but i can't think of similar non-biological stuff on earth.
hmmmm are these the moving rocks ?
I do find them a bit enigmatic, , , ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxdm3Zs18U8
QuoteI read your post before looking at that page, but I didn't read all the posts in that page, as I'm tired of your charades. If you want to read something specific say so, don't make me lose time.
the post with the rock slide is at the very top of the page . your comments about the rock trail are on the page before... lose time ArMaP ? lose it where?
funbox
Quote from: Eighthman on June 18, 2016, 12:20:06 AM
Perhaps I'm confused here but I am curious as to what created the 'worm cast' and not what exposed it.
One possibility I see is an infiltration of some material in a crack on another rocks or on the ground. When the other rock or that part of the ground was eroded, this, harder, rock remained.
That type of thing is common on Earth, like a lava flow that lasts longer than the volcano from where it came.
Quote from: Norval on June 18, 2016, 03:18:39 AM
hmmmm are these the moving rocks ?
Those do not look like rocks, they look more like landslides.
QuoteI do find them a bit enigmatic, , , ,
They are. :)
Quote from: funbox on June 18, 2016, 12:08:37 PM
the post with the rock slide is at the very top of the page .
OK, I see it, thanks.
Quoteyour comments about the rock trail are on the page before...
Those I don't see, either on the page before, that page or on the page after.
Quotelose time ArMaP ? lose it where?
Looking for what you're talking about, as you can see in the above sentence.
Hard to tell from the photo but it looks 'roundish' rather than sharp or angular in the way that a crack might be filled......and are we saying that these rocks are igneous? Looks sorta sedimentary to me.
The 'wormcast' looks like when molten metal gets poured into an ant colony. Appears odd relative to flat, weather beaten surroundings - although that might support your lava notion as something quite hard and resistant -hence its odd appearance.
Quote from: Eighthman on June 18, 2016, 02:10:32 PM
Hard to tell from the photo but it looks 'roundish' rather than sharp or angular in the way that a crack might be filled......and are we saying that these rocks are igneous? Looks sorta sedimentary to me.
No, I'm not saying they are igneous, I'm thinking about something like a kind of a "fossil crack". :)
I was thinking about some liquid with a high salt concentration, for example, occupying a crack and crystallizing.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 18, 2016, 01:25:25 PM
OK, I see it, thanks.
Those I don't see, either on the page before, that page or on the page after.
Looking for what you're talking about, as you can see in the above sentence.
im sure you'll find them , you know how fast that thread went sometimes, most of the anomalies never got talked about much because of the rate of finds, so you might have to go back a bit.. but now you think landslide... don't you want to know what you said before? get to know yourself a bit ? :D ive certainly referred to your opinions on the rock and markings on that very page ive linked .. hardly unlikely im going to misquote you in mid thread .. it wouldn't be worth it :D
funbox
But.....if the 'wormcast' is made of crystalline material yet formed into a long roundish shape, how could it exist as we see it? I would think such a thing would be extremely fragile and easily degraded into dust by whatever wind/water/temperature/ radiation eroded the general scene. A single crystal, yes ,but that's not the shape here.
And it still doesn't look like it was molded from a crack. If the surrounding rock is from layered sediment as it appears, how would such a crack be created. It should be flat and wide, if at all.
I wonder if it needs to be something that was plastic in the past. If we rule out igneous, then I wonder about something organic. I am searching my memory for any non-biological process that ends up looking anything like this and I come up short (except lava or fulgurite)
My backyard is full of shale. I never see anything like this unless it's a root or conversely the hollow of an insect burrow.
Quote from: funbox on June 18, 2016, 05:01:01 PM
im sure you'll find them , you know how fast that thread went sometimes, most of the anomalies never got talked about much because of the rate of finds, so you might have to go back a bit..
I found it, two months before that page. In my post I said "
I forgot to say that the trail is not a trail, as you can see that part of it is in front of the rock. Areas like those, looking like "rivers" of dust are very common on Mars, they usually start between two rocks, the wind probably flows between the rocks and deposits the dust in those areas. That is also common on Earth, even on the beaches, I have seen that many times on windy days.".
Quotebut now you think landslide... don't you want to know what you said before?
My landslide post was an answer to
Norval's post, not yours.
