Grand lunar,

The average pressure on mars is 7 mb. I have not been able to find any surface pressure data at the rover site. I will include a link on this post to the Viking one and two landing sites.

The pressure in these areas were between 6.7 mb and 10.2 mb year round. Well above the triple point.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/loca...teorology.html

There is still hope.

dfrank

A leap was made by me that maybe it is still influencing it today. I was wrong.

That sounds like a retraction of the claim, which satisfies me on that point. You admitted on a number of occasions that you had no evidence to support that claim, and this retraction is, I believe, the logical outcome of that admission.

The name of this thread contains my position as NASA being a conspiracy generator because they did not investigate the anomaly in post 1.

But you haven't demonstrated that it's an anomaly. An anomaly is a departure from expectation. And the preceding lengthy thread has determined that your expectation is simply your own opinion, offered against improbable circumstances. That's not strong enough evidence to warrant others' changing their behavior.

When they failed to take a closer look they gave fuel to speculation.

Only informed speculation need be considered, because there is no end of uninformed speculation and if NASA were obligated to investigate all of it, they would have little time left over for actual science. That is why the thread is mis-named. NASA is not a generator of conspiracies: the uninformed noisy public is.

No matter what happens to this thread I will always wonder why.

And that's fine. Nothing said here requires you to change your personal opinions.

Why didn’t they just drive over there and poke around?

Because it's not a small deal to redirect the rover. There are many interests in where the rover goes and what it does. There is no such thing as an inconsequential detour. That's why a decision to redirect must be made on strong evidence, not a long shot.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There is still hope.

And hope is not evidence. You're clearly grasping at straws to support your desired claim. That's not science, nor does it generate appropriate expectations against which suspicion of meaningful anomaly can be measured.

You don't get it. You start off by saying NASA is remarkably remiss in passing up this enormously evident opportunity to investigate liquid water. Yet after pages of discussion and many days of heated controversy, you can't substantiate the obvious nature of it. Your claim works only if there is overwhelming evidence that your liquid-water interpretation of this photo is plausible. It doesn't work if all you can show is the briefest interval in which atmospheric conditions are momentarily suitable for liquid water.

In short, your straw-grasping is already the indication of your failure. NASA is not remiss. You hold out hope that your claim may yet be vindicated, but vindication must be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which just ain't there.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

If the micro dunes where dust and the ground was dry then the micro-dunes should not stop at the valley edge. At the points of degeneration they should not change the surface albedo.

And why do you say that? You have the burden to prove all those "should nots." Otherwise you're just trading one set of unsubstantiated expectations for another.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Poof that the micro-dune material in my anomaly image is not atmospheric dust.

Analysis of visible data from the Opportunity rover, 9-20-2007.

In area I: This is atmospheric dust. We know that because it was deposited during the most recent global dust storm. Note the characteristics of this material. It clings to raised surface features in lint like pattern

In area II. It collects on the windward side of the trough. Like good dust should.

We can now know for sure that we are not looking at atmospheric dust in the other image.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/...187973c7_o.jpg

Dfrank, aka Darwin

Which implies it actualy has gone somewhere!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

We're not talking about an image from Viking 1 or 2. This is an image from Oppurtunity.
Also, temperature plays a role too.

You're saying this discoloration may be water, but you still do not say why this is.
Here's what we know so far:

This is a false color image.
There is discoloration.

Now, what we don't is what filters were selected for the false color image. This is important in interpreting how to view this image.
The most likely senerio is that the filters are set up and assigned colors to make certain minerals stand out.

Why does this not occur to you?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

except in circles.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Grand Lunar, your fixation over false color and "blue water" is beginning to get wearing.

The issue is not about the color.
Again.
I encouraged Dfrank to present his case here because, off the top of my head, I don't know all the science to refute his claims.
It is NOT about the COLOR.

I have seen all the hortonheardawho photos and discussed them. IT LOOKS LIKE WATER. color or not.
Now I know it isn't water but giving good hard science to convince Dfrank that his eye is recognizing an image that isn't there proved too difficult.

