Tower on Mars?? Help me debunk..

Erazman

Theres a website pointing out something strange taken by the Orbiter. It's a picture with what appears to be an extremely tall TOWER on the surface of Mars..

http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed/tower/tower.html
I started wondering well is the picture at least real? Well i looked at the reference (m0300946) from the Orbiter website and indeed theres a tower in the top left corner of the picture.

Typing "tower on mars" in google only brings up 3 pages. I'm surprised there isnt much controversy/discussion about this.

Even if it's NOT alien-made, how the hell does a tower like that form? We have nothing like it on earth. This thing is 16 times taller than the empire state building. It's blowing my mind.. someone help me sleep..

turbo

That photo is a fake, and not a very good one. Notice that the shadows on ridges and dunes indicate light coming from the left of the photo. Now look at where the "tower's" shadow is.

Erazman

how would i go about finding the real one unedited?

DB

i found this too: http://lewroseman.com/
Surely this cant be right? A civilization? Freaky stuff.

DaveC426913

Well, it's not fake. The author thoughtfully provides a link to the original photo on the MOC website where feature is quite prominent.

However, your debunking of the interpretation becomes even more clear when you note the very obvious direction of the Sun from the dunes in the lower part of the picture.

Erazman

lol is that link a joke?? i dont see resemblance of anything that the website mentions.. lol, antenna's?? :P

Erazman

perhaps its not a shadow of a tower, but rather a v-shaped indentation in the ground?? and the perfect v-shape gives the illusion of something standing?

DaveC426913

Ah. The author does indeed address the contradiction in shadow effect in the note at the bottom of the page.

DaveC426913

I rather suspect it is secretly tongue-in-cheek. The author knows it is not a tower, else he would not be so heavy-handed about that being the explanation.

Is merely the most fanciful (and least supported by fact) explanation.

Erazman

but i mean.. if its not a tower, what the hell is it? its huge, its tall...

russ_watters

Dunno, Dave, some of these Mars guys are apparently quite serious - or quite insane. Anyway, with all the probes we've landed on/orbited Mars, how could a civilization capable of building a six kilometer tower have escaped our notice?

Erazman

what is it then

turbo

I stand corrected. The "dunes" and "ridges" seen in the photo in the original post are depressions. Therefore the light is coming from the right, and not the left. In any case, the "shadow" of the purported tower is pointing in an entirely impossible direction.

DaveC426913

They can be as serious as they want. That doesn't make their fanciful case any stronger, it doesn't give them any more evidence - or more compelling evidence than a single photo open wide to interpretation (all much simpler than a tower).

You must be famliar with the Face on Mars? Same thing. From a different angle, under different lighting conditions, it looks nothing at all the same.

Don't assume, because you see a dark line and a light line, that it must be something standing up and a shadow cast by it. There is no reason not to think this is more than a chance pattern caused by highlights and shadows of ground features.

All I see is a V-shaped depression with a small bright feature near one end of it.

DaveC426913

Actually, I thought the light was coming from the right at first too. But it's not, it's coming from the left, no question.

The crater in the far lower right of the MOC pic is the clincher. The scene is clearly lit from the left.

Either way, it's sure not lit from the top!

turbo

Interesting picture. The circular features at the bottom of the photo appear to be domes, not craters, but it is not possible for me to rotate the circles to appear to be craters when they are located so close to those foot-like bluffs. I took a course in interpretation of aerial photography in the early 70's, and one of the most common problems you encounter in that field is the persistence of "first impressions" often encountered in optical puzzles, like "do you see a pair of faces in profile or the shape of a vase". It makes guys in conventional photogrammetry rely heavily on shadow interpretation, but when you are looking at shots of arid areas with no obvious protrusions, reliance on shadows can lead you to reverse protrusions and depressions. BTW, even back then, orbiting telescopes had the resolution to pick up the colored babushkas of female workers going into Soviet factories. There were some GREAT telescopes in orbit long before Hubble was launched.

DaveC426913

Perhaps this pic will aid in seeing a convincing interpretation of the lighting conditions.

Or for those visually inspired, here is the image rotated to place the Sun at top.


Note that it still doesn't explain what the feature in question is, but it certainly disproves the tall tower theory.