Huge Tower (5 Km high) in Hellas Planitia Region on Mars!

It seems that the consensus is that it is an area of some elevation, just not quite what the 'street level' image implies. looked at laterally and with distance using google mars, it reverts to a more or less high hill. The quality of the image in that section is difficult, although that area is described as high albedo, or reflective.

reply to post by Chadwickus


If you see my post where I presented the images you are correct this is some sort of Formation.

LET ME STATE THIS CLEARLY!

I don't know if this is artificial or Natural but the object/formation exists it is not just a glitch. Now that said the height of the object/formation I have doubts about being accurate but it is seen in the MOLA images making it large. The base of which appears to be a few km across as well. Nothings says that this is artificial I just thought that pattern close by was odd.

Be scientific but not close minded...

Originally posted by TechniXcality
Actually I’m am a huge fan of weather and in fact I believe this structure is easily explainable by the desolate mars surface covered in sand with the extreme winds that are produced on mars which could easily erode a rock structure to that shape.

From what I have seen, the extreme winds are not that erosive, probably because of the thinner atmosphere. That was one of the first things I noticed when I first saw photos taken on Mars surface, the erosion made by the wind looks weaker than on Earth.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


I agree about the shadow. But the craters in that image are not showing very large shadows and due to alignment/angle of the spacecrafts it is turning out to be a bit interesting to find this object.

reply to post by abeverage


Did you saw the images I posted here?

reply to post by abeverage


The photos usually have information about the Sun's position over the horizon, so it's easy to know if the shadows should be short or long.

Originally posted by Zatox
Most people getting hyped up thinking aliens did it, we have mountains on earth omg :O dont believe everything you see..

edit on 20-10-2011 by Zatox because: (no reason given)

Please point out to me where I said this was an alien artifact or structure? If anything it is natural BUT!!!

Even if it is natural it would be a stunning example of Mars morphology and possible help to explain if the area was shaped by wind erosion or liquid which can be just as amazing. Also the OP headline was Huge Tower how does this connote built? Devil's Tower was not built nor were areas in the American Southwest...

Open your mind a little and see that it is amazing regardless of being artificial or natural.

reply to post by abeverage


Maybe I wasn't 100% clear?

I too think it is there and real (and natural)

I think something has gone wrong with the 3D rendering to make it appear much taller than it really is though.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes one of those mounds could be it with exaggerated MOLA data, that is possible. I am digging through Mars Express image ATM so when I get a chance I will look at those but Viking images are not that great.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Yes you are fine the CAPS were not for you but anyone else reading who tries to misquote me lol no worries.

Most likely is a Data error but if not it would be stunning!

Why do I think this would be significant (I know nobody asked lol)

Terby Crater is the large crater to the north of this formation (The so called tower)

There is a lot of cool layering going on in this area www.psi.edu... and whatever caused this could help in determining if there was water on Mars.


So before this gets picked apart let's see if we can learn from it not just dismiss it as a glitch major discovers where found by discovering a glitch...ask Edison. But to just throw out a comment that it is nothing without research is just as silly as claiming it is Alien both lack scientific judgement or credence.

There's only one way to solve this...put those damn Google Street View cars on mars! Also, I'm really eager to see how many shots of naked aliens they get through their windows as they drive by lol.

reply to post by upgrayeddc310t


They will just blur the faces and how will we know if they are related to Queen of England or not? (j/k...about the queen part of course they are related...)

My first thought was that this was a negative of the Washington Monument, with all the background features edited out. I agree, until we see the original NASA photos, we can only speculate on what this is and is not

This is the shape as mostly viewed in Googlemars, the high sharp peak is only seen at close range. I have outlined the shape using background colour from the image. The right side line to the top is dye straight all the way up,(or down) the left side slightly less so. The line in the middle is there only to depict a rounded 'buttress' shape also rising to the top, which is hard to see in the uploading.

Guys, it's a google stitching glitch!!!

It doesn't actually exist!!!

Cheers

Robbie

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Please refrain from talking for other people, especially if you don´t seem to get what I was pointing out exactly to the other poster I responded to.

Thank you.

I did make sure to say "He was probably" talking about the 3D buildings option.

And what I said is true. Chadwickus was talking about the "3D buildings" option in GoogleEarth. The 3D building option shows CGI buildings -- NOT real pictures -- and simulated shadows. Therefore, the fact that the eiffel tower is real is not relevant to [what I think] Chadwickus' point was...and that point [I think] is that GoogleEarth shows simulated shadows for their CGI Eiffel tower, and probably shows simulated shadows for the computer-generated "Mars tower" that is the subject of this thread.

The "3D building" version of the Eiffel tower is not real, and the shadows are simulated -- Although the Eiffel tower really does exist. However, that doesn't mean that the Mars tower is real, even though it has similar simulated shadows.

Fair enough.

So is the data for the size and heiight of the cgi buildings obtained by programming the actual dimensions into the software, or is this directly derived from the satellite imagery?