Hellas Basin on Mars: The Obelisk and other squared anomalies!

a reply to: Arken

IMO, it's always better to point to a "potential" anomaly then to let it go unnoticed.

In this case, my gut feeling (and my impressions from what I've seen on HiRISE imagry) tells me it's a bizzare but probably natural formation. Geologists, please chime in and do the explanation part for me ... thanks in advance!

However, the conspiracist and believer in me says, we can never be 100% sure, so it's better to get your stuff out there for further discussion (and, hopefully, a good explanation)!

a reply to: Arken

I think this is just one of those cases of not understanding the perspective of the scene in the photo, but it's hard to tell because of your lack of information about this "one of the most important Martian anomalies that you have discovered till now", it looks like you are more worried about having your name pasted on the images than in giving the right location.

Could you please tell us where in the PSP_008427_1380 image is that small area in the first image you posted?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: Arken
You still need to do a little effort and open the original image on Google Mars...

Wrong, if you want people to take you seriously you should do the work, and present it with all the information you have about it, instead of posting images from Google Mars (that always look worse than the originals), too close to show any signs of the surroundings (and too blurred), without coordinates and without showing to which side is North (I may be wrong, but it looks like you rotated the image in Google Mars, and in the two areas you posted each one looks to have a different rotation).

It almost looks like you are trying to hide something by not posting all the relevant data.

originally posted by: ArMaP

(I may be wrong, but it looks like you rotated the image in Google Mars, and in the two areas you posted each one looks to have a different rotation).

It almost looks like you are trying to hide something by not posting all the relevant data.

ArMaP, the Google watermark is at the bottom of three of the four pictures. Which two pictures do you mean?

People finding the martian or lunar "anomalies" are forgetting one crucial thing: most of these images are taken top-down, that is, looking straight down on the surface. This rules out the oblique view that they see in those images.

The OP's image PSP_008427_1380 was taken at 1.4° to the vertical, still pretty much top-down.

Now, to find that exact "obelisque" myself...

originally posted by: wildespace
People finding the martian or lunar "anomalies" are forgetting one crucial thing: most of these images are taken top-down, that is, looking straight down on the surface. This rules out the oblique view that they see in those images.

The OP's image PSP_008427_1380 was taken at 1.4° to the vertical, still pretty much top-down.

Now, to find that exact "obelisque" myself...

Let us know when you find it. I just spent the last hour pouring over the original high resolution image and it's not there that I an see.

The Lat and Long that Arken gave was for the center of the image.....not the location of his "artifact".....

originally posted by: smurfy
ArMaP, the Google watermark is at the bottom of three of the four pictures. Which two pictures do you mean?

I was talking about the first (and the second, which is the same image, the only thing that changes is what Arken added) and the "1500 meters wide strip". The "cropped detail of 150 meters wide" appears to have the same orientation (I didn't remember this word on my previous post ) as the 1500 metres strip.

about another hour of looking and still can not find it. Maybe next time Arken will actually give the coordinates of his "artifacts" instead of just a blurry picture.

I did find a dragon though......

weeeeeeellllllll......okay that's what it looks like to me (but the original jp2, high resolution 285 MB image shows it's just dunes.....).

Still, I'll see Arken's spire and raise him a Dragon:

originally posted by: qmantoo
I really dont know why you bother to post when you have pointed out so many times the same things in most of these anomaly posts. It is like you feel you have to convince the newly-arrived that there is nothing anomalous to see in these images.

Not to convince, as I don't think anyone can be convinced to see something, but to try to make people understand that things may not be what they think they are.

The folks who point out anomalies dont always get it right, but they only need to get it right once for it to be a structure on Mars - where according to you guys, all we have is rocks and more rocks.

That's true, and that's why I always point to both the things I think are natural and those for which I don't see any natural explanation. If people spend time looking at rocks to try to see them as something they are not, I think their time would be best spent at looking at other, less easier explained as natural, things.

Dont forget, one anomalous structure on Mars is all we have to find to prove more investigation is needed by the planetry scientists and I reckon we have found hundreds already not just on Mars but all over the place in space.

I don't remember any on Mars that I thought was really anomalous, but I remember two on Moon photos.

