Don't paint all your critics with the same brush. One person brought up pressure.

Yes, some points on the Martian surface have atmospheric pressure above the triple point, which makes liquid water possible if certain thermal conditions also are met. You're an "atmospheric guy," so finish the problem.

Please state your claim clearly. Initially you said that "some people" would wonder why NASA would pass up standing water. Then when that was challenged as a naive expectation, you asked if you were "the only one who saw ponding" in the photograph. You then implied that we were accusing you of having a "mental illusion" by questioning your interpretation. You must be clear, because these rhetorical tricks are a common feature of conspiracist arguments. It is possible to hypothesize that you misinterpreted the photograph without also necessarily suggesting that you are mentally ill or deluded for having done it.

Do you have any evidence besides your interpretation of this photograph that what it depicts is liquid water?

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

My water images were speculation. The argument I am hearing is it can not be water, I believe pressure was the prime concern. I challenged that assumption. There is no way to prove an image contains water, but we do know the conditions that it can exist. I said it looked like water.

There seems to be some confusion as this thread seems to have got tangled up with the other. I apologize if you thought that was my claim. This thread was started to express my opinion on how conspiracy theories start.

As far as my background I will not give out particulars on my personal identity, this being an open internet forum. I will say I have worked as a weather forecaster and studied meteorology all my life.

Dfrank

This was discussed in your previous thread. Did you forget it? There are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist: Too high and there is vapor, too low and there is ice. During summer the maximum recorded atmospheric temperature during the day was too high, and it dropped well below freezing every night. There would only be a brief period with a "just right" temperature. That would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods.

Ultimately, as previously noted, there could be rare eruptions of liquid underground water. Given the conditions, it is expected that most underground water would be extremely well frozen permafrost. All of this means that, if you're going to suggest an image shows flowing surface water, you are going to need very good evidence to support it. You haven't provided it.

__________________
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

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that NASA scientists would come to the same conclusion as you. If they didn't see it as an indication of liquid surface water, or interesting in some other way, they would have no reason to investigate it.

__________________
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

Van Rijn

“There are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist:”

As discussed earlier,

There is a big difference between air temperature and water temperature. For example, if a cup of pure water was placed in a room with the ambient air temperature of 100c the water in the cup would not boil till the temperature of the water in the cup was 100c at Earth slp.

I would think any water on a ground that was -65c on nightly bases would lengthen the window of the liquid state. There is no water temperature data and any correlation to ambient temp would be an uneducated guess.

Dfrank

Freezing ground temperature is going to lengthen the time for water to remain liquid?

Anyway, you've already said that this is speculation, so do you withdraw your claim of suspicious NASA behavior?

__________________
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

No sir,

I am just trying to explain at 6.1 mb the temperature of the water would need to be near 10c. To say an ambient air temperature of 20 or 30c would mean the water would boil is not correct. It would depend on the water temperature.

We do not know the underground dynamics that would produce these liquid eruptions I suspect it is some type of brine containing salts and possibly other antifreeze agents.

I think they should have taken a look. Just yawn and driving away could provide some people with the idea that they might be hiding something.

The birth of a conspiracy.

Dfrank

But the idea without evidence is meaningless. Do you have evidence that they are hiding something? These guys have been studying Mars for years, some even for decades now. Do you know what information they have accompanying that picture? What local time was it? What was the pressure at that site at that time? What was the temperature doing at that time? in short, can you show us that the experts whose job it is to actually study the stuff coming back from the rovers had any reason to believe there might have been liquid water there, beyond what your eyes tell you?

Handwaving about the general case does not a coherent theory make. Bring some specifics to your argument.

No, as Jay already said, the birth of a conspiracy theory. If there is a real conspiracy it was born a long time ago.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

. . . with freezing ground temperature and air temperature usually at freezing or (sometimes) boiling temperature, with only a brief window during some summer days of a "just right" temperature. As I pointed out in a prior post here, and in other posts in other threads, that would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods. Do you disagree?

