Structural anomaly northeast from Arabia Terra

[convex]

Hi there!
It has been a while ago since we have posted an image of an structural anomaly here.

Link: thecydoniainstitute.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=35#1322532932

We didn't know what kind of treasure we had here, but now we begin to understand. We think, that this one is something very important and want to take this opportunity to present a comprehensive analysis.

The image (which was made by Mars Global Surveyor probe) displays an area that is located northeast from Arabia Terra. With about 1.78 meters per pixel it is one of those recordings of the MGS probe that were taken with a relatively high resolution.








Subsequent to the development of further methods for rapid detection and breakdown of structural characteristics this image reappeared upon review of our internal anomaly image archive. Apart from the amazing properties of this structure, we have found out that earthly counterparts of this structure seems to exist. There, where no one expects it.

It is difficult to describe this in just a few sentences or images, but we try to be as compact as possible. But before we start with the analysis, I would like give the opportunity to look at this image again. This preparation is important because it shows later why many structures are not recognized as artificially, although we see right in front of our eyes. It is subtle method, which NASA / JPL uses frequently. A number of interesting questions can be answered with this example.

Well, we want to give to the following questions for consideration:
Is there something special to see? Is it just a natural geological formation?
Is the image not in the appropriate resolution to make a binding statement?

During the analysis, we can provide interactive 3D models and downloadable components so that anyone can perform independent tests of the results. If it turns out that there are still ambiguities or questions, I need to know them to make necessary changes or additions in the analysis.

Okay. That would be it for the moment. Take your time to study the image first.

[marsrocks]

I'm still looking at it, but here is the color context image and coordinates for google earth:

25°30'54.87"N 61°51'4.64"E




ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m03043/m0304371.html

[marsrocks]

Two more context images:

[George J. Haas]

OK...Convex, you have our attention.

GJH

[convex]

Hey Marsrocks! Thank you for the additional views and of course for the link. I always forget to post the direct link. Another possible source is the U.S. Geological Survey: ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m03043/m0304371.html
They have mirrored the MGS image archive but their version of the images is sometimes slightly better. It seems that they have enhanced the contrast on many images. It may be not a "raw" version anymore but at least it's an official version. Free choice. The result should be the same. I always took both to make a cross-check.

The spatial views on the structure is helpful. They show that the structure is not on a mountain slope or at a location with an extreme ground inclination. That would certainly be bad for any kind of speculation in relation to a building or a ruin.

[convex]

Because of the length of the topic I divide the analysis into separate steps/posts. The individual steps allows you to give me a feedback to the performed procedures. What I write here will probably be used with the same words in the final analysis report, which we want to publish later.

The analysis contains the following points:
1. First reconstruction attempt
2. Evidence of precise geometry
3. Reconstruction based on a derivable geometry
4. Pattern matching with a 2D template
5. Calculation of the structure size
6. Pattern matching / Creation of a 3D Model
7. Conclusion

Second report: Earthly counterparts (still in work)


1. First reconstruction attempt

One of the important note-giving methods is the detection of symmetry properties within an object. It should necessarily be noted that this method initially only serves to identify worthwhile candidates that could be considered as artificially created structures. This is not a method that should be used as a means of evidence for artificial objects.

The criticism of such practices is absolutely justified. A flood of such examples can be found in many video portals that contain clips with references to seemingly symmetrical objects. But rarely can these examples withstand an exact performed test. Weakness of these mostly freehand conducted symmetry checks are errors in the logic of the image perspective that are willfully be overlooked or recklessly forced symmetries in which various bumps in the Martian landscape are randomly chosen as reference points.

Such kind of symmetry check can only serve as the first whistle. Based on this, further methods must be used, which in reverse may explain why some features are to be seen on an image exactly as they are seen. The more precise and consistent these results are, the more likely a structural anomaly can be seen as artificial object.

A first reconstruction attempt shows the following freehand created concept sequence in an animation.



On the lower resolution recording of the CTX camera fine details inside this formation can not be recognized, however the recording of the MOC camera reveals more details, that exhibits characteristics of a square looking structure. Also this detail should be detained.



