Two squared objects like monoliths cast long shadows in Gale Crater.

:facepalm:

Here we go again: someone using Google Earth to show something that looks like an anomaly. When will people learn?

Here, let me help you out, the area that you are looking in has raw, very high resolution images that you can look at. Some of them are over 400 MB however, so be warned. The area you are looking at in Gale Crater can be accessed by searching for:

PSP_001752_1750

click on the color image and you'll have a popup showing you were the smaller color image came from (a much lower resolution of the whole area).

IF you scroll down, you will find options for obtaining the much higher resolution pictures and information about where and when it was taken:



Google Earth is NOTORIOUS for having artifacts and strange looking things in it due to show a 2D picture is being stitched together on a 3D globe.

Why use it when you can access the high resolution, raw, UNTOUCHED (as you've indicated in other threads how very, very, very important that is to you, yet here we find you sourcing Google Earth ) images directly?

reply to post by eriktheawful


till facepalm i was following you

Here's how that area really looks like in the original image:



I hope this makes you abandon Google for serious work.

Now, about that shadow. First of all, in the image above, we can see that the shadow is being projected on an area that is not flat or horizontal, so the shadow will be affected by that, appearing longer than it should appear.

Looking at the image posted by eriktheawful we can see this:

Solar incidence angle: 57 degrees, with the Sun about
                                    33 degrees above the horizon

(Forget the above, I was looking at a different image, where the Sun was 32 degrees above the horizon, which is different from what I posted above but not as different as to make it important for the calculations)

I don't know where did you got that 34 metres, as the longest shadow is 17 metres long, according to Google Earth. In the image above, the shadow is 78 pixels long, which, at 27.4 cm per pixel, results in a 21 metres long shadow, so I will round it to 20, as it makes the calculations easier.

With the Sun 33 degrees above the horizon, 20 metres long shadow means a 11 metres tall rock (unless I made a mistake somewhere ). But that would be true if the surface was flat and horizontal, looking at that area it looks like the shadow is being made longer by the surface where it's project, so I will make an unscientific guess that the rock projecting the shadow may be something like some 8 or 9 metres tall.

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by gortex
I think you need the eye of faith to believe that they are upright and casting shadows and not just natural Geology .. err .. Marology ? .. either way it looks flat to me

Hmmm: Flat rocks that cast a 35 meters shadow?

No. Something else maybe.

Something extremely tall, and looks like a tower, or structure!

As the image I used was part of a stereo pair, I used the other half to make an animation that gives us an idea of height. As we can see, that rock is really tall, and that area is far from flat.

reply to post by ArMaP


It's obviously a natural formation when viewing this picture. At this range and detail if there was anything unnatural about it , we'd see it by now.

Why NASA Spent So Much At Gale Crater!



Gale Crater anomalies part 2.


[Mars Curiosity Rover] Tombstone structure discovered at the foot of the mountain
you can see a curved roof.


Gale Crater, Mars

Photo tampering is something so evil its hard to even stand by and watch this manipulation of humanity. But please note the waves, of the "standing water". This is actual real water. I know that as an artist.





This one looks like waterfalls shooting out of the rocks at the top, with white foam. Please note, they invert the water photos. And mask it.

Greatest NASA Secret Exposed: Gale Crater is a city!



This also looks like water, with tubes, ie possible transport tubes. And something there as well.

reply to post by Unity_99


So tell me, what makes you think that this is water?



You don't accept that it's dunes?

Originally posted by Unity_99
Photo tampering is something so evil its hard to even stand by and watch this manipulation of humanity. But please note the waves, of the "standing water". This is actual real water. I know that as an artist.

Those are sand dunes. They're blue because this is a false colour image.

I can't really add anything more useful than what EricTA and Armap have already, just wanted to voice my support for their well based theories. Good work fellas.


I do find it highly amusing that the OP is sourcing google earth, when apparently nothing better that "accuracy down to 1cm" was his/her yardstick in another (in)famous thread. Thanks for the giggle Arken.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Photo tampering is something so evil its hard to even stand by and watch this manipulation of humanity. But please note the waves, of the "standing water". This is actual real water. I know that as an artist.