It does look like water though and I was hoping that for all the people out there that think they see water too, they might find good scientific answers to why it isn't. Sadly, although Dfrank presents his case well one on one, he seems to flub it on the forum. Stage fright? I dunno. Hes getting better.

But deviating constantly to the color issue when it isn't an issue is distracting.

We can now know for sure that we are not looking at atmospheric dust in the other image.

Hilarious. Do you really claim that fluid-borne dust can behave in exactly, only one way?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I would say you have addressed the second question (the conspiracy). I would still like an answer to my first question.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

There is a rover team, supported by an army of scientists, who determine and execute every inch of movement of the rovers. They plan for days over tiny treks of meters, looking at every element of the surrounding surface.
Why would these extremely capable folks overlook something as obvious as water, or potential water, on the surface? Maybe with their greater knowledge than ours, they know what "is" and "isn't". Despite what it "looks" like...
This is their life, it's what they do. Who are you or I to second guess their knowledge and efforts? We are mere amatures. I can only suppose that, had they even suspected some evidence of water, frost, vapor or gas, they would have gone there immediately. Think of the potential...really finding the water! Big funding potential there, for decades to come.

I would say: Let's focus on the issue. Dfranks claim is it's water.
Let's go over Each photograph and figure out what we are seeing.

Either Dfrank will convert.
We will convert(Not likely)
Or dfrank will end up continuing in the delusion that there is water that only he can see.

No. Although I agree that some are still missing that Dfrank is saying that the terrain, for lack of a better word, is suggesting water, and not the blue in the false color image, I'd rather not hand-hold him. Dfrank is a big boy, who's done plenty of bragging. Dfrank can present his evidence and respond to questions, or not. He's already done an honorable thing in retracting his claim for his conspiracy, and deserves credit for that. We're not here to help Dfrank with his case. Dfrank has presented an extrordinary case, made extrordinary claims, and is expected to present relevant data and defend his case. He's doing better, for sure, but it's up to Dfrank to present evidence for the points in the photos.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Yeah I didn't mean it like hand holding. I mean let's not get too sidetracked.

For me personally, I wasn't able to give Dfrank good solid answers as to why it can't be water. I refutted quite a few but some stumped me. Im just hoping some of those answers will come to light out of a selfish desire to gain that knowledge.

ETA: In the prior statement my intention was:
Dfrank submits a photo that he believes is water. He then provides data to back up his theory.
This may not be neccessary if it weren't for the fact that the atmosphere and temperature on Mars is so different than on Earth.
Those with a keen mind can then refute that data to show what is really in the photo.

It is tricky because of some of the unknowns.

The filters used in the image in post 1 were L2L5L5L7. Only L5 is in the human visible light spectrum. I am not looking at the color, only the characteristics of the surface material.

This is the same image in L5 only. My analysis still stands, coloration is not the issue. More answers to follow.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...GP2417L5M1.JPG

dfrank

Just my comment:

Upon browsing this thread which have gone to 14 pages -- has made a lot of circling round & round and reminds me of the question :
"Who comes first - the egg or the chicken?"

Sorry Dfrank , people here have been asking a lot of questions that are not answered as the way they want it to be answered.

It is much interesting for a reader like me to read a thread that is progressing and educating.

__________________
Jean
-----
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." - Albert Einstein

"The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge " - Bertrand Russell

JayUtah,

Due to the uniform distribution of the micro-dunes and their location on top of the surface material they would be atmospheric. They were no dust storms on Mars on or before sol 81 when that image was taken. I believe due to the behavior of the material it is precipitants, Martian snow. The thermal profiles would rule out CO2 and that only leaves H2O

Atmospheric dust should behave the same. I have seen no data to suggest a change in atmospheric conditions. There are no migrating air masses on Mars because there is nothing to change the characteristics i.e. oceans. I believe that the global dust storms on Mars are just the same dust being kicked up year after year. I see no reason for the dust to behave any different from one event to another.

dfrank

What data?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

So if this was a natural color image, showing the Martian dirt in it's reddish colors, would you still claim this image shows water?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I think we are getting to that point. More answers to follow.

dfrank

Sorry, but I have a difficult time believing that color isn't the real issue.