The impression that is formed here based on the reconstructed lines is that of a symmetrically structured construction. The lower part exhibit characteristics that could be interpreted as an entrance area. This impression is reinforced by an unusually bright spot that is located exactly to the central of the symmetrically designed "entrance area". But precisely this area was supposed to be completely in the shade like the rest of the environment. How this striking bright spot comes about, can not be obviously explained. It is also remarkable and unusual for a natural geological formation that in turn the upper part shows centrally located a kind of deepening with (incomplete) square-like features.

One point of criticism that may be list here, is that not all lines are clearly visible. The continuation of some outlines in the shown reconstruction sequence could also be judged negatively as arbitrariness. The circumstance that these lines follow a logical continuation based on clearly recognizable outlines, can not and should not completely refute this criticism. Therefore it is necessary to keep this criticism in mind and to see if there are further hints that are able to refute such doubts.

At this point, we have just some striking features. It still seems obvious that this structure can be described as a natural geological formation (butte/mesa). Even for us the collected abnormalities so far are not yet sufficient to eliminate doubts. It is mandatory to find more clues which have a strong explanatory power.

[George J. Haas]

Convex, I have been examining your "Template" structure over the last day and I noticed that when the formation is inverted and slightly rotated the half-faced mask of a bat reveals itself.

The image on the left is inverted and rotated and I highlight the demarcation in red.

The second image on the right is a duplicated presentation of the half-face.

Note the large bat-like ears, the eye, feline-like muzzle, nose, and mouth.

Your thoughts.

GJH

Attachments:

[convex]

Oh, never thought about that possibility.
The problem I see in such mirroring techniques is, that the result is inevitable symmetric. Forced bound symmetries always give the opportunity for associations, would skeptics say. Since there is a selection chance of 360 degrees (and finer intermediate stages) the probability for a random significance is not quite small. They offer the critic a large attack surface for such assumption. Another important problem is that existing structural components must be thought away to create a significance. The charge of arbitrariness is here to dispel.

But of course it can not be excluded, that such symbolism was used deliberately. In order to prove something like this, it is necessary that the result of such mirroring is either in a high degree conclusive or it corresponds very exactly one existing counterpart. Otherwise, it is difficult to exclude that the pareidolia effect has his hands in play.

The use of such technique on this structure is interesting. I am always open for ideas, which are "out of the box". And they are necessary to solve challenging problems. But at this point one have to find something in return, that neutralizes the aspect of randomness. Is it possible to find such thing? To neutralize such randomness, I am going to introduce multiple procedures that underpins the assumed symmetry.

Well, how does it affect you? Is it an assumption or maybe already a strong conviction? Does the presence of such an animal(?) fit into an existing schematic? I know, there's the example of the parrot formation but that has been not encoded in a mirroring. Why here? And now we are forced to find a reason that explains why a mirroring-code has been used here and not elsewhere. It would be very difficult to find a derivable reason, even if the assumption is absolutely correct. How should such a clue look like? I do not know. That is a difficult task.

Greetings
con

[George J. Haas]

Convex. The half image of the bat head can be seen without the aid of mirroring. Just take another look at the MOC image below. It could also be called a truncated profile...if you like.

If you were not aware, the Maya, Aztec and Olmec (among other Mesoamerican cultures) produced half and two-faced mask and figures - much like this half-faced bat formation observed in the northern region of Arabia Terra. I have two books full of half and two-faced geoglyphs that I have found on Mars that have a direct correlation with the artistic motifs and iconography of Mesoamerican art. This half bat head formation is just another example.

In Mesoamerican creation mythology the bat is a symbol of the underworld. If your interested, as an example, the Maya would cut jade masks in half and bury one half in the ground (the underworld) along with a dead lord and the other half would be kept above ground with the living family. This is why archaeologist only find one half of a masks in Maya and Aztec graves. American Indians did the same thing. There are many examples of half-faced wooden masks produced by Native Americans. Finding a half faced image of a bat on Mars makes perfect sense, considering the bat can live in both worlds. It can fly through the sky at night - in the upper world and deep in caves of the Underworld. The half image of the bat denotes this attribute.

I can send you examples if needed.

BTW, have you read any of my books?

GJH

Attachments:

[convex]

Hi George, i see your point now.
You are referring explicitly to the mesoamerican symbolism of the bat. I took a look on several depictions of the bat glyph, figures, masks over the image search. Now i understand your reasoning better. Definitely a highly symbolic animal in their culture. Cultural adaptation is one of the scenarios that we include with and we are also convinced that it plays an substantial role. I will keep this possibility in mind.

Let me tell you that the further methods we had used on this structure are based on pure geometric relationships. These methods come to a different conclusion and give an possible explanation for the outlines. Interpretation free in view of cultural similarities (in the beginning). It is a different approach with a different conclusion. The interesting point is that the geometric derivation may explain why the image appears in such a way as we see it. A derivation that can be independently displayed on a free model that show the same visual effects. Look how it will evolve.

But if there are completely different views, carry on with that thoughts. No matter what kind of and no matter by whom. Symbol research is part of it.

No, I haven't read any of your books. Just the articles you have published on the website. I must keep the time difference in mind. It is already far after midnight here.

Until tomorrow then
con

[George J. Haas]

Hi Contex.
I look forward to seeing your structural analysis of this formation.

Here is an example of the Aztec Bat God:

Note the feline-like muzzle and large ears.

GJH

[convex]

Hi George,
by the way, some aspects of the bat god reminds me of the Babylonian demon pazuzu. There are a number of curious parallels between different cultures that according to the official doctrine, never had contact with each other at the time of their existence. But the parallels are too detailed, to be just a coincidence. I have an interesting sequence of images to this topic, but this we can certainly still discuss in a subsequent thread.

Today I directly post the next 3 chapters:
In each of these chapters we always keep possible counter-arguments in mind, saying that this is a natural geological formation or new additional assumptions like an artificially processed rock formation in the shape of a bat-like animal.

2. Evidence of Precise Geometry

A high degree of symmetry is a first good indication for special structural anomalies. However, do the reconstructed outlines fit well according to the logic of the image perspective?

By drawing longitudinal and transverse axes along this structure, the following particularities can be observed:

1. The start and end points of the transverse axis, are marked by the two tapered corners to the left and the right side of the structure. The line which is drawn through these points passes the inner chamber. The line traverses the chamber not at any point, but precisely at those points where the lines of the inner chamber visibly end respectively begin.
2. If we mark as start and end point for the longitudinal axis the tapered edge at the upper end of the structure and the bright spot in the lower part of the postulated entrance area, then the corresponding line will also passes through the inner chamber in exactly two vertices.

For a freehand drawn model these similarities are located remarkably precise.



It should be noted that the line reconstruction appears initially asymmetrical on the MGS image. In fact, this apparent "slant" is absolutely logical for a symmetrical object, as the recording was taken with a certain perspective tilt. The logic of the perspective, which show the marked outline, remains consistent.

In addition to the shown symmetries there are surprisingly regular distance relationships mutually visible, when we draw further guide lines. These include, for example, the two long side lines, which run parallel to the entrance area. At the points at which these side lines end/start, it is possible to draw in turn another horizontal line, which also run parallel to the first drawn horizontal line. Furthermore it is possible to draw diagonal lines that exactly cut the distance of the upper two tapering outlines in the half at right angles. The intersection points where the diagonal lines cut the outlines form the vertices of a regular quadrangle.

Apart from the plurality of symmetrical and geometric coincidences, there is also a further amazing coincidence to mention. The structural anomaly is closely aligned with the east-west axis of Mars. This can be easily verified with the help of the Google Earth application in the Mars view mode. The here attached image shows the structure based on the CTX camera that is part of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe.


^{Original cut - North-oriented CTX image
Orientation to the cardinal points}


3. Reconstruction Based on a Derivable Geometry

The outline and guide lines drawings show some inaccuracies, which is not surprising for freehand drawn lines. If it corresponds to the facts that the whole structure is constructed exactly symmetrically and also follows geometrically derivable rules, it must therefore be possible, to construct a model, which underlies the rules of this Mars structure and which later can be displayed accurately on the original image. To test this assumption, it is now necessary to work as precisely as possible.

Let us take a look at the last image of the reconstruction sequence:


^{Derivable geometric rules recognizable on the reconstruction plans}

We have tried to keep completely out of the creation process of the template. Instead, we gave just a formal description of the geometry to a colleague. He never saw the image before. Based on this description he created the template for us that we are using here. There are various description possibilities, with which the present outlines can be defined based on geometric relationships, but the end result should finally always look the same.