But you've already said that this is speculation! NASA has a team of scientists to set priorities of what should be investigated. Why is it a conspiracy if they don't choose to investigate something you say yourself is simply speculation?

__________________
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

That is your characterzation of what happened...that JPL/NASA was ignoring something that they should have seen as important. Will you be providing evidence to back up your characterization?...or will the handwaving continue?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think there are a lot of conspiracy theories about NASA. The faked moon landing, hiding the colors of Mars just to name a couple.

The purpose of this thread was to show how NASA will never run dry of new conspiracies. The, what looks like water, was just an example of how they get started.

An unproven conspiracy is just a conspiracy theory. I hear you say they have all this data why it could not be water. I think we have gone through pressure and temp. Do you have privy to all this other data that you speak of?

Dfrank

NASA is not responsible for conspiracies. It is the scientifically uninformed who create them out of whole cloth.

You do understand that right??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

True, and there are common themes running through the moon hoax and Mars color CTs, including limited understanding of technical issues and suspicion of authority.

Yes, folks that have frequented the BAUT CT forum are quite familiar with conspiracy theories based on "Look at the picture" arguments.

More accurately, what you're hearing is that your personal speculation about Mars images doesn't demonstrate suspicious NASA action. You have shown no evidence that they would come to the same conclusions about the images as you, so there is no reason to expect them to follow the actions you would prefer.

Related to the water issue, we have discussed why liquid water would likely be quite rare on the Martian surface, and would require some pretty specific conditions to occur.

This is your claim. Have you gone through other information?

__________________
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

RAF,

Most Conspiracy theories are a little out there. I think most do it to sell a book and make money on the scientific uninformed.

In my opinion NASA gives them a lot of material that’s all, and they show no signs of stopping.

Dfrank

Van,

As far as I know temperature and pressure is it. I did not know of anything else that would regulate temporary surface water on Mars, I thought you knew something I did not

Dfrank

Is NASA conspiring or not? Be clear. Thanks.

__________________
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 don’t think anyone can prove they are. The act like it and will give us plenty of conspiracy theories, as I stated in post 1.

Dfrank

So, you're not convinced they are, and you're certainly not claiming they are. Good.

Now what?

__________________
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 ...

My water images were speculation.

But apparently NASA is somehow remiss for not addressing that speculation, no matter how farfetched it may be. Explain how that works. Yes, people may form conspiracy theories around it based on their inexperience or prejudice, but why is that anything but those people's problem?

The problem is not that you speculated, but that you seem to want that speculation to be taken for something more than what it is.

The argument I am hearing is it can not be water...

No, one such argument was made. Most everyone else seems to be wondering why some regular guy's knee jerk reaction should have any legitimate bearing on the operation of a space mission being conducted by well-trained operators and qualified scientists.

...we do know the conditions that it can exist.

The conditions also allow for the presence of ice cream. So if I speculate that it's a puddle of Cherry Garcia and provide no other evidence, is NASA acting strangely for not stopping the rover to see?

There are other reasons for rejecting the puddle-of-water interpretation.

This thread was started to express my opinion on how conspiracy theories start.

Agreed. But you implied that the reasons for which they arise ought to be addressed by NASA. If uninformed people get the wrong idea from their intuition and decide to base an accusation upon it, why is that anything more than an unfounded, speculative accusation? Why does that create an obligation for someone else.

Just because you were fooled into thinking that might be water doesn't mean the operators of the spacecraft don't have a better means of making that determination and have more experience observing these special photographs, and thus made the right decision to move on.

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

This whole thread was prompted by Dfrank's interpretation of the image linked in the OP, correct?

I assume the feature he's referring to is the small teardrop-shaped area located top center, at the end of what appears to be a valley bottom. If that's correct, I have a couple questions.

Does anybody know what it looks like in real color, rather than this false-color image?