Quoteive certainly referred to your opinions on the rock and markings on that very page ive linked .. hardly unlikely im going to misquote you in mid thread .. it wouldn't be worth it :D
You only have to look at the quote before this one to see how easy it is for you to mix things. :)
Quote from: Eighthman on June 18, 2016, 05:46:15 PM
But.....if the 'wormcast' is made of crystalline material yet formed into a long roundish shape, how could it exist as we see it? I would think such a thing would be extremely fragile and easily degraded into dust by whatever wind/water/temperature/ radiation eroded the general scene. A single crystal, yes ,but that's not the shape here.
Sorry for not being clearer about what I meant, I was thinking about something like what we can see in the photo below, one of my fossils.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Sam_3248.jpg)
If you look closely you can see that the centre is made from small crystals, it almost looks like cemented sand. If that material entered the shell and created this fossil, I am thinking that something like this could have happened to create that rock on Mars.
As for the shape of the crack, I don't see any problem with it happening on an area of cracked clay, that usually cracks in different levels, when the drying is not uniform.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 18, 2016, 07:20:21 PM
I found it, two months before that page. In my post I said "I forgot to say that the trail is not a trail, as you can see that part of it is in front of the rock. Areas like those, looking like "rivers" of dust are very common on Mars, they usually start between two rocks, the wind probably flows between the rocks and deposits the dust in those areas. That is also common on Earth, even on the beaches, I have seen that many times on windy days.".
My landslide post was an answer to Norval's post, not yours.
You only have to look at the quote before this one to see how easy it is for you to mix things. :)
so then why do we not see perturbation of the sand , if its sand or whatever elemental compound were looking at. would it not be subject to wind occlusion , creating a dimple n its otherwise smooth crest..
they don't have switch on switch of physics there do they ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 18, 2016, 10:17:11 PM
so then why do we not see perturbation of the sand , if its sand or whatever elemental compound were looking at.
We keep saying we don't see any perturbation of the sand, but we can see that the sand appears darker next to the rock.
Quotewould it not be subject to wind occlusion , creating a dimple n its otherwise smooth crest..
The rocks is touching the dune's crest (or vice-versa), no space for a dimple.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 18, 2016, 10:21:56 PM
We keep saying we don't see any perturbation of the sand, but we can see that the sand appears darker next to the rock.
The rocks is touching the dune's crest (or vice-versa), no space for a dimple.
is it though ? why do we not see sand accumulations around the point of contact ? or any disturbance whatsoever
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 18, 2016, 10:26:37 PM
is it though ? why do we not see sand accumulations around the point of contact ? or any disturbance whatsoever
You don't see the darker sand near the rock?
Quote from: ArMaP on June 18, 2016, 10:28:42 PM
You don't see the darker sand near the rock?
I cannot confirm the rock of which you speak
funbox
Your fossils? A Martian 'wormcast made by life?
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Eighthman on June 18, 2016, 05:46:15 PM
But.....if the 'wormcast' is made of crystalline material yet formed into a long roundish shape, how could it exist as we see it? I would think such a thing would be extremely fragile and easily degraded into dust by whatever wind/water/temperature/ radiation eroded the general scene. A single crystal, yes ,but that's not the shape here.
so.. probably not a carbon based lifeform then.. which might mean its still alive and curiosity caught it in the acto f dunette surfing.
wouldn't be the first potential extremophile to arise from the sands :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 18, 2016, 10:29:52 PM
I cannot confirm the rock of which you speak
I have been talking about a rock all the time, you only noticed it now?
Quote from: Eighthman on June 18, 2016, 10:42:59 PM
Your fossils? A Martian 'wormcast made by life?
I'd like to have a Martian fossil of a worm-like creature, but no, all my fossils are from Earth, at least that's where I found them. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on June 18, 2016, 11:41:29 PM
I have been talking about a rock all the time, you only noticed it now?
you mean the thing that giving birth to wormy thing, that mildly looks like a head and maybe partially buried.?.. do you have evidence that this thing is intercontinuous with wormy thing .. wormy thing maybe a lecherous little parasite that enjoys feeding on head shaped like things :D
(http://i.imgur.com/qC6DYoU.jpg)
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 12:54:51 AM
you mean the thing that giving birth to wormy thing, that mildly looks like a head and maybe partially buried.?
I mean the whole object you call "wormy thing", from the bottom to the top.