Following rules can be used for the creation of an own template. This was difficult to translate, i hope its is halfway understandable. Otherwise just take a look on the following animation.
Step 1 The basis is a square of any size
Step 2 A longitudinal and a transverse line is drawn that bisects the sides of the square.
Step 3 Other auxiliary lines are drawn along the sides of the square.
Step 4 In addition, the diagonal lines along the corners of the square are drawn.
Step 5 The square side length defines a unit distance. Exactly this unit distance away another horizontal line is drawn below the square.
Step 6 On the diagonal lines of the square on both sides of the upper half of a line is drawn, which rest exactly at right angles to the diagonal lines,
and passes through the corners of the square. As a corollary these new lines intersect the already existing lines exactly at the points whose
intersection are each a multiple of the half of the square side of each other apart.
Step 7 The comparison with the reconstruction drawings shows that the lower half of the square can not be crossed in the same way with diagonal guide
lines, as it was done in the previous step. One could therefore mark the starting point of the entrance area, but this point can be derived
also by other ways. Instead, we focus on the point that there is a square side length away, centrally located below the square.
From this point, we draw a line to each of the intersections, centrally to the left and right sides of the square each a half square side apart.
Step 8 Another guideline is still needed to later set the beginning of the entrance area. Parallel to the underlying square side, we draw another line
at a distance equal to three quarters of the square side length.
Step 9 The outer contour of the inner space represents a small square, whose corners run through the half-way point of the diagonal lines of the square.
Within the small square again a second smaller square is projected, which is exactly half the size."
Step 10 The point that is located centrally below the large square at a distance of three quarters of the large square side length, marks the beginning
of the entrance area. The width of the entrance corresponding with the length of the smallest square in the interior area. From the beginning
of the entrance area, the two vertices of the input area rejuvenate at a distance which corresponds a quarter of the large square side length
and in the direction of the internal space again to half the length of the small square in the interior."
Step 11 Hereby all the necessary marking lines are present to reproduce the mars structure on a precisely constructed template.
Result The mere structure, without the guide/ auxiliary lines.

The image below illustrates the exact reproduction of the previously derived geometric rules:





4. Pattern Matching with the 2D template

Since the image of the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft has not been taken in an exact right angle (check meta-data) to the surface of Mars, but with a slight tilt, the completed template must be accordingly tilted in its perspective.



The pattern matching between the original image and the template shows an accurate compliance with the traits of outline features in the original photo.


The templates we used here can be downloaded (without perspective inclination) in different versions (as JPG image files) within a zip package:
goo.gl/zLWcD

The created template itself is symmetric up to the core. The positions are firmly defined. Each attempt of explanation can now be carried out on a fixed unalterable template and can always be cross-checked with the original image. Both images must be consistent with each other, otherwise the made assumptions about the geometry/symmetry are wrong.

There remain important points to clarify now. For example: The lines of the presumed square-like inner chamber are exactly there where they should be on the original image, but why is just a part of this inner structure visible? There are also some other inconsistencies. Could it be a misinterpretation or is possible to give verifiable explanation?

---

I think that I can post the rest of the chapters tomorrow.
Feel free to give feedback/questions/suggestions on anything that is written here.
con

[George J. Haas]

Hello Convex.
In reviewing your analysis of the Template structure I am unclear about some of your observations.
Please take a look at my attached comparison of your projected structure and my outline of the geoglyph.

Note, I have added notations to your diagram.




Starting with your reconstruction of the outer shape, I see no evidence of surface structure to support your projected apex as illustrated in your diagram (figure d). It appears you have dismissed the western edge of the formation and extended it beyond the main structure to form a peak (figure d). The western edge of the structure curves around the structure forming the bottom of the bats ear (from below figure e around to figure c and b).

The area between figure e and f is the bats neck. Your current analysis ignores the crescent-shaped projection observed on the southern side of the structure (figure a and section 1). This crescent-shaped projection is an extended membrane of the bats ear used for sensor location.

The base, or footing, of your proposed formation (section 3 and 4) is not as square or symmetrical as illustrated. I see section 3 is the top of the bats head and the dark area appears square and may be an entrance to the formations sub-structure complex below ground.

Moving on to section 4, this foot is not square. I see it as a nasal projection, which is often seen in Maya glyphs depicting bat heads called a leaf nose (see attached example below).



Between figure h and f are the bats nose and mouth.

Now looking to the structures interior, why have you ignored the wavy linear features that move across the face of the structure from figure h to g. These lines follow the nose ridge and eye brow of the bats facial features.