Were this image shown in the infamous reddish hues that Mars naturally has, I doubt there would be an issue here at all.
Dfrank even mentioned that it was discoloration that he was looking at, hence the reason I brought it up.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I think i just did. L5 is visible by the human eye. If you could get me a natural color image of Mars I would kiss you right on the mouth, none exist. I think I see a Mars color thread in our future.

dfrank

Grand Lunar is asking a fair question. Given that this is a "look at the picture" opinion based argument, and given that standard images of the area are available, it's reasonable to ask what the parameters were that went into this, and why this particular one (not one of the standard images) is being used. In a more famous case, there was an image published in New Scientist based on something that Ron Levin did. In that case, there were what appeared to be Martian gullies filled with blue water. In fact, this was on a steep cliff (which could be determined by studying some of the non-image data available) and the proper color (verified by the color reference on the rover) was various shades of reddish brown. There was no bright blue in an approximate real color image. By the way, Levin later retracted his claim.

The point is that false color and processed images can be very misleading if you try to look at them like photographs - which is what's happening here. You can't talk about color or contrast differences without understanding why there are color or contrast differences in an image.

See above. THEY'RE NOT PHOTOS, and can't be treated as such. They're processed images.

It's been explained repeatedly in the Dfrank threads that given the low pressure on Mars there is only a very narrow range where liquid water would be stable. It's usually too cold. On some summer days the atmosphere in some locations would get too hot. The ground would tend to be much colder (freezing). Liquid water would be ephemeral at best.

Given that, it is up to DFrank to provide evidence - not "look at the picture arguments - for his position.

I'm afraid I haven't seen his argument go beyond an opinion about an image.

Hopefully you now understand why it is important to the subject.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Yes, that does clarify quite a few points.

First, you keep your mouth away from mine! I'm not into kissing other men.

Now, this image is described as a "true-color" image.
Estentially, this is what the human eye would see.

Looking at the L5 filter image, I still see nothing that indicates that this is water we're looking at.

If this was water, there should be a reflective quality to it.

I've seen dunes in Michigan that have a similar appearence to this in various areas. Perhaps if you looked at images of areas on Earth like this, it could give you a better perspective.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

As pointed out previously:

A well-calibrated color composite image, by slinted, is available:

Dfrank subject matter with much better color (From MER Radiometrically Calibrated Imagery - Opportunity Sol 81 - 100)

For comparison, a little outfit known as Cornell University put up a lot of well-calibrated images, unfortunately none of the one in question. For those curious, from a few sols earlier, different but similar subject matter, a sol 74 image. (From Pancam True Color Images: Sols 51-100)

The raw images: NASA Opportunity :: Sol 81 :: Panoramic Camera Thumbnails

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I am INTENSELY interested to hear what, in the calibrated images, would suggest one to see water I can see nothing but common, expected geological features.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Van

I did post an L5 image above in grayscale. I have been studying the processed images from Mars from sol 1. Yes people do get on the color band wagon and they should not, they should be looking at the material itself. Humans see in L4L5L6. L2 and L7 are infrared and I have spent my whole life looking at grayscale and infrared images.

The standard images that you are making reference to are in fact opinion. There are no true color images of Mars. NASA can only use the Term approximate true color.

I doubt one of your standard images would have done the trick. An awareness of location would have helped, like being on a cliff. I still cry when I think about that craziness. His daddy must still be hiding in the closet. I rely on stereo imaging or cross-eyed 3-D it brings out the texture of dust real well. The image below is of that famous site and the stereo image shows it is not water but sand.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/...ae4bada2_o.jpg

That is not what’s happening here.

I have provided the thermal profiles for this are in post 361, and available pressure data. It does not debunk my claim.

dfrank

This is starting to sound like the infamous "What's the temperature of sunlight in a vacuum"....

Dfrank, I have to be upfront and tell you that geology and climatology are definate weakpoints of mine. However, in researching this material, everything I've come up with supports the proffered data. So, in what way does it NOT debunk your claim?

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher