a martian oddbox

[funbox]

Sufficient if everybody knows what the other person is talking about, and although in this case the "micro pyramid" was obvious, it's not always like that, and I was talking in general terms, not about that specific photo.

I wonder what the point of the digression was then ?

I suppose I see a collaborative place like a forum in a different way, as I don't think people should have to ask for explanations, the member posting the information should give enough information so anyone reading his/her posts could use that information for whatever purposes they wanted.

so you would prefer to show someone a picture and immediately interfere with there thought patterns with regards to the picture and they're honest interpretation of said picture.

honesty ArMaP , you say its a crux of you're being, but im yet to get  the full flavour of it

funbox

[ArMaP]

I wonder what the point of the digression was then ?

What you wrote, "ahh well always easy to resort to pictograms".
It may be easy for you to resort to pictograms, but it doesn't mean it's easier for everyone else.

so you would prefer to show someone a picture and immediately interfere with there thought patterns with regards to the picture and they're honest interpretation of said picture.

No, why do you say that?

honesty ArMaP , you say its a crux of you're being, but im yet to get  the full flavour of it

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. 

[funbox]

Quote

so you would prefer to show someone a picture and immediately interfere with there thought patterns with regards to the picture and they're honest interpretation of said picture.


No, why do you say that?

are you acquainted with the concept of doublethink ?

I don't know, I wasn't the one posting it.

The way I see it, this is not a photoblog or an image gallery, if people want other people to discuss something the best way is saying what they want and start talking about it, just posting images doesn't help the discussion.

saying what I want ? are you sure ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

are you acquainted with the concept of doublethink ?

No.

saying what I want ? are you sure ?

In that context, yes, I'm sure.

[funbox]

No.
In that context, yes, I'm sure.

ok then, *cougho'mids and a picture it is then , without fear of two page's of query and reexplaination and



funbox

[ArMaP]

ok then, *cougho'mids and a picture it is then , without fear of two page's of query and reexplaination and

I don't have the slightest idea of what you mean by that. 

[funbox]

I don't have the slightest idea of what you mean by that. 

and no Aleister around to help, but don't worry its not a suggestion to blow your head off

maybe a hint at being so preachy ,but more explanation might just lead to more re explanations,

have you ever tried painting with beer ?

coaxing anomalies out of the shadows requires a little less rigidity, focusing without focusing etc  *insert quazi method here*

just let it flow ArMaP

funbox

[ArMaP]

coaxing anomalies out of the shadows requires a little less rigidity, focusing without focusing etc  *insert quazi method here*

I suppose it does, but what are other people supposed to do with those anomalies, accepted them as anomalies just because someone says so? Or try to understand what we are looking at?

As I always choose the second option, I usually have to ask questions (specially when faced with just an image and no opinion about what we are looking at). If you look at the start of this thread, you also started by asking opinions, and that lead to discussion about several related subjects, something that is starting to lack in these last pages.

just let it flow ArMaP

I "let it flow", but as this is a subject I like I try to learn something about it in every opportunity (no pun intended), so I when I do not understand things, I ask.

[funbox]

I suppose it does, but what are other people supposed to do with those anomalies, accepted them as anomalies just because someone says so? Or try to understand what we are looking at?

that's a good idea    .    what do you think of the Pyramid shaped object? does your thinking allow for non human* in the loosest sense of the word, construction ?

#and if not what type of geological process created this range of *foothills* with its pointed anomoly

As I always choose the second option, I usually have to ask questions (specially when faced with just an image and no opinion about what we are looking at). If you look at the start of this thread, you also started by asking opinions, and that lead to discussion about several related subjects, something that is starting to lack in these last pages.

well you'll know what I mean when I post a picture with little opinion or description in the future now won't you ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

that's a good idea    .    what do you think of the Pyramid shaped object? does your thinking allow for non human* in the loosest sense of the word, construction ?

No, it doesn't make me think of artificially built objects, as it looks like a variation of all those conical mounds at the foot of Mount Sharp that we have seen in many photos.

#and if not what type of geological process created this range of *foothills* with its pointed anomoly

It looks like sedimentary material mounds, but I don't know which processes could result in those specific shapes.

well you'll know what I mean when I post a picture with little opinion or description in the future now won't you ?

I know, but I have been "talking" with you for some years now, and I suppose most people that read these pages have not, and it would be easier for them to understand what we're talking about.

[funbox]

No, it doesn't make me think of artificially built objects, as it looks like a variation of all those conical mounds at the foot of Mount Sharp that we have seen in many photos.

conical mounds that are rounded , unlike this quite obvious point, wouldn't you say ?

or is there a reason for it's acuteness, in comparison with its surrounding neighbours

It looks like sedimentary material mounds, but I don't know which processes could result in those specific shapes.