Quotedo you have evidence that this thing is intercontinuous with wormy thing
Evidence, no, but it looks so to me.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 19, 2016, 01:25:00 AM
I mean the whole object you call "wormy thing", from the bottom to the top.
can you be more precise , I think its mildly segmented right up to the put where it meets head shaped thing, and smooth and curvy past midpoint off the assumed dunette , right up to its tip
any closer shots yet ? :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 01:41:58 AM
can you be more precise , I think its mildly segmented right up to the put where it meets head shaped thing, and smooth and curvy past midpoint off the assumed dunette , right up to its tip
I think it's the whole area marked in red in the image below.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Marte_15.jpg)
Quoteany closer shots yet ? :D
I don't think so.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 19, 2016, 12:58:44 PM
I think it's the whole area marked in red in the image below.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Marte_15.jpg)
I don't think so.
do you see why I ask the question ?.. why has the sand ripple formed as it has with that thing in such close proximity to it?. to my mind it has formed first and wormy thing has come after
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
do you see why I ask the question ?
Yes, I understood that from the beginning. :)
Quotewhy has the sand ripple formed as it has with that thing in such close proximity to it?
Why not? Is there something preventing sand ripples from forming close to objects?
Quoteto my mind it has formed first and wormy thing has come after
Too bad we can't get any evidence about it.
QuoteWhy not? Is there something preventing sand ripples from forming close to objects?
no , it just they are usually perturbed if the objects are close enough to them, a concept which you are failing to grasp ... think about magnetic field influences if you like and how their fields can be perturbed and redirected by other objects or fields.. then apply to Aeolian forces
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 05:02:45 PM
no , it just they are usually perturbed if the objects are close enough to them, a concept which you are failing to grasp ... think about magnetic field influences if you like and how their fields can be perturbed and redirected by other objects or fields.. then apply to Aeolian forces
I'm not failing to understand that, but it looks like you don't see the difference in colour of the sand in the area that appears to be in contact with the rock.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 19, 2016, 05:51:28 PM
I'm not failing to understand that, but it looks like you don't see the difference in colour of the sand in the area that appears to be in contact with the rock.
you mean wormy thing is leeching from the surrounding sand, draining it of certain light refracting properties ?, or are you saying it some sort of excretion from some orifice of wormy thing staining the surrounding sands
? I fail to see the significance of the sands colour around wormy thing in relation to the formation of the dunette .
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 08:37:22 PM
you mean wormy thing is leeching from the surrounding sand, draining it of certain light refracting properties ?
No.
Quoteor are you saying it some sort of excretion from some orifice of wormy thing staining the surrounding sands ?
No.
QuoteI fail to see the significance of the sands colour around wormy thing in relation to the formation of the dunette .
In all the photos I have seen, disturbed sand appears darker, so, to me, the darker sand near the rock means that the dune/ripple is being affected by the rock.
But, now that I am writing this, I think that it may also mean that the rock moved and disturbed the sand. :)
It's a shame we can't go there to see.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 19, 2016, 10:05:29 PM
No.No.
In all the photos I have seen, disturbed sand appears darker, so, to me, the darker sand near the rock means that the dune/ripple is being affected by the rock.
But, now that I am writing this, I think that it may also mean that the rock moved and disturbed the sand. :)
It's a shame we can't go there to see.
does this mean the sand has been disturbed by something other than wormy thing ? by your own rational it could mean the rover , a passing meteorite , a very neat and tidy dust devil , or an employee from Devon island..
mars Quake ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 19, 2016, 10:56:07 PM
does this mean the sand has been disturbed by something other than wormy thing ?
No.
Quoteby your own rational it could mean the rover , a passing meteorite , a very neat and tidy dust devil , or an employee from Devon island..
No, your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 20, 2016, 01:24:06 AM
No.
No, your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
so , what did you mean by , "the rock moved"? under it on volition ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 20, 2016, 02:14:47 PM
so , what did you mean by , "the rock moved"? under it on volition ?
Who knows? ;)
What I meant was that, just by looking at the disturbance in the sand we can have at least two main possibilities: either the dune moved or the rock moved.
But, if we look at the rest of the scene, specially at the area where the object you call the "wormy thing" touches the ground, we can see that there are no sighs of disturbance, which means that it didn't move.
But the lack of signs of disturbance also points to the "wormy thing" being there for a long time (as expected), so the most likely is that the small dune moved under the rock.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 20, 2016, 09:20:16 PM
Who knows? ;)
What I meant was that, just by looking at the disturbance in the sand we can have at least two main possibilities: either the dune moved or the rock moved.
But, if we look at the rest of the scene, specially at the area where the object you call the "wormy thing" touches the ground, we can see that there are no sighs of disturbance, which means that it didn't move.
