Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you stoned or just stupid? I gave an example with The Giant's Causeway. Here's more. Look up Skull Rock in Joshua Tree NP or Heart Rock in California for other examples.
OK so now you are attacking the poster. If you cannot stick to the discussion and feel you have to attack my educational level, then you must be getting desperate to shut the thread down and ridicule the poster. Oh well...I will answer your points.
Giants Causeway is a natural feature but it does not look anything like this feature, I dont see why you bring it up as an example. I ignored it when you mentioned it previously simply because it is so unlike what I have circled in the first post.
Skull or Heart Rocks might be a similar example IF I was presenting the face on Mars but I am not.
Of course, at this moment, we dont know what it is but thats what the discussion is supposed to be about. This is a forum and so anyone with any level of expertise can chip in and comment. Obviously no-one knows what is represented in this image, but for me, it certainly does not look like any natural structure I have seen. Obviously others are free to disagree and say it is a natural rock formation because they just cannot stretch their mind to include an alien-built structure. I wonder what it would take and what would need to be shown for these folks to come around to that conclusion that it is an unnatural structure. Maybe it is just a matter of permisssion and if scientists told them this is what is shown, then they too could allow themselves to begin to consider the possibility without fear of being wrong.
I have found some similar artificial structures built by man
The Mensa Moltke University Karlsruhe Germany
or this kishinev state circus building
Designed by Nigel Gee and Yaught Island Design. This is somewhat similar, see this website.
[url=http://www.charterworld.com/news/project-utopia-bmt-nigel-gee-yacht-island-design[/url]
The one in the original post first image shows at least 4 arches all joining into a central top point. How unnatural is that?
The nearest natural formation on Earth I can find is Double Arch in the Arches National Park which looks like this.
Yes, but I was not showing something which looked like a mountain.
I was showing something which was on Earth and similar to a building-like structure on top of a mountain on Pluto. Obviously it is not the same as, because we dont have anything that large here. We are not looking directly down in the Pluto image anyway so you would see some of the side arches etc. and not a circle or a square shaped outline as you claim.
You're asking for near carbon-copy images of natural structures that look like that Pluto's mountain so I would ask you to meet the same requirements and provide actual images that look at least similar to that mountain. They must be satellite pictures, not ground-view, or you won't convince anyone.
Did you know that you can re-size the image so that it does not take up all of this space requiring us to use the slide bar to read posts?
I am sorry about that. On my browser (Debian Firefox) the forum software has automatically resized it and placed a message above the image to click if you want to see the full sized image. I was forgetting that some browsers are not able to do that, so I will resize in the future. I cannot go back and edit now the time limit for editing has passed.
Quote:
I would ask you to meet the same requirements and provide actual images that look at least similar to that mountain. They must be satellite pictures, not ground-view, or you won't convince anyone.
This is getting silly. I have already shown the kind of Earth-based structures I think we are looking at, and since I have already said I do not think it is a normal mountain like Everest, etc., I am not going to follow this line of discussion any further.
I dont need to convince anyone, you either believe this or not. I do not care if you believe it. It was posted for discussion and interest.
This thread is only silly if you decide you will ignore anything which presents the idea of something unusual on a planet in a solar system we have been told is lifeless. Ok, so it challenges current scientific thinking but thats a good thing if it can be backed up with evidence to support that viewpoint. Isn't that how science is encouraged to look at other possibilities? If in the future it is proved the earlier evidence presented was wrong, then we have still learned something.
Folks who cannot move on from the orthodox scientific view when presented with new ideas should not be in the scientific field of investigation. Yes, there may be errors and misunderstanding along the way, but in the end we will understand more than if we had sat there with a knowing smug face. The person who thinks they know everything, knows nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