Ice is a great carver, but seeing it hasn't been about for a while, if at all in this region , and even if it had , why the lack of erosion? in comparison with its surroundings ?

capped maybe

anyway double think

No, it doesn't make me think of artificially built objects, as it looks like a variation of all those conical mounds at the foot of Mount Sharp that we have seen in many photos

those conical mounds that are rounded whereas this is acute and apparently un-eroded at its tip?

It looks like sedimentary material mounds, but I don't know which processes could result in those specific shapes

if you don't know the processes and the visually perceived environmental conditions suggest heavy erosion/environmental activity in that region, how do you conclude it is similar in nature to the surrounding objects , not just visually but of material too?

I think maybe pictures with some indicating arrows might be helpful at this juncture

funbox

[ArMaP]

conical mounds that are rounded , unlike this quite obvious point, wouldn't you say ?

It's hard to say from that photo if that mound's point is as sharp as it appears to be, if we had two photos for a stereo vision it would be better.

or is there a reason for it's acuteness, in comparison with its surrounding neighbours

Sure there's a reason, but I don't have any idea of what it may be.

Ice is a great carver, but seeing it hasn't been about for a while, if at all in this region , and even if it had , why the lack of erosion? in comparison with its surroundings ?

I don't see signs of ice by ice, and judging by the size of the mound, it's probably more recent than the bigger ones.

anyway double think

What do you mean by "double think"?

those conical mounds that are rounded whereas this is acute and apparently un-eroded at its tip?

Yes, and it's that difference that made me write "variation" instead of "just another".

if you don't know the processes and the visually perceived environmental conditions suggest heavy erosion/environmental activity in that region, how do you conclude it is similar in nature to the surrounding objects , not just visually but of material too?

I didn't conclude any thing, it's just a supposition, based on the way it looks and on the way the other mounds look, as both appear to be made from the same materials, with similar layers of what looks like sedimentary material.

I think maybe pictures with some indicating arrows might be helpful at this juncture

Arrows? What for?

[funbox]

It's hard to say from that photo if that mound's point is as sharp as it appears to be, if we had two photos for a stereo vision it would be better.

im sure we wont have to long to wait, I Cant see how Nasa could possibly avoid taking another picture

Sure there's a reason, but I don't have any idea of what it may be.

and certainly not Aliens/AncientAliens then

I don't see signs of ice by ice, and judging by the size of the mound, it's probably more recent than the bigger ones.

a slow falling meteorite perchance?

What do you mean by "double think"?

for a complete understanding , and if you interest reaches far enough to find out, an explaination can be found in the book "1984" by George Orwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Yes, and it's that difference that made me write "variation" instead of "just another"

no ArMaP , it's a cop out, what you should have said was an acute variation , as similarly looking, they are not.

I didn't conclude any thing, it's just a supposition, based on the way it looks and on the way the other mounds look, as both appear to be made from the same materials, with similar layers of what looks like sedimentary material.

that's why the arrows are needed , im struggling to see the sedimentary layers that strike them all as similar

I take it this seeing of these layers is what formed your conclusion to no Architectural construction

Arrows? What for?

see above

funbox

[ArMaP]

im sure we wont have to long to wait, I Cant see how Nasa could possibly avoid taking another picture

I think we saw that area in one of the first photos, I will look for it.

and certainly not Aliens/AncientAliens then

I never consider something I'm not sure exists as a possible reason.

for a complete understanding , and if you interest reaches far enough to find out, an explaination can be found in the book "1984" by George Orwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

I read it some years ago, but, apparently, I didn't find it that memorable.

It would be faster if you told me what you mean by that in this case.

no ArMaP , it's a cop out, what you should have said was an acute variation , as similarly looking, they are not.

It's not, it's exactly what I meant, to me it looks like a variation of the other mounds, so I call it a variation.

that's why the arrows are needed , im struggling to see the sedimentary layers that strike them all as similar

OK, I understand it now.

I take it this seeing of these layers is what formed your conclusion to no Architectural construction

That and the lack of any other sign of artificiality, a cone is a natural shape.

[ArMaP]

Here is an image with two arrows pointing to two similar layers on the "pyramid" and on the mound next to it.



To me, seeing that darker layer in both mounds, with a lighter layer above and below, makes me think that both mounds were created by the same process and, probably, at the same time.

I thought that I had seen that area in photos from the beginning of the mission but I was wrong, Curiosity was some 3 km from where it is now, so any similar formation had to be some 3 km to the east of this one, but I found a photo of the "pyramid" from sol 1197, this one. Being a photo from the Mastcam it has a general better look than the photo from MAHLI.

I am trying to identify the features seen on that photo and the photos next to it on a satellite photo, but it could take some time.

PS: now that I have two photos I could make an animation to try to get 3D idea of that area.


It looks like there's a smaller "pyramid" in front of the one you found.