Space/Science » in reply to Regardless of when it was taken, it still looks like 3 old very eroded volcanic cones.

The whole thread (21 posts)

• Latest shot of the "Face" on Mars - Tom Brosz - 12/14/2003 8:02:33 PM
  • re: Latest shot of the "Face" on Mars - rhw007 - 12/15/2003 9:37:03 PM
    • Regret to inform.... - et - 12/15/2003 10:08:56 PM
    • See? There's one now! Quick Henry! The Flit! (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/15/2003 10:05:57 PM
  • WHY!?! Why would you turn on the crackpot homing beacon? - et - 12/15/2003 6:36:42 PM
    • Good to flush them out now and then. - Tom Brosz - 12/15/2003 7:07:02 PM
      • or red (sorry, couldn't resist) (n/t) - alcaray - 12/15/2003 9:02:32 PM
        • LOL! - Tom Brosz - 12/15/2003 9:30:06 PM
        • From what I hear... - et - 12/15/2003 9:10:03 PM
      • You mean the ones with the invisible hands? (n/t) - et - 12/15/2003 8:01:22 PM
  • re: Latest ? may 24 2001 is considered "latest"? - Raoul - 12/14/2003 8:54:47 PM
    • It's not exactly a high priority target except to the cranks - Larry J - 12/15/2003 12:20:47 PM
      • Regardless of when it was taken, it still looks like 3 old very eroded volcanic cones. - Delbert - 12/15/2003 3:50:32 PM
        • Eroded, yes. Volcanic, no. (n/t) - et - 12/15/2003 8:22:48 PM
    • re: Latest ? may 24 2001 is considered "latest"? - Tom Brosz - 12/14/2003 10:35:35 PM
  • remember it comes from NASA, they've been found guilty of retouching images before so take it with a grain of salt. (n/t) - Nick - 12/14/2003 8:08:00 PM
    • You could be right Nick. - RobVG - 12/14/2003 11:47:20 PM
      • It's a huge anthropomorphized mushroom! (n/t) - et - 12/15/2003 11:13:23 PM
        • That bad? - RobVG - 12/16/2003 2:28:23 AM
          • No, good. - et - 12/16/2003 7:50:38 PM
            • Oh - RobVG - 12/16/2003 9:22:40 PM