Is there any way to determine the scale of this feature? The rover cameras can make quite small objects look large. It seems to me that the feature could be as small as a fist or as big as a few meters across, but that's really a guess. Can we get a better estimate of its distance and size?

Has anyone determined an "official" explanation of this feature? I have seen similar things consisting of wind-blown sand in dune areas.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there was some liquid water on the surface. Under the prevailing conditions, would it be just sitting there, or would there be some expectation of activity -- steam, mist, etc.?

I think the answers to these questions could explain NASA's lack of interest in the feature. Not that any of that would put a damper on anyone who's looking for conspiracies under every blueberry-encrusted rock.

Honestly, Dfrank, why would NASA not investigate possible surface water, if such a thing were even remotely possible? It would be a stunning discovery, and the investigators would give substantial parts of their bodies to make a finding like that!

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I think Nasa is more of conspiracy magnet.

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

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

(I am disappointed the Dfrank still hasn't come to post original source material to go with his speculation. Do you not care that your are offering up manipulated images instead of originals with provenance? I'll help once again. Please learn how. Save your readers some effort. Thanks.)

From OP: false-color manipulated image

Probably one of the images used in the composite manipulation

Thumbnails nearby, Opportunity :: Sol 81 :: Panoramic Camera



Sol 81 was a few days before Fram Crater (press release images), Meridiani Planum, between its landing in Eagle, and the larger Endurance Crater.

Closer to the caramel colors of Mars:
almost the same subject
From lyle.org :: Opportunity :: sols 81-100, processing by slinted, I think.

I can look up the methods to accurately gauge size of objects imaged by the pancam. It's not hard to compute, but will take some hunting. Is it really worth it?

I doubt there's a readily available official explanation. It's not a remarkable image. It might be described buried in someone's report, somewhere.

Water sitting there? Like if the rover peed it? It would rapidly evaporate.

Really. If they spotted water they'd trumpet it to the world. They've trumpeted hints of ancient water! They proclaimed past damp soil that formed salts and concretions and festoons. They were so proud they beamed. They shouted out about the current water frost. They keep "following the water", in current and future missions. It's simply ludicrous to suggest they wouldn't flaunt an image of standing liquid water. No way.

__________________
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 think Nasa is more of conspiracy magnet.

Yes, I was about to say something substantially similar. NASA is not the generator of conspiracy theories that involve them. Theories are generated by the people who speculate. NASA is not generating doubt and suspicion, as the original post says, by failing to account for all the idle, uninformed speculation that could be brought to bear. What about someone who says that NASA is passing up a rock that looks to him like an alien artifact? Is NASA on the hook to investigate and dispel every improbable notion that people try to pin on them?

As I said, the problem is with the notion that such speculation somehow creates a legitimate suspicion or a legitimate burden on NASA's part to dispel it. I'm not convinced by appeals to common sense or assertions that people are highly attuned to visual sensation. Why is NASA bound to respect any old regular guy's knee-jerk expectation? Without that obligation there's no "conspiracy" to hide some presumed truth.

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

In my opinion NASA gives them a lot of material that’s all, and they show no signs of stopping.

NASA doesn't "give" anything of the sort. The facts are simply what they are. If other people wish to misrepresent them or remain ignorant of them, it's not NASA's fault. The proponent of an idea has the burden to prove he has investigated his idea appropriately, and it's the reader's responsibility to remain appropriately cautious -- caveat lector. It's not the duty of the accused to forestall all possible accusation.

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

Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways. This is not the first time they put their self in a questionable light.

I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know. To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here. We ask question here. When they do that their credibility is out the window.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom. Wind and dust is just a catch-all. If their attitude is, we know and if you don’t too bad little man, then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Dfrank

What you just said makes absolutly no sense at all.

If you actually READ all the posts in this thread, you would understand where it is that you are wrong.

NASA is NOT treating people like "mushrooms" and telling them to follow without question.
AT ALL.
You seem to be inventing notions to back up your original claim...