Turning your attention to section 2, I don't think this elbow-shaped ridge completes a box form as you have illustrated it. I believe it is part of the morphology of the bats inner ear.

When my outline of the Template structure is inverted and rotated the full impact of the Bat Head is revealed.

thecydoniainstitute.com/images/BatHeadOutlinedDK3SM.jpg [/img]
Template Bat Head (Outlined profile)



Template Bat Head (Duplicated presentation - frontal view)

Your thoughts.

GJH

[convex]

Hi George,
figure D is the intersection point that results from the continuation of existing visible outlines. This is the reason why we said in the first chapter that this could be a point of criticism. Keeping that in mind, we tried to find further indications that are able to refute these doubts. But we just tried it. If these explainations are convincing enough is left to the viewer.
We did recognized the wavy structure from figure h to g, but here it wasn't possible to get one common result in the team. We assume that it belongs to a regular pattern, but that could be part of a subsequent report.
I have also tried to see the glyph/bat you see in this structure, but I can't. I do not exclude that perhaps I'm biased. It is possible that the whole analysis work we already did greatly influenced my own impression. I say this out openly. But I am going to show your images to the other members of the project team, which are possibly already influenced by the analysis so far. But how knows.

Either way, we are convinced that there are huge structures that show artifical constructed depictions of animals and persons and symbols. No doubt with that, but in this case we are just following geometrical relationships and rules that form here a construction with straight edges. We orientate ourselves to a feedback procedure, to see if physical and optical properties also arise in an independently created model/environment. But this is of course just our personal humble opinion.

It is no easy task, I know that. No matter whether someone is generally skeptical or whether someone is convinced to recognize a certain artificial aspect in it. But at least we both have here a common intersection, by assuming that this structure exhibits clear traces of artificial processing. This is after all a greater insight than many other people have, which are not able to recognize these unique signs of an advanced alien culture. Let's if there are any further parallels.

Okay, here is the rest of the report:

5. Calculation of the Structure Size

The calculation of the structures sizes on the Martian surface can be considerably simplified by applications such as Google Earth. A built-in program ruler function allows the measurement of a distance between two markers. Based on the CTX-shots that have already mapped a large part of the Martian surface, it is possible to obtain relatively good measurement values on various Martian structures.


^{Focus on the structural anomaly via Google Earth}

Despite the lower resolution of the CTX images, clear and concise outline features of the present Mars structure can be identified. To obtain a reference value, it makes sense to choose the two vertices in the reconstruction which represent the width of the Mars structure, since these boundary points are clearly visible on the CTX-recording.


^{The ruler feature of Google Earth in use}

The ruler function shows here for the predetermined distance a value of almost exactly 200 meters. For such measurements, of course one have to allow for some tolerances, but the value is not expected to move much away of these 200 meters. The circumstance that almost exactly 200 meters were measured, we simply take out as a practical fact. Because due to the fact that there is a pattern that follows geometrically derived rules, it is possible to derive all other size values with this one reference size.


^{The derived values based on the geometric characteristics of the template}

Accordingly, with the width of 200 meters now a total length of 250 meters can be derived. The side length of the outer square in the center must therefore be 50 meters and 25 meters for the inner square. So far, this structure was an abstract entity, but now with the present size information it is possible to gain a sense of the spatial dimensions.

At this point it makes sense to perform a cross-check. According to the derivations the total side length of the back part of the building, at the entrance area, must equal 100 Meters. Cross-checking is ideal here because even on the CTX image this area emerges clearly visible


^{The ruler feature of Google Earth in use
Cross-Check - Rear side length}

With about 99 meters, the measured result is consistent with the value derived from the template. It is always important to use the opportunity for cross-checks to find and to prevent possible errors and inconsistencies.

At a width and length of 200 by 250 meters this ruin is certainly not a small installation. But with its base it could still fit about five or six times within the Pentagon building. So it is not a rock formation with monstrous proportions. It is also certainly not a small structure. These are dimensions that one would ascribe to a relevant structure.