Those are dunes, it looks like being an artist is not a sure way of knowing what you're seeing.
If it was water we would see some transparency and reflectivity, besides some difference between the water and the dry areas.

reply to post by ArMaP


I know you stand up for the nazi's controlling our planet, but they're not likely to be dunes. Due to the amount of inversion of water and photo tampering done, I don't believe your right. And on a site where people are searching for truth, accepting answers from those who lie and tamper with evidence, is not exactly critical thinking.

www.cbc.ca...

Water One Flowed?! Well the pictures reveal blue, waves and white spray, pretty odd ghost to be formed in the minerals if you ask me.

Water is STILL FLOWING.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by Arken

 

On the news this morning they announced Nasa has plans to build a base on the 'dark side of the moon". I think the Moon and mars are both covered in artifacts and that mars has multitudes of life both former and current.

Yes they did but they then got a bit more specific in their statement. Far side of the Moon not meaning literally the far side of the moon, rather that it will be in space beyond the moon. They are talking around 38'000 miles beyond the moon.

Link

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Unity_99
Photo tampering is something so evil its hard to even stand by and watch this manipulation of humanity. But please note the waves, of the "standing water". This is actual real water. I know that as an artist.

Those are dunes, it looks like being an artist is not a sure way of knowing what you're seeing.
If it was water we would see some transparency and reflectivity, besides some difference between the water and the dry areas.

I don't think people will call anything we see that clearly is water UNTIL NASA calls it water. That seems to be how everything works. The "authorities" tell us then we can believe without looking foolish until then we must deny and follow.

Originally posted by Unity_99
I know you stand up for the nazi's controlling our planet,

That's not a nice thing to say, specially to someone you don't know, but it shows the type of person you are; if someone doesn't shake their head in agreement of your ideas then it must be because they "stand up for the Nazis controlling our planet". Do you know that that's the type of reasoning the Nazis and the Fascists (like the ones the ruled Portugal for 48 years, until April 25, 1974) used to find enemies everywhere and excuses to act against them, even if they hadn't done a thing?

but they're not likely to be dunes.

OK, lets discuss that. Why they're not likely to be dunes? They look the same in different photos taken at different times, while water doesn't do that (at least that's what I noticed in other photos, as you haven't provided a photo ID for the photos you posted, so I cannot see if there are more photos of that area), they show some texture while water doesn't, they have shapes that are characteristic of dunes, not of waves, they lack the reflectivity of the water, they lack the transparency of the water, water in shallow areas doesn't look blue. Those are the main reasons I think those I dunes.

Due to the amount of inversion of water and photo tampering done, I don't believe your right.

What do you mean by "inversion of water"? And what signs of photo tampering do you see?

And on a site where people are searching for truth, accepting answers from those who lie and tamper with evidence, is not exactly critical thinking.

Following what the opposition to those that supposedly "lie and tamper" doesn't mean that there's critical thinking at work, it may show a sheep following a different shepherd. And no, I don't follow what NASA says just because they say, I always have my own interpretation of what I see, but most of the times it coincides with what NASA says. Critical thinking doesn't mean you have to choose something that isn't the official position about something.

Water One Flowed?! Well the pictures reveal blue, waves and white spray, pretty odd ghost to be formed in the minerals if you ask me.

Yes, everything points to water flowing in Mars' past, but I have yet to see evidences of water flowing today, although I have seen several signs of flows that look liquid (NASA says that some of those are different coloured dust, but I don't think so), nothing points to that supposed liquid being water, although it's highly likely. Water isn't blue, and Mars is full of a very thin blueish dust, visible in many photos from satellite and from the ground. The colours in those images you posted are not real colours, they are approximations made with red, green+blue for green and what they call a "synthetic blue" made with the green+blue image multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the red channel.

Water is STILL FLOWING.

No problems with that, just show us a clear example of it.

PS: I will try to find the images you posted to see if there are more than one photo of that place.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
The "authorities" tell us then we can believe without looking foolish until then we must deny and follow.

Only fools follow what looks like a leader without questions, specially if they do not really know it or if it's some organisation.

Some people really have their own opinions.