Poisoning the well. Statement rejected.

You will cite your evidence that NASA treats the American people "like mushrooms". Such a statement must be backed up. NASA is also a very interactive organization for knowledge - you don't have to "follow along behind like the piper", but you must have a basic, fundamental understanding of the technologies at play. NASA doesn't have the resources to launch a rover everytime a layman on the internet sees a color enhanced picture, misunderstands it, and cries "That looks interesting!" That NASA cannot physically accomplish this is not evidence of a "conspiracy".

The truth is that they have scientists who have dedicated thier lives to knowing how to look at these pictures and hedge their bets, based on the extrapolated data, on where the most promising sites to find (x) are. Thier mission is driven by knowledge slightly higher than anonymous internet people thinking "Whoa - that touched up, color-filtered photo sorta looks like a pond." I once had a fajita shell with a very convincing cat on it. It's a pretty well-known phenomena, but I'm sure you already know what it's called, if you're this intense into this debate

And, as a warning, please take the time to travel to the "AboutBAUT" forum, and brush up on our ad-hom, civility, and decorum rules. The next time you call a forum member "little man" in such a manner, it won't be a freindly warning

__________________
"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

I'm going to interject a moment and point out that he said :

he didn't refer to a member as "little man".

I still dont make much logic out of the statement though.

Giving NASA a blank check of trust is not going to happen as long as they behave in peculiar ways.

NASA is not asking for a blank check of trust. You are. You ask us to accept your personal intuition and speculation as the standard by which others' behavior is to be judged.

You have presented no evidence that NASA has acted "in a peculiar way." They simply failed to do what your layman's intuition says should have been done. You continue to beg the question that your intuition gives the right answer.

I hear you say that they are great scientist and they know.

Straw man. I merely say they are better trained than you and more experienced than you in interpreting these photographs. Therefore unless you can provide some better evidence than your infallible common sense, I will continue to believe that NASA's interpretation is more likely than yours to be correct.

To treat the American people like mushrooms and ask them to follow along behind the piper is not how it is done here.

When were you elected to speak on behalf of the American people? What makes you think your interpretation is shared by anyone besides you? Aren't you the one asking us to follow along your interpretation of this photo with no better evidence than your profession that your layman's intuition is sufficient? Doesn't that make you the Pied piper?

The field of ignorant speculation is wide open. Why does your particular selection deserve any more attention that anyone else's uninformed speculation?

We ask question here.

No, you make an accusation. You say NASA is wrong for not having done what you say should have been done. You have the burden of proof to show your view of the data is correct. Please satisfy it.

When they do that their credibility is out the window.

I'm perfectly capable of judging for myself which explanation has the most credibility. Currently yours doesn't.

The truth is they had no way of knowing for sure what discolored that trench or what was ponding at the bottom.

How do you propose to discern proper coloration from a false-color photo? Do you know what "false color" means? Please explain your understanding of that description.

How do you know that feature was the result of any liquid ponding? At times you say you're a "regular guy." At other times you say you're an "atmosphere type guy." Do you claim any expertise above that of the layman? If so, what? If not, why does your opinion create an obligation on anyone else's part?

How do you know what procedures NASA employed to interpret that particular feature? Are you aware of any, or are you merely assuming in this case?

...then they deserve all the conspiracy theories they get and they will generate plenty.

Failure to mitigate the willful ignorance of others does not constitute the "generation" of conspiracy theories. Uninformed speculation generates conspiracy theories, pursuant to a preconceived distrust toward the accused. Is your distrust based on evidence or is it preconceived?

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

If their attitude is, we know and if you don’t too bad little man...

Isn't this, in fact, your attitude? Aren't you the one demanding that we believe your personal judgment about what's in this photo, on no better evidence than it seems to you to be the right answer? You're the one telling us that "logic" demands the rover have been driven over to investigate that feature. Aren't you in fact trying to tell us that you know, and if we don't then too bad?

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