6. Creation of a 3D Model

The compliance with the template template that was created according to the specifications of geometric regularities is already amazing enough, however, this is just the beginning. Upon closer examination of the of the probe image it is noticeable that the inner chamber only shows part of a applied square space. According to our template a completely square structure should be located here. It would be easy to explain this circumstance by weathering, as well as sand and dust drifts, which have covered the interior part. One can see quite clearly how the sand piles up around the edges of this "plant". But considering the fact that just a two-dimensional template has served here for the pattern matching, it is probably due the lack of spatial vision that those conditions can not be shown and can not demonstrate what somebody would see, if he looks at a real three-dimensional object with the same perspective tilt. The inability of a 2D template to represent real dimensionality also explains the fact why the innermost square cavity is inconsistent with the template within the pattern matching.


Focus on the "inner chamber" - Comparison with the template
Slight deviation of the innermost square

The outer square line shape however is on the same level/plane with the rest of the the other outlines, which is consequently also in the balance with the original image. It is easy to recognize that the dark square shapes have a certain thickness. An indication that a step-like depression is present here. On a purely 2D template without additional spatial information, it would not be possible to map such details.

In order to present a further possibility, which may serve as evidence of the artificiality of this object, it is absolutely necessary to create a three-dimensional model that is also subject to exactly the same geometric rules. A for this purpose a created 3D model (in a transparent wireframe view) was superimposed over the original photo in order to show the compliance with the outline and the inner chamber.



The 3D model reveals an astonishing detail. Oriented approximately in the same perspective, the model shows just the half the edges of the interior. They are not visible. The viewing angle contributes that the rear inside walls stay hidden and thus for the viewer, or for the probe, virtually no edges can be detected. Consequently this is a natural and verifiable visual effect.


The 3D model without simple texture in the same perspective

Thanks to the Google-Code Project, we have been able to use a script of them, in order to display 3D models in .obj file format. We have to implement the support for the Internet Explorer, but Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera have no problem with it. The following link leads directly to page where it is possible to examine the constructed 3D model. It offers an interactive control, where you can freely rotate and zoom in. Furthermore we enabled different viewings modes (wireframe, texture, none):

www.map-base.info/bucket/arabia_terra/3d_model.shtml
(Click on image to control the model. Keep left mouse button pressed to rotate. Simultaneously press the shift button and move the mouse to zoom in or out)

It isn't neccessary to download and install appropriate 3D software and to learn how to handle it. The 3D-Script is quite useful for such simple visualization tasks. Even much more complex model can be represented with the script. It is also possible to use own texture images. That's an option we're planing to add to the script. By the way, if anyone is familiar with 3D modelling sofware like Blender, Cinema4d, Autodesk, Meshlab or whatever, here is the download link for the 3D model (in OBJ format) we have used in this example: www.map-base.info/bucket/arabia_terra/3d_model.obj

Also the comparison with the inner chamber can now demonstrate that the spatial representation of the model and the original MOC image can be placed exactly over each other. Actually, it can be illustrated very accurately that the present features can be entirely explained by a step-like depression. This involves the elimination of the lower edges, which extend to the corners of the square inner area, while only the upper half can be seen with its the darker inner walls.


^{Focus on the "inner chamber" - Crossfade with the 3D model}

The images can also solve the inconsistency that had arisen with the 2D template in chapter 4. The outer line of the inner chamber was correctly placed, however the inner line was slightly misplaced. The 3D model can now give a verifable explaination. The inner chamber is constructed in shape of a step-like depression. The 2D template wasn't able to depict spatial depth on a plane. Other aspects are likewise dissolved. The bright spot in the presumed entrance area was outside of the 2D template, but the 3D model can show, that it is placed on a side of the walls, where it makes a logical sense. We can additionally emulate the effect of the sunlight on the model and can explain the dark areas on the original image. These are shadow areas.




7. Conclusion

It is possible to set an absolutely symmetrical model that was constructed by geometrically derivable rules congruent on this strucure anomaly. Based on the MOC image of the Mars Global Surveyor probe and the CTX image of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe, it is also possible to derive more than a dozen reference points that correspond, in case of the MOC image, the logic of the image perspective. Moreover, this formation is accurately aligned to the cardinal points.

The reconstructed 3D model points to a building that has very catchy features that allow, among other things, the allocation of the entrance area. The visible internal square-scale chamber has probably been designed from the outset, to be clearly visible. The function of this building, can not be determined at the moment. But if it turns out that this type of building with its distinctive can also be found shape on Earth, then this could lead to very interesting conclusions. An extensive search for this model shape appears to be very useful and can possibly resolve the question of its function.

