'Traffic Light' On Mars Spotted In NASA Curiosity Rover Photo

[zorgon]

Still waiting for some one to name the penomena that caused the sphere...

Always love the lazy ones that expect others to do the leg work   







The stone spheres are mineral aggregates, i.e. spherical nodule structures with a silicate and carbonate composition, measuring from 2–30 cm in diameter, with a laminate internal structure. The geological age of the spheres is from the Upper Cretaceous, likely the Sveti Duh formation. The environment of origin was hemipelagic in the Tethys Ocean, and the origin of the material was organic, likely from plankton or the spikes of fossilized sponges.

The siliceous nodular concretions of varying size and shape appear in rocks of varying age, however the formation of such perfectly shaped nodules requires special environmental conditions (saturation with silica in non-solidified sediment) and their additional value is in the alternation of darker and lighter zones, silicate and carbonate lamellas, as a consequence of the changing chemical conditions during their formation.

The exceptional spherical form of the stone spheres is also a rare example of the mathematical laws of growth and self-structuring of matter in nature, where it is clearly possible to interpret the principles of formation of geological forms.


http://www.dzzp.hr/eng/kategorija/clanak/print.php?id=981

[rdunk]

The only place that I personally have found spherical rock balls similar to what Z posted above, was near or along known ground fault lines. And these were just clay colored rocks, but when broken open, there were some sort of crystal projections on the inside. Were very interesting pieces

[zorgon]

While it doesn't change anything, here is a slightly more magnified same pic of the object.

I would certainly add THIS one to my collection...  also look at the flat rectangular piece on the right

I would hazard to say that is some of these odd shaped rocks we find all over Mars are NOT natural, they they are likely weathered pieces of RUINS of an older civilization.

Since I both believe and have evidence of such older civilizations that went to war a long time ago, I find it very likely, nay EXPECT to find odd bits of artifacts strewn all over the map

Those pieces would have been worn down by sand blasting winds over thousands of years.... we find them all over the earth at ancient man sites  some bits clearly preserved others barely identifiable
Here is a piece of carved sandstone from a sit in Japan... the entire site is over grown but you can find odd bits like this



Here are a few that have been IDed as man worked  but lying in a field of rocks any skeptic could dismiss them, I have found many odd nits like this in many photos...



Its hard to find example on the net because they tend to show the good finds, not the way it looks before they dug it out

[zorgon]

The only place that I personally have found spherical rock balls similar to what Z posted above, was near or along known ground fault lines. And these were just clay colored rocks, but when broken open, there were some sort of crystal projections on the inside. Were very interesting pieces

Those are what natives call Thunder Eggs  They are formed from volcanoes spewing out molten rock. As it falls like a rain drop it forms a sphere because of surface tention. The inside crystalizes and the outside will be crusty. Rockhounds call them GEODES

They are not usually perfect spheres because they form to fast

[rdunk]

Those are what natives call Thunder Eggs  They are formed from volcanoes spewing out molten rock. As it falls like a rain drop it forms a sphere because of surface tention. The inside crystalizes and the outside will be crusty. Rockhounds call them GEODES

They are not usually perfect spheres because they form to fast

Yes those are similar to some I found - Some were soccer ball size and almost too heavy for even a young man to carry.  But those were not a pretty on the inside as are the typical geodes.

[Pimander]

Still waiting for some one to name the penomena that caused the sphere...

As ArMaP said, it may not be a sphere.  To know that you have to have images from more than one angle.

Don't forget, there are spherical geological objects found on Earth and, interesting, they have given rise to tales about ET.

Misidentification of Megaspherulites
As in the case of meter-scale cannonball concretions, fringe archaeologists and sup-
porters of prehistoric extraterrestrial visitors, i.e. UFO Area (2007), have misidentified
megaspherulites, specifically those found around Cerro Piedra Bola, as artificial stone balls. They argue that they were carved in the prehistoric past by either an alleged lostcivilization of their choice or aliens from outer space. However, arguments for the artificial origin of these megaspherulites are based on various claims including:
1. It is impossible for natural processes to create spherical or quasi-spherical stone
balls.
2. They are "perfectly round-shaped spheres."
3. These stone balls are composed of granite.

All of this has been refuted by what has been published about them.
In addition the authors, who argue for the artificial nature of the megaspherulites
found near Cerro Piedra Bola, consistently overlook facts which contradict such inter-
pretations. Such facts include observations that some of these stone spheres are either "pear shaped," "joined as twins," or have a "dumbbell shape." They also ignore the
fact that these stone balls have eroded out of a 20 to 30 million-year-old ash flow tuff
which completely encased them originally.

Summary
Although rare, megaspherulites form some very spectacular spherical meter-scale
spherical structures. These large and typically, but not always, spherical objects, can
be formed by the cooling and crystallization of rhyolitic lava and ash. They are truly
remarkable features as can be seen in the folklore about prehistoric lost civilizations
and extraterrestrial visitors which the Cerro de Bolas megaspherulites in the Sierra deAmeca have generated.

Megaspherulites
by Paul V. Heinrich.THE BACKBENDER'S GAZETTE,JULY 2007

[ArMaP]

Hey astr0144, this is an interesting anomaly. Certainly not a "traffic light", but this thing does look a little strange. To me, the shadows do pretty much show the casting off of the segments of this piece, and they seem to be in the right place.

To me, the shadows appear to show that the "traffic light" is made of three different pieces, with only one (the one in the back being the only one with two vertically aligned protrusions).

Looking at the shadows of all the rocks we can get an idea of Sun's position and the direction of the shadows, that I suppose it's something like this:



Now, if what we are looking at was something like a traffic light, the shadow should be just one, like the shadow of the objects 3 and 4, but we can see that the shadows are in the same relative positions as the shadows of the small rocky ridge on the right, meaning that the objects projection those shadows are aligned in the same direction as that small rocky ridge.

I hope that makes sense.

PS: if I knew how to use Blender I could try to make a 3D scene to replicate what I mean, I will try to do it if I have the time.

[Amaterasu]

I ponder a "natural" object with such obvious tool marks....  LOL!



I mean...  How do We know this object is "natural," when We know there was SOME tooling done?

[thorfourwinds]

Greetings:

It would seem to be of interest that NASA claims this incredible resolution,
yet NASA photos of the moon are blurred, out-of-focus, etc.   

According to NASA scientists, the spherical Mars rock is not as big as it looks –
it's only about two-fifths of an inch wide, and is most likely a "concretion,"
a hard solid mass formed by matter accumulation, Discovery News reported.

ArMaP, can you help us out here?



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

[ArMaP]

It would seem to be of interest that NASA claims this incredible resolution,
yet NASA photos of the moon are blurred, out-of-focus, etc.   

Two different situations, the photos of the Moon are taken from orbit, these photos from Curiosity are taken from the ground, just some metres or centimetres away from the target.
Also, can you point to any of those "blurred, out-of-focus" photos?

ArMaP, can you help us out here?

Some time ago, Clark Andersen made a program (AlgorimancerPG) to give us information about size and distance of the objects in the Mars rovers' photos, but for that it needs two photos from the left and right camera. As Curiosity's two Mastcams have different lens it doesn't work with Mastcam photos, even if we had two photos of that scene, which we do not.

I think that, knowing the lens characteristics and the distance to the object, it's possible to know the object's size, or, knowing the size, it's possible to know the distance, but I don't know if it's possible to get both the distance and size when we only know the field of view of the lens.

I have to do some searching.