Expert opinions on satellite mushroom?

[2.88 Miles]

OK, let's try this again. My name is David, and I am a British man. I study satellite imagery, and I am here because I require an expert opinion on the following images. Posting this in "general fungi discussion", can't see any other suitable section.
I am not a mushroom expert, which obviously is the reason why I am here.
What I require is opinions from mushroom experts regarding the following images... Please tell me everything you can. What exactly am I looking at here?
Please be as specific as possible, as this find could be very significant.

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi, and welcome to UK Fungi.

You say that you require "expert opinion" on the two images - but what, exactly, is the basis of your belief that these two images have anything to do with UK Fungi (or indeed, any fungi worldwide for that matter)?

Regards,
Mike.

[2.88 Miles]

"what, exactly, is the basis of your belief that these two images have anything to do with UK Fungi (or indeed, any fungi worldwide for that matter)"

Well perhaps I'm wrong, but to me this looks exactly like a huge, very ancient and perfectly preserved megalithic mushroom
(mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungus, right?).
This is what I'd expect to see if I was to examine a mushroom under a microscope, but as I said, I'm not a mushroom expert.
As to why I'm posting on a UK forum, it's simply because I'm a British man and English is my only language. This was the first site that came up when I googled something like "mushroom expert forum".

FYI - this world is covered in huge megalithic structures. Especially Britain and the Sahara desert. Take a good look at the satellite imagery and you'll find them everywhere. But this one is the best preserved I've found so far, and so requires some investigation and study. I'm keen to learn everything I can about this specimen.

Let me flip this around - Apart from the obvious fact that it's huge and made of stone/crystal, are there any obvious details that prevent this from being what it looks like? How precisely does this specimen differ from modern mushrooms such as the cubensis varieties?

[Lancashire Lad]

I think it rather incredulous that someone would consider this to be a "megalithic mushroom", in preference to discounting the rather obvious. Forgive my disbelief, but had you found something similar which vaguely resembled the shape of a boat, would you have suspected it to be a gigantic stone age craft of some sort?

I don't doubt that there are countless surviving examples of megalithic structures around the world. - But, on the basis of a vague similarity to the shape of a mushroom - you consider this to be a fossilised example of a single mushroom of several square miles in size?

A quote from this webpage: - http://earthsky.org/human-world/seeing- ... rent-there
" Seeing recognizable objects or phenomena in otherwise random or unrelated objects or patterns is called pareidolia. It’s a form of apophenia, which is a more general terms for seeing apparently meaningful connections between unrelated patterns, data or phenomena. . . . ".

So, look first for the plausible, before looking for the implausible!

The coordinates you give put this location within the desert lands of Mauritania: -

Area Overview satellite Image.

Have you looked at the "object" in 3D mode? - If not, here's an image of that specific location: -

3D View of the area of given coordinates.

All I see, is a fairly small, isolated, mountainous desert region, with obvious signs of wind blown sand runnels on many of its slopes.

Gigantic megalithic mushroom? - Well, not for my money!

Regards,
Mike.

[2.88 Miles]

"Incredulous" and "plausible" are both relative terms, which can only ever be based on believe. Eg science books, school, television, etc. I will point out that science books are re-written with each generation, and it's really not uncommon that new discoveries require that old paradigms be thrown in the garbage occasionally.
We're doing the exact same thing with Einstein's relativity right now, as GPS has proven it to be nonsense.

As for the 3d image, yes of course I've looked at it. I'm not really sure what your point is though? I can see very clear elevation relative to the shape of a mushroom, especially the tip and the base of the cap. It looks exactly what I'd expect a partially buried mushroom cap to look like.

"but had you found something similar which vaguely resembled the shape of a boat, would you have suspected it to be a gigantic stone age craft of some sort?" -

Let's be honest please, it's not a "vague shape", it is a VERY high resolution image akin to looking at a specimen under a microscope. There is an enormous amount of detail and structure here (there is a hole in the ground below it's stem and it's even possible to see underneath the cap), so from a scientific point of view it would be unreasonable to suggest that this amount of detail and structure is somehow random. Especially considering the 'huge dead forest' theme of the surrounding area...

I understand your desire to dismiss this find as random pixels/glitch/spare sand and so let me add this assumed caveat "assuming that this is what it looks like..." what exactly can be learned from it?

How specifically does this specimen differ from modern mushrooms? Is there a modern parallel to the round structures that can be seen under the cap? Is there a modern parallel to this specimen?

[Lancashire Lad]

You are of course, perfectly entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, as I am to mine.

And I stand by what I have previously said - 100%

In order for what is shown to even resemble a basic mushroom shape, one would have to conveniently forget about the structures in the right hand "third" of the images.

You say: -

. . . I understand your desire to dismiss this find as random pixels/glitch/spare sand and so let me add this assumed caveat "assuming that this is what it looks like..." what exactly can be learned from it?

To which I can only reply: - I have no such desire. To me, It looks like what it undoubtedly is, an isolated mountain range in a desert, and not a gigantic megalithic mushroom. - So in respect of mushrooms, nothing can be learned from it.

You say: -

. . . How specifically does this specimen differ from modern mushrooms? Is there a modern parallel to the round structures that can be seen under the cap? Is there a modern parallel to this specimen?

To which I can only reply: - I see nothing whatsoever in the images that bears any genuine resemblance to the microscopic (or even macro) structures of modern day mushrooms. To me, it is absolutely not a fungal "specimen" in any shape or form, so there is no parallel to be made.

I stand by my thoughts that suggesting this to be a gigantic mushroom is a case of pareidolia/apophenia (Seeing recognizable objects or phenomena in otherwise random or unrelated objects), and nothing more. - And I personally have nothing more to say on the matter.

I will however, reiterate that you are perfectly entitled to your own opinions, and indeed, others may yet contribute their own thoughts to the thread.

Regards,
Mike.

[adampembs]

I wonder if the OP has been partaking in certain mushrooms with interesting effects....

By the way, I allowed the post because i thought it was about some massive marine mycelium, not because it just looked like a mushroom. Reminds me of all those "images" you see of Jesus in various things.

There are so many shapes of mushrooms and toadstool, almost anything could like one of them.

[adampembs]

Topic closed.