To add to my post above, (I can't edit it and too lazy to register) one has to wonder why there aren't millions of websites discussing the species that built such formations. The answer is simple, because they have been studied from up close and clearly show natural erosion.

These and other natural formations on earth look much more fantastic than all the mars face, tubes, tiny brick piece and pyramid pictures put together and yet no one dares calling them artificially made.

Hello,

As an avid 3D photographer and image junkie I thought I'd give you my unsolicited opinion.

The "pyramid" is too grainy to make out with certainty. Depending on how you look at it, it might be either conical or a rough pyramid. The camera angle is quite low, as evidenced by the multiple horizons caused by the low rises when viewed in 3D. 20cm sounds about right for height given that the Mars Rover's cameras are supposed to simulate human eye spacing, but without a scalable object next to it, it isn't possible to be sure.

There are hints of as many as 3 faces in view, it is also possible that the dark patch on the upper left is an indication of a jagged face. It is pretty regular from this angle, but that means nothing. I've seen many a natural object look regular from certain perspectives.

Conclusion: This "pyramid" is likely to be a naturally occurring, large, sharp boulder befitting the sharp rock strewn landscape, but it's impossible to be certain.

The "brick" is more clear (although I didn't look to see if there was a 3D version and therefore only used the 2D image).

It's not nearly as regular as it would first appear. There is a definite hump shape to the gray stripe on the right where it meets the dirt. The short face on the left is also not square. There is a decided dish shape to it.

It does appear to be roughly square and regular over a large percentage of it on the forward and upper faces, and it's hinted that the rear face is also square, but this is not definite.

Conclusion: The gray striped, humped area leads me to believe that this rock may be composed of two different materials with differing erosion properties. It may also be possible that the gray striped area was protected from erosion for an extended period of time.

Although multiple right angles are naturally rare, given the local debris in which to compare it to, I would consider it interesting but not overtly unusual. I would like to know why it seems to have eroded differently in different sections though.

Side note: Here's an interesting site for you: D&M pyramid symmetry. It's very interesting to view the stereo image and the flip-flopping image. The symmetry is remarkable, but not perfect.

Personally, considering the many natural wonders on Earth that resemble this and that, I don't think it's unusual to see images like this from elsewhere. I particularly liked the moon that looked like the Death Star from Star Wars. Does anyone really think The Empire parked it in our solar system for safe keeping?

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

-Sherlock Holmes, A Scandal in Bohemia

Ask yourself, extra: how much hard data do you really have? Grainy pictures that could be a pyramid, a cone, a -see above pictures of columns -, or possibly Elvis, don't count. As for the 'brick'? I know this point was made earlier, but it's not hard to find square rock. I *hangs head* attend a small, middle-of-nowhere high school, and I could probably find a square rock in the gravel pile behind my house.
Considering how many 'verified' photos of UFOs, aliens, and Nessie there are on Earth, I think the logical portion of the population has little chance of supressing pyramid sightings on Mars, but PhysOrg isn't the place for it.

As always, I could be wrong.