Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
<a href="mailto:&#114;&#112;&#103;&#50;&#107;&#117;&#114;&#117;&#112;&#116;&#64;&#104;&#111;&#116;&#109;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#46;&#99;&#111;&#109;?subject=Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this?">Mike B</a> wrote:
>

When you try to twist my words around at least quote my entire post.



> Is that supposed to be some kind of joke. Do you know what
> spheroidal weathering is even? It does not mean that
> concentric rings will form in the rock as you suggest. It
> simply means that the corners of the rock are attacked first
> because they have the most surface area. Since the corners
> are attacked first the rock will try to get to a sphere shape
> for its entire life. Eventually it will just be another
> small round pebble.
> I would really love to see the picture that you refer to in
> "Modern Physical Geography." I will be looking for a copy of
> it I assure you.


The type of concentric shells you refer to
> are an indication of deposition, not erosion. Deposition
> bands can be seen in minerals like agates which display
> successive periods of deposition with pauses between. A
> style of banding can also be seen in some sedimentary or
> metamorphic rocks, but not in the pattern shown in the article.

If you can read my post says that the concentric rings are a result of deposition not erosion.
To which you replied: In spheroidal weathering? I don't think so... Here is the definition of weathering:

Unfortunately when I said it wasn't erosion that eliminates spheroidal weathering entirely. Did you think I meant deposition within the spheroidal process? That simply doesn't happen as you stated. Sorry about the confusion.


> Your assertion that the people who discovered this are idiots
> is truly saddening. You seem to base this on the fact that
> these structures show a characteristic that you have seen in
> one picture in one book. This is truly ignorant, so please
> come up with some real evidence before you attack the
> people. I highly doubt that your "geologist" friends will
> find anything funny about the article, especially if you use
> the argument that you presented here.

Thank you for actually presenting evidence to go with your attacks this time. I agree that these people were very premature in calling this a manmade structure, but in the spirit of the reformed MB try to make it less personal next time. The second picture shows nothing of value to this discussion, but I am very intrigued by the bottom picture. This does indeed show a natural formation that shows concentric rings in the rock. You asked whether I think this is spherical weathering and I have to say no. I think what we are looking at here is something else, but that isn't important. What is important is the fact that you have shown a precedent for the concentric formations. This is obviously not manmade, so whether it is spherical weathering is really arbitrary. No matter what process caused the formation they found we know that there are completely natural examples, so unless they can come up with some kind of evidence of habitation there appears to be nothing manmade about the structure.

One final comment I have is: take a close look at the details of your first and third picture and tell me what differences stick out. There are a couple of them that imply that these formations may not be entirely similar.
In the top picture look at how the tops of those rings have sharp edges as opposed to the smooth ones in the bottom pic. Also as you state, the weathering of the "furnace" is still controlled by jointing. This will only hold true for a while and then the erosion will eat through the side and bottom joints as well. Both of these facts signify to me that this formation became exposed to weathering at a relatively recent date. Would you agree or disagree with that? You must admit that the erosion is not very extensive so far. This also eliminates spheroidal weathering as the cause of the rings. Keep in mind that I believe it is natural, I just think we are looking at a different process.

> Mike B

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 216 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 01:58
what am I doing wrong??? 123 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 01:59
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 111 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 02:04
I give up 140 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 02:05
Re: I give up 159 Don Holeman 22-Apr-02 02:26
Thanks Don 136 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 03:04
Re: I give up 148 drak1 22-Apr-02 02:32
Re: I give up 134 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 02:49
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 148 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 03:05
Jaimi - HTML Problem 200 Tripp 22-Apr-02 07:09
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 126 Richard Essame 22-Apr-02 04:19
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 135 Aristarchus 22-Apr-02 10:35
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 153 Mike B 22-Apr-02 18:44
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 112 Aristarchus 23-Apr-02 20:23
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 119 mephisto 22-Apr-02 05:24
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 115 Archae Solenhofen 22-Apr-02 07:19
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 156 mephisto 22-Apr-02 17:31
well said 123 konuzion 22-Apr-02 21:09
Why Phoenician's? 151 Mike B 22-Apr-02 22:50
Re: Why Phoenician's? 112 konuzion 22-Apr-02 23:36
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 128 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 03:16
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 104 mephisto 23-Apr-02 03:55
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 138 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 05:54
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 176 Mike B 23-Apr-02 17:56
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 159 Mike B 23-Apr-02 19:20
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 177 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 21:10
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 153 Mike B 24-Apr-02 23:59
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 157 KatDawg 22-Apr-02 17:32
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 121 Mike B 22-Apr-02 19:27
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 141 mephisto 22-Apr-02 21:05
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 157 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 02:42
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 151 Mike B 23-Apr-02 17:31
I agree with Mike, Archae 183 Jaimi 23-Apr-02 17:55
Re: I agree with Mike, Archae 149 Mike B 23-Apr-02 18:19
Re: I agree with Mike, Archae 159 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 22:20
Re: I agree with Mike, Archae 118 Jaimi 24-Apr-02 03:18
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 145 Archae Solenhofen 23-Apr-02 22:10
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 121 Mike B 24-Apr-02 18:53
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 131 Archae Solenhofen 24-Apr-02 19:24
Re: Has anyone ever seen rock formations like this? 128 Anomalies 24-Apr-02 20:29
I don't agree... 149 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 19:46
close but no cigar 124 Jaimi 22-Apr-02 19:48
Entirely natural 109 konuzion 23-Apr-02 21:02
Re: Entirely natural 150 David Campbell 25-Apr-02 21:55
Re: Entirely natural 128 konuzion 26-Apr-02 00:05
Re: Entirely natural 121 David Campbell 26-Apr-02 03:11


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.