However, i also find no references noted after this came out either though there is an inventory of such anomalies. I really do not like total silence particularly when we have an adept researcher on the trail.
The real question is whether this formation could be formed by ice. I have some reason to think that a lot of the martian surface is siting on ice. It would explain some anomalies. The low gravity may allow large smooth structures not really possible on Earth. This then is a deep crater with intruding plastic ice. It would be ironic for a warmed up mars to be a water planet.
Within a couple of weeks of the first MOC science data images finally being released to the world back in midyear 2000, one of the very first important anomalous discoveries back then on Mars was a distantly seen long object down in a long crevasse that appeared at first to be very similar to a strange looking ribbed or segmented tube system. This was at first identified by the discoverer as a glass tube system and my own speculation went on to expand that this represented life of some kind. Back then I didn't even have graphics software, depended on the imaging of others, and to some extent on their well known reputations as skilled planetary observers and experts in this area. My observations back then were influenced by my own ignorance in this regard, so I jumped on this interpretation band wagon myself because those "tubes" clearly represented life of some kind and my introduction of this to the public in a piece titled "The Real Smoking Gun as to Life on Mars" went around the world and is still circulating but often with misinterpretations of my original comments.
The above second E02-02705 based image represents a closer view. However, note that this is only a minor 40% increase in size just before pixel distortion becomes a serious negative factor. Normally we could expect a increase of 100%-200% or more before encountering that much distortion and that's a lot of difference. If it wasn't for the unusually degraded resolution, we might be able to tell a lot more about the smaller details in the surrounding terrain. Further, almost every image of this general region is like this all across the various MOC AB1 through E06 imaging series. Many of the images, at official 100% resolution, are like looking through a fine gauze fabric that effectively cuts resolution more than normal.
The above third image evidence is from a different E01-00210 strip but still in the same crater location and is the same tube system. Here the scene is the same site as in the first and second images, except offset just ever so slightly to the left or west of the E02-02705 strip. Although I've clarified it as best I can, the image quality is also poorer than in strip E02-02705 resulting in a more blur and a less detail even at the official 100% resolution. I include it here only to make you aware of its existence and that it represents the furthest view to the left or west portion of this particular tube system.
The above fourth E02-00484 based image is from yet another different strip but still in the same crater location and is of the same tube system. The coordinates tell us that this scene is a little to the right or east of the first three images. As you can see, the outside or top tube remains full blown, rounded, smooth, and, now at this sun angle at the time of day this strip was taken, it even demonstrates light reflections off of the tube's glassy smooth top surface and even shows indentations down the length axis of that surface. The occlusion and lack of visual detail inside the main tube may be a function of the contents, habitat light filtering interior coating, or it may be a result of image tampering or any combination of these. Also, we may be seeing a clear tube full of water that is distorting the view of the bottom ground the tube is sitting on to as seen through the total tube's girth. Also, remember the great distance and size scale involved here and the fact that we can see these only because of their tremendous colossal size. With that in mind the tube contents may be on such a small and uniform size scale that, when seen from such a great distance, such small detail just merges into this smooth indistinct appearance.
The above fifth M23-01777 based image is from still another strip in the same crater and of the same tube system. The coordinates tell us that this final scene is a little further to the right or east of the previous image views and in fact represents the eastern most view in which at least one full blown tube is visible. Although even more distantly seen in this strip, the outside or top tube is still mostly fully formed and again with light gleaming off of its smooth rounded surface while the middle and bottom tubes are now essentially gone and only a flattened out mass is present. Even so, you can see that the mass is still sharply defined and well differentiated from its immediate terrain environment and this again strongly indicates that it remains a cohesive mass that adheres to itself as well differentiated from the surrounding terrain and, as such, can't remotely be considered a "dune" collection of dry particulate matter as the official general catch-all explanation implies.
The above sixth E02-02706 based image is the wide-angle companion context image for the E02-02705 narrow-angle strip and shows the dual crater system. The anomalies presented here are found in the upper portion of the lower and more recent of the two craters and are located just below and at the base of the crater's north interior wall as I've pointed out with an arrow. The vague narrow dark color band you see there is this tube system mass. The further left or west one goes in this dark band area away from my arrow's point, the more the giant tubes dominate and the more well formed they are with little or no lower profile mass associated with them. The further right or east one goes in this dark now more broadening band, the less the tubes are present but there remains a thick, more spreading and low profile cohesive mass with folds like thick, flowing, slumping, congealed paint poured out on the ground and still well differentiated from the surrounding terrain.
As in the previous Report "The Real Tubes on Mars: Part I" found HERE and as you can see in the above first image of additional evidence drawn from MOC strip E12-03186, we now see more but also a bit different giant tube evidence and from a different location. Fortunately, this time the image quality in the original science data strips is a bit better allowing a little clearer view.
The above second and closer 200% view of the E12-03186 tube site with too much blur doesn't really add much information except possibly one thing. The dark narrow band that separates the north perimeter edge of the main tube from the terrain it sits in is, in my opinion, suspicious. It's a little too fuzzy and streaky and, although I can't be sure, it looks a little too suggestive of image tampering rather than a genuine part of the image to me. If that dark narrow band is tampering hiding something, what does that say about the rest of what we're seeing here? At least the caution flag is raised that, despite these Part II images being somewhat clearer, tampering is still present in these images to.
This above third image is from a different E11-03408 strip but is a section of the same tube system as in the first two images here but this scene is a little further right or east. The combined strips reinforce the fact that this giant tube system is many kilometers long and that knowledge gives us a little better insight of the huge colossal scale we are really looking at here. Here again we have light reflections off of the tube's top surface and this is again is strong evidence that the surface of these tubes is very smooth to the point of being slick like glass or resin and rounded as to their circumference width and girth. The visuals in the above third image also again indicate strongly that this tube is occluded but also semitransparent. These factors alone demonstrate the glaringly obvious fact that we are not looking at any kind of sediment sand dunes here.\
Here again, the above E11-03408 closer 200% image doesn't add very much useful information on the tubes. It does tend to indicate that spots very faintly and vaguely seen are also a factor in the big main tube system and not just in the lower profile mass. Here again, as in the previous Part I report, the dark band at the north or top edge of the main tube does not look like true shadow but more like a narrow band of image tampering including a separate very narrow band of opaque blur treatment color blended to the terrain (hard to see) at the top edge of the dark band itself and running parallel to it.
I've included the above E12-03187 wide-angle context image to give you an idea of where these two Part II evidence strips and the tubes in them are in the crater and in relation to each other. The E12-03186 strip outline on the left as well as the basic image itself is the official original and the E11-03408 strip outline to its right is my drawn addition following the original official location faithfully. According to the MSSS supplied statistics, the strip on the left is 2.98 km wide and the strip on the right 2.94 km wide. Remember that the tubes in both strips extend from one side edge to the other and off the strip with no signs of diminishment in size. Note that this is a total of 5.92 km or 3.68 miles in just the tube length we can see in the two strips.