1 : the rocks appear eroded flat , unlike formations in the wind....
the forming of its smooth surface deserves some electron study for they can be proof that sand regularly moved there at some point or :3 feet.
2 : the rocks are broken in such a manner as to suggest horizontal motion... but show signs of flatness still so where evidently broken a long time before the flatness appeared...
3 : such flatness takes time and weight or a whole lot of sand blasting power or and time...
the rock appears on a flat bit of earth and however still there is no evidence of an imprecise arm movement and or wind forces , bearing in mind the evidence to the fact that the other tiny rocks appear not to have been displaced at all,
one would like to recommend the search of earlier pictures for documented sightings of the incidental but significant rock.
the rock also shows signs of being a silicone base and i hesitate to say iron from the colour ... if it is it may be O4SoMg or some such crystal and is not bled by water/solvent fracture it seems for there are clear bands of colour within it.
also noted are the tiny rocks in photo 1 are in the same place as the larger rock that appears in photo 2 and the fact that there is no evidence of them having moved...
only a very precise movement could accomplish such a feat and it is noted for me to wonder can any of the instruments on the lander move a rock that precisely ?
the angle of the big rock should be able to tell us if the smaller rocks are probably still under that rock and if they have likely moved.
about > http://rt.com/news/mars-rover-rock-appear-650/
the photo original > http://www.flickr.com/photos/marscat/11879656235/