But the lack of signs of disturbance also points to the "wormy thing" being there for a long time (as expected), so the most likely is that the small dune moved under the rock.
Are you and funbox discussing/referring to the OP worm pic, or to the worm pic that funbox posted later of something different??
Quote from: rdunk on June 20, 2016, 10:16:27 PM
Are you and funbox discussing/referring to the OP worm pic, or to the worm pic that funbox posted later of something different??
the picture I posted .. what do you reckon ?
funbox
Quote from: rdunk on June 20, 2016, 10:16:27 PM
Are you and funbox discussing/referring to the OP worm pic, or to the worm pic that funbox posted later of something different??
The photo funbox posted, he appears to like to derail other people's threads. :P
Regarding the photo from the opening post, as I said, it looks like the result of the use of the laser to analyse the ground on that place, they do it from time to time.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 21, 2016, 12:54:41 AM
The photo funbox posted, he appears to like to derail other people's threads. :P
I think wormy thing is entirely relevant , you even say your self that there's been movement in the local vicinity of wormy thing, yet you are unable to make a conjecture to the forces involved
whys this not pertinent to the ops wormy thing movement
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 21, 2016, 01:25:06 AM
I think wormy thing is entirely relevant , you even say your self that there's been movement in the local vicinity of wormy thing, yet you are unable to make a conjecture to the forces involved
I am able to make a conjecture, I was only being unclear about it and assuming everyone else understood what I meant, like you use to do. :P
My conjecture was already posted: the dune moved close to the rock you call "wormy thing".
Quote from: ArMaP on June 21, 2016, 01:34:39 AM
I am able to make a conjecture, I was only being unclear about it and assuming everyone else understood what I meant, like you use to do. :P
My conjecture was already posted: the dune moved close to the rock you call "wormy thing".
so there must have been something other than the wind,,,.. that dune is very small ide say less than 8 inches.. what force then , given the wind is to feeble? a quake ? violent sublimation ?
saying it just moved is not enough, gravity and weight in this case, I feel, don't proffer up an explanation of slippage, justifiable with this dune's larger and heavier cousins
dunette though .. no
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 21, 2016, 01:44:32 AM
so there must have been something other than the wind
Why? Dunes are created by wind, and the process that creates them also makes them move, there's no need for other explanation.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 21, 2016, 09:24:23 AM
Why? Dunes are created by wind, and the process that creates them also makes them move, there's no need for other explanation.
so.. you think the wind caused them Marking you highlighted/ decribed? did the wind blow the rock and cause a disturbance?
like a corpse trying to blow out a candle.
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 21, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
so.. you think the wind caused them Marking you highlighted/ decribed? did the wind blow the rock and cause a disturbance?
Could you rephrase that in an understandable way? Thanks in advance. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on June 21, 2016, 09:41:40 PM
Could you rephrase that in an understandable way? Thanks in advance. :)
the questions are perfectly described, but there's no need of an apology, in your reference to them not being understandable ,
I will however refer to the darkened sand which you inferred to be slippage , which I questioned you on the forces involved.
no more clues :)
funbox
there is one force that we have not drawn into the fray yet,.. the rover itself...
ground transmission on mars is like ? :D
have we seen much distant interference from this potential usurper of the peace ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 21, 2016, 09:53:26 PM
the questions are perfectly described
Maybe on your version of the English language, in mine they are not.
QuoteI will however refer to the darkened sand which you inferred to be slippage , which I questioned you on the forces involved.
Is there a question or are you just talking to yourself?
Quote from: funbox on June 21, 2016, 10:02:28 PM
have we seen much distant interference from this potential usurper of the peace ?
It's hard to know, we have seen some photos with small landslides, relatively close to the rover. Some have signs of older (not so dark) landslides near, so those may have already been there before the rover arrived, but the ones that look new could either have resulted from the rover's actions or not.
Landslide on this - seriously doubt that to be the case. The area being observed by the microscopic camera is very small! Yes, there are differences in the 2 OP pics - one has a mound and the other does not. To me, even a more questionable "difference" is the side to side flat area where the mound was.
Notice how different the edges look in that lighter area! Both edges are more defined, with the one on our right having a partial "straight line" edge, as if it were made/caused by something to appear as it does, like it may have been scraped! :o ???
Another set of the OP pics, for convenience!
(http://s33.postimg.org/gum3rp1pb/Screen_Shot_2016_06_19_at_10_03_24_PM.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on June 22, 2016, 12:05:07 AM
Maybe on your version of the English language, in mine they are not.