Placing doubt in the newly-arrived is your mission so I suppose you have to pop up and take your salaries otherwise why bother and waste your time?

No mission and no salary (unfortunately, a second income would be welcome), this is just one of my hobbies, and doubt is better than accept any suggestion just because it sounds "cooler" or "against the establishment".

a reply to: qmantoo

Could you please define "nay-sayer" ?

This is a public forum. Anyone who is a registered member may post or create threads in this and other forums.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would like to take a look at Arken's find at a much higher resolution image than the Google Earth image that he used (and such a higher resolution image is available).

However, he failed to indicate the exact coordinates and the HiRISE image covers a very large swath of land.

a reply to: Arken


There have been other NASA Pic.s of similar Anomolies on Mars resembling possible Buildings . Case in point , ........


i297.photobucket.com...

S & F Arken for keeping up The Good Fight. Your threads are always interesting and I personally find the replies from some members very entertaining. Keep up the good work Arken. Just by posting some of these photos you have opened up up many members eyes to The Wonders of The Martian Landscape and if anyone's going to hit paydirt with these investigations it will be you!

Peace Arjunada a reply to: Arken

a reply to: ArMaP

My bad. Sorry.
Here the coordinates of the "Obelisk", (rotation on South-East, as all this area must be seen).

a reply to: ArMaP

Not to convince, as I don't think anyone can be convinced to see something, but to try to make people understand that things may not be what they think they are.

Me too...

a reply to: ArMaP

it looks like you are more worried about having your name pasted on the images than in giving the right location.

Why so rude, Armap?
I knew you as a boy friendly and polite, but I see that I was wrong...

Wind erosion is responsible for much of the morphology in this region.

www.uahirise.org...

This is the dumbest comment I've ever heard. And It comes from a Planetologist ...

Thus, according to this idiot. wind erosion has caused the Hellas Basin morphology. I must point out that the image "Fall in Hellas Basin" of about 15 km x 5 km is only a small part of the entire flat region of several thousand square kilometers. And so this idiot NASA / JPL / UoA, says that the square formations, and all oriented in the same direction, were formed by... the wind...

originally posted by: Arken
Me too...

I thought so, that's why I find it a little (or more than a little) strange that you paste your name on the photos.
Why do it if you are only interested in showing things and other points of view to other people?

Why so rude, Armap?

You're right, sorry for my temporary loss of patience.

originally posted by: Arken
Thus, according to this idiot. wind erosion has caused the Hellas Basin morphology.

That's not a nice thing to say, specially about someone that, I suppose, you don't know.

I must point out that the image "Fall in Hellas Basin" of about 15 km x 5 km is only a small part of the entire flat region of several thousand square kilometers. And so this idiot NASA / JPL / UoA, says that the square formations, and all oriented in the same direction, were formed by... the wind...

"Square formations"? I don't see any squares.

originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: ArMaP

My bad. Sorry.
Here the coordinates of the "Obelisk", (rotation on South-East, as all this area must be seen).

Thanks for the coordinates, we can finally find it for ourselves. But given the fact that the image was taken looking almost straight-down, rotation is irrelevant. Rotating it one way only gives an illusion of an oblique view. There's no obelisk.

Thus, according to this idiot. [...] And so this idiot NASA / JPL / UoA

Why so rude, Arken?
I knew you as a boy friendly and polite, but I see that I was wrong...

But seriously, care to elaborate why you find the statement about wind erosion ridiculous? Are you a planetologist or geologist yourself?

P.S. just found that "obelisk" in HiView.

At 1:1 scale:


Magnified x4 using pixel resize:


So, a few things to recap:
1. the image is top-down, there's no oblique view.
2. the Sun was very low above the horizon, so a shadow from any tall object would have been very long. The low Sun angle also accentuates shadows seen here - meaning that what we're really looking at is small and shallow dune-like terrain features. No oblique views of square houses or anything like that.
3. another thing I realised - the sun-facing side of the obelisk would have been much brighter, at least as bright as the sunlit surfaces of these "square" formations.

P.P.S. Here's what an upright obelisk would look like, if it really stood there:

Bright sunlit side, long shadow. Note that the base of the "obelisk" is only about 1 to 2 pixels wide, translating to about 50 cm to 1 meter.