View Single Post
  #10  
Old July 7th 03, 12:59 PM
Ron Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default another what if?


"Zdenek Jizba" wrote in message
...
Ron Miller wrote:

They look like rocks to me. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes,

you
know.


I agree with you that I cannot absolutely prove that they are not rocks.
However, there are several aspects of these objects that make them
VERY unusual. Fist the mounds.
1. they appear to be circular (the image that disappeared showed this
best)
2. They have no sharp edges (unlike most of the other boulders on

Eros)
3. There appears to be an overhang around the circular boundary
(again, this showed better on the disappeared image)
4. The slopes appear to be those of a knoll.


You use the word "appear" in three of your four points and "most of" in the
fourth. This all awfully subjective. What you are saying is: "Because these
objects 'appear' to be different from 'most of' the other rocks and
boulders, they must be artificial." This is quite a leap from such little
evidence.

As to the object with a sharp peak,

1. The aspect ratio (height divided by base radius) appears to be
too high. Its emplacement would have to have been from a
vertical impact. Otherwise I would expect it to fall on its

side.
2. The shape is quite unusual sort of like an off center pyramid


Again, a lot of subjectivity: "appears to be", "I would expect", "would have
been" . . . (and why would an "off center pyramid" be "quite unusual"?
Nature is full of examples of approximations. "Quite unusual" would, I
think, be a mathematically perfect pyramid, if anything).

I hope this may explain to you my inability to accept them a
natural objects.


No, it doesn't.

The NEAR expedition took many tens of thousands
of images of Eros, some from less than 50 miles. You could convince
me that these are natural objects if I could see some of the
close up images. Unfortunately I have been unable to find a
website of such images. (Is it available????)


See? What you say here is that the photos are in fact not clear enough for
you to determine (to your satisfaction at least) whether the objects are
natural or not---yet you are willing to state that you are "unable" to
accept them as natural objects. The fact is that you are making highly
subjective judgements and from these deriving a definite---and very
questionable---conclusion.

By the way, there are plenty of close-up images available if you look for
them. I had no trouble finding more than enough when I was looking for
images for my recent book on asteroids, comets and meteors.

RM


Ads