(Self-reposted because f Grammarly)
Rather than try and explain the shape, I’m just going to say it basically looks like a crashed and partially buried star destroyer off Star Wars to give you an idea.
Photo of rock (& what I’m on about in the last point of this comment):
Google Earth (too low down for maps):
It piqued my interest because:
– Its location and proximity to the South Pole (after listening to Linda Moulton Howe’s interview with the pilot who flew over the restricted airspace)
– The satellite shots/ their display on google earth seems different to the ordinary. There are 2 hi res areas, within a larger extremely low res encompassing rectangle… (have a look at the imgur link)…
…this encompassing rectangle seems to load differently from the rest of the low res, as in- it loads at a higher zoom level (as it would for a higher res photo) but seems to more or less exactly show what the typical low res shots show, with just a different colouring.
If I’m right then different tints are often the consequence of atmospheric conditions, it seems strange that the tint changes and yet the pixels don’t appear to move much, if at all (I know we’re looking at presumably static rocks though). In my mind, there would be more pixel shift/ it would be higher res for a photo with that tinting and that zoom. (But I’ll add that I know f all about satellite photo composites).
Edit:
Whoever is downvoting this, care to share why?
On the previous post where I accidentally copied over half the text as I was submitting, I thought it was just because I’d faffed it. But on this new post (which I have proofread a bit more)…
Currently at 20% upvotes with no decent critique?
Show me another natural rock formation that looks like that at least, there’s got to be some (edit-> checked myself, it could be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatiron_(geomorphology)) Any geologists here?)
submitted by /u/Slow_Perception
[link] [comments]