Is there a question or are you just talking to yourself?
ArMaP, you can be such a prick at times, if you don't want to answer the q's, dont't but don't pretend you don't understand. im asking you about forces ,which your avoiding like a plague of ArMaP's .even to the point of obtusely
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 22, 2016, 01:34:05 PM
ArMaP, you can be such a prick at times, if you don't want to answer the q's, dont't but don't pretend you don't understand. im asking you about forces ,which your avoiding like a plague of ArMaP's .even to the point of obtusely
I never pretend not to understand, when I say I don't understand something it's because I don't understand it, and I never answer a question I don't understand.
If you want your questions answered, it's in your interest that they are understood, right? So why not make a slight effort in that direction?
One of your questions was: "so.. you think the wind caused them Marking you highlighted/ decribed?"
What does that really mean? Are you talking about the thing I marked? I only marked the rock you call "wormy thing", and I was talking about the wind creating the small dune, not creating any rocks.
Another question from you: "did the wind blow the rock and cause a disturbance?"
How could the wind move the rock and not move the sand? That doesn't make sense.
How can I answer those questions if I don't understand what you mean?
PS: I know that this time my posts may be slightly harsher than usual, but that's because I am becoming tired of trying to understand your words, and you, apparently, never make an effort to make it easier for me (I can't speak for other people, so I don't know if everybody understands you or not) to understand what you write.
QuoteI'm not failing to understand that, but it looks like you don't see the difference in colour of the sand in the area that appears to be in contact with the rock.
so the rock moved to cause this disturbance?
tic tic
funbox
Quote from: rdunk on June 22, 2016, 03:12:31 AM
Yes, there are differences in the 2 OP pics - one has a mound and the other does not. To me, even a more questionable "difference" is the side to side flat area where the mound was.
I don't understand, what mound one has and the other doesn't? Which one has the mound and which one doesn't?
PS: they posted a colour photo from the Mastcam showing that area.
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01369/mcam/1369MR0066990000701651E02_DXXX.jpg)
Quote from: funbox on June 22, 2016, 08:13:34 PM
so the rock moved to cause this disturbance?
It's unlikely that the rock moved, not only because, in itself, that's an unlikely event, but also because there are no signs of that, if the rock had move against the dune, creating that disturbance, it would have left some kind of trail.
It's an issue of time not movement. Look at the surrounding stones and you can see their shadows are gone in the second image indicative of a change in the suns position. However my prediction is that the worm debate will go on for at least 2 more pages with no conclusion reached.
Quote from: Ellirium113 on June 22, 2016, 11:42:47 PM
However my prediction is that the worm debate will go on for at least 2 more pages with no conclusion reached.
The first thing we need to do is to know which "worm" are we talking about, the original from the opening post or the other one introduced by
funbox.
To me, the first one is the result of using the laser to analyse the soil, the second is just a rock. :)
...and so it begins. This one.
(http://s33.postimg.org/gum3rp1pb/Screen_Shot_2016_06_19_at_10_03_24_PM.jpg)
The best way of seeing the differences in two photos of the same place is with an animation. :)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Sol%201369.gif)
The photo without the "worm" is the oldest, taken at 16:59:44, while the one with the "worm" was taken at 17:11:42.
Ok...well clearly that would not be what I had suspected. You got me there ArMaP...that is just weird stuff. Still not on board with the "worm" theory...leaning more towards possible strong wind. But hey, who knows. :P
Quote from: Ellirium113 on June 23, 2016, 05:15:28 AM
Ok...well clearly that would not be what I had suspected. You got me there ArMaP...that is just weird stuff. Still not on board with the "worm" theory...leaning more towards possible strong wind. But hey, who knows. :P
strong wind ? feeble wind that can barely life two micron particles more like .. there lies the problem , you narrowed down to not many choices when it comes to movement on mars..
that's why ArMaP staying stum on the forces involved
funbox
Quote from: funbox on June 23, 2016, 11:49:12 AM
that's why ArMaP staying stum on the forces involved
No, I'm just waiting for a clear question. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on June 23, 2016, 02:13:06 PM
No, I'm just waiting for a clear question. :)
this may cross over to the current sanddune information dump from nasa.. but still no clarity on sand dunes that have been preserved for 3 million years? or was it billion... a picture of them at least.. to much to ask to add a relevant diagram and photo to a body of text so we can understand what they're talking about ,, rant rant etc so on and so forth
funbox