Mosaic map

The pictures in the article sure looked like mud puddles at first, but not when taking in the whole panarama. Of course, my pet hypotheisis is that there are vast oil reserves on Mars. So naturally, the dark, slick-looking spots looked like sludge oil oozing out of the crazily-crossbedded-or-otherwise-jumbled-up whitish top formation. However, if you magnify toward the right, you can see similar spots where the rover left tracks. Also, to the very far left in the distance, there seem to be similar spots on the ridges there, yet the white, top formation is missing, therefore the white, top formation is probably not the source of the material comprising the slick-looking spots.

I agree that it's probably hematite or those magnetic, iron "filings" from meteors we used to collect with magnets when we were kids. Essentially, the crater rim is a naturally formed, aeolian gold pan. The slick spots are aeolian deposits of very dense, very fine dust particles.

If you're a panner on Earth, cracks like those found in the exposed bedrock of the crater lip are the best places to look for gold in the bedrock beneith a stream. So it's quite likely that that the slick-looking spots are rich in gold dust as well.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

Hi Van Rijn,

It is common knowledge that at least one of the Viking test results was positive. At the time it was published in all the scientific publications. The experiment showed that a sample Martian soil seized to convert oxygen to CO2 only after being zapped by laser. Shortly after, it was demonstrated that such behavior could occur in absence of any microorganisms and thus the test was declared inconclusive. You can see these issues referenced in a recent article that was discussed on this board as well as JonClarke's reply 7 on this thread.

Please click here for reference.

At some point after that and for some time NASA had taken the position that a positive test could be interpreted as a negative one. Scientifically speaking that is absurd and false. It is as if test A shows Mr. X has cancer (test is positive). Then test B shows he doesn't (test is negative). Then through a rift in space and time test A result becomes negative. That is not possible. Test A can be called Inconclusive in light of test B result and even be proven False Positive at some point but it will stay Positive for an eternity. Nothing short of time travel can change that.

Please click here for reference.


It seems to me that there has been some degree of science corruption at work here perhaps due to human interactions.

One test showed that the soil would react with the nutrients. The other tests failed to find any sort of life or organic material.

Do you say the other tests were all wrong - or that infact the LR test simply showed chemistry. Which is more wrong - ignoring 2 other experiments, or attributing one to chemistry which has infact been replicated on earth? Citing only one source - a source on Levin's site - is neither balanced nor relflective of scientific opinion.

"To this date, no experiment has duplicated or realistically approximated the Mars LR positive and control results except when using living microorganisms. "
30 seconds with google finds this to be untrue.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/j534gg7847x37756/
" A major argument in the claim that life had been discovered during the Viking mission to Mars is that the results obtained in the Labeled Release (LR) experiment are analogous to those observed with terrestrial microorganisms. This assertion is critically examined and found to be implausible."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j511j72749751pjx/
"When exposed to water vapor, the peroxide-modified titanium dioxide samples release O2 in a manner similar to the release seen in the Viking gas exchange experiment (GEx)."

The conclusions of this most recent paper are fundamentally flawed and show a complete and utter lack of effort to understand Pancam, the location and orientation of the rover or indeed the actual image itself which DOES show detail within the regions discussed. It's beyond belief that a scientific magazine has considered it newsworthy.

Doug

I think what I said is as about as clear as it can possibly get. There is no point in repeating.

To be honest - the LR experiemnt has nothing to do with this recent issue. You've not actually made yourself particularly clear because you've said things that are not true. (i.e. that the results of the LR have not been replicated by chemistry when they have)

Going back on topic - how can anyone take this paper seriously when it gets the absolute fundamentals of the location, orientation, topography, detail and colour of the image in question wrong.

Doug

By the way, colour aside, those two images are a stereo pair that make it blindingly obvious that the area is on a slope and that the "water" is just dust

__________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly - it should be thrown with great force

No, I did not. That part is clearly enclosed within a "Quote" rectangle. Very much like the one above.
Please read a post carefully before replying to it.

So you were quoting something that you know to be false? Or you were quoting something and blindly believing it to be gospel without double checking in any way? Or you were intentionally being ambiguous? You're going to have to clarify what you meant by that post - i.e. state your opinion on the matter clearly.

Doug

Moronic press releases and gullible media aside, I don't understand how anyone could publish that paper. Guess they don't conduct peer reviews or any sort of quality control?

Oh, it was just a conference report. Even on one list of abstracts from an AAS meeting there was an abstract about the Sun with an iron core -theory.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

I carefully read the post that contained the first quote I have posted. I am asking you directly to explain what you mean by "science corruption" and to give specific examples to back up that claim.

Unless someone asks you to clarify...


..and Djellison is correct. You've gone off on a tangent that has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

Please don't do that...

By "science corruption" I mean interpreting a Positive test result (note: being true or false is irrelevant) as a Negative test result. If you indeed had read the 2nd article referenced, this clarification would have been unnecessary.

Not really, not when something is as clear as I can possibly explain it.

No he is not and neither are you. This is all in reply to post #7 which is not mine. Now please if we could act like grown ups here that would be good.

It doesn´t make too much sense. If this is not water, isn´t Ron Levin a little naive, thinking that he can demostrate water by just coloring an image? I think that the best thing its to wait for further analysis.

The LR release was positive - it produced a result. A result that could be biological or chemical. The other instruments produced negative results. At the very best the conclusion from Viking can be 'maybe'.

If you're alledging some sort of bigger conspiratorial denail of results - I suggest you start a thread in the ATM forum. Given all the data available from Viking - the result that they came up with (not positive) is the right one.

Doug

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" said one who hoped to see moving critters on the surface of the Mars. But being a skeptic he accepted the fact that the Vikings' results were not positive.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

that may not be standing water, but where are the tractors that made the trench in the upper portion?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Why is it so difficult for some posters to understand that an "attitude" is the last thing you would want to demonstrate on a science board. If you are trying to convince me that I am wrong. do it with evidence, not handwaving...sigh.

Attempted insult noted...

Agreed...then this thread can get back on topic...ie., how some people can deceive themselves into believing that there is standing water on Mars, and how they will twist the available evidence in favor of such a conclusion.

Besides photographic misinterpretation, what evidence is there that the image in the OP depicts water?

You still haven't explained just what that has to do with the topic of this thread.

A1call thanx for PM.

Given more 'review' I found this link:
http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/mer00b.html

and finding more on this page I had forgotten about:

http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/mer00.html

I am willing to say that under 'normal' conditions 'true color' would be :
RL4-GL5-BL6
as these are in the MIDDLE of the color spectrum for human eyes.

In using both L2 and L7 it seems to me BOTH extremes would be used and thus 'canceled' out. But I am willing to concede this may NOT be the case.

So Let's say it's a given that the 'natural' true color is RL4-GL5-BL6 to correctly reproduce the calibration target on Earth at high noon.

How does one 'change' the L2 and L7 filter images to more approximate L4 and L6 respectively at high noon on Mars?

Bob...

You bet rhw007,
It's a pleasure to have you on board.