At this point, we must become aware of how many coincidences are actually necessary in order to describe these structural anomaly as a rock formation that is created due to natural geological processes. An attempt with different methods of image analysis was made to show evidence of artificial influence. The 3D models can, in turn, explain why certain edges and lines are not visible on the MOC image and can also give conclusive evidence of the construction of this structure anomaly. None of the previously discovered anomalies has such highly symmetric and geometric features, as in this case. There are still other remarkable details, which must be addressed in a further analysis report.

Google Earth offers seven global map views for the examination of the Martian surface, but none of these views would have, in the least, give the impression that there is something special here. Groundbreaking was a high-resolution recording of the Mars Global Surveyor probe, from the series of so-called "Narrow Angle Images". These images map only a very small part of the planet's surface and are of varying quality.


^{Focus on the structural anomaly
Results of the various views of the seven global Mars maps}

There are only two options (Visible Imagery and CTX Mosaic) in the selection of the global Mars maps that are suitable for a area analysis with reasonably good resolution. These are, as this case shows, unusable for finding striking structures because it is not possible here to reproduce fine structures and thus to recognize specific details. So these maps are just helpful in the subsequent analysis to find more insightful information and to get an impression of the surrounding area. Without "real" high-resolution images the efficient detection of structural anomalies remain mostly accidental discoveries if we are forced to use only the Visible Imagery/CTX Mosaic Mars map options.

This leads to the last crucial point:
Artificial structures can appear directly in front of us, without recognizing it. This is mainly due to the clever distribution of high- and low-resolution images that are made available. Already at a resolution beyond about 3 to 4 meters per pixel, even large structures can merge with the environment beyond recognition. Global Mars maps (as those based on CTX Mosiacs) suggest that Mars was depicted almost completely in a supposedly high resolution. But this resolution is far too small to identify any artificial structures. Under these conditions the structures must have extremely huge proportions in order to be recognized. Even high-resolution images such as "m030437", which has a resolution of about 1.7 meters per pixel is not noticeable at first glance. The slightly inclined angle is enough to shift the spatial perspective, to make the recognition of symmetric properties very difficult. In addition, sand and dust drifts can cover the outlines of such a structure, and thus the possibilities for finding artificial structues disappear almost entirely.


That was it. Another report is in progress. We assume, that counterparts of this "building" exist on earth. Due to the circumstance that we reconstructed such a template with such a specific geometry, we are measured by this. A corresponding counterpart must match "exactly" with this template. To specify precise requirements is reasonable in order to exclude random coincidences. Just similarities are not enough anymore. The geometric dependencies must be completely fulfilled, in order to give the presumption great weight, which in turn can help to support the accurate interpretation of the Mars ruin. Otherwise, we have to completely discard these assumptions if we can not find earthly examples.

[convex]

Hi, there are still some things to add.
Anomalies never come alone. At least, it is often so that striking anomalies have somehow a connection with the surrounding area. But the MGS image reveals no further striking details. It seems to be a single anomaly which could indicate the particular symbolic significance of this structure. Regardless of whether it is a bat-like glyph structure or a building. It would be true in both cases.

But the present loose connection is unsatisfactory. It is time to further pursue the matter. When we look at a larger area via the CTX Mars map view in Google Earth, then we can detect further potentially interesting structures.



Especially the lower structure is very unusual shaped. As only a CTX image exists, the attempt to analyze it on that basis would be very prone for misinterpretation. No matter if natural or artificial.



Maybe we can actively push the work:
With "Hiwish" NASA offers the opportunity to scientists and also for private persons to submit desired targets. If the conditions are good, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe will make a high-resolution recording of the proposed target. In a coordinated action we could jointly create favorable conditions to put a focus on the new structures. Even if no images of these structures were made, it would be a result.

We definitely will sign up there and try to put the focus on a new, hitherto poorly resolved target. Just one target for the beginning to see if it has an effect. Of course, someone might say that the supplied images could be tampered in order to hide artificial structures, but let's give it a try. Too much mistrust leads to no result. Without higher-resolution images, it is in vain to decipher structures. If images are available, then they can be later analyzed in detail.

Spontaneously, I can ensure the participation of the team (seven people) and more can still be added through recruitment.
To everyone: Do you also want to participate in this little project? The more people submit the same target, the greater the chances.

Greets
con