Gentlemen and Jean,

This is from sol 1296 Victoria crater Mars. My question is what process would present this image. Note I said would.

Mars has always presented outcrop disturbance in satellite images. Gullies have appeared with origination points associated with outcrops at certain levels. The debate has been are they dry slides or water related. I believe we are seeing both.

This image is from the Opportunity Rover sol 1296 and clearly shows a disturbed area in what I have petitioned off as area I. We see a change in surface characteristics, berry or spherical distribution. We also se a change in color, yes I said color. This image is from my hero image man, Hortonheardawho. I have no idea how he come up with this but I will tell you what he told me. He believes that each image has a story to tell, let’s see if we can figure this out. We see in area II surface material disruption, smooth patches, berry displacement and color change.

“You will see a broad swath of very smooth ground in the left area, which is eroded smooth by... what? The ground to the right is extremely rough, and it is also raised. It is clearly where not as much erosion is occurring.

So we have a lower "trough" eroded down the crater face where water and sand have flowed downhill, and the result is just like any arroyo or streambed. Geologists take note- smooth versus rough- lower versus raised- this is erosion.”

The above quote is from Sir Charles W. Shults III
Xenotech Research

I really don’t know what he is saying but that is his analysis of this image. He wrote a book or two and I figure guys that write books are smart. You guys know what I think it is. OK Grumpy old scientist, time to go to work. Help this woo woo.


Image

Note from moderator: please do not post huge images inline. People with dialup connections don't appreciate it.
- ToSeek

If I saw this in the field here on Earth I would say silt deposition followed by drying with wind blown debris of larger grains. But, without a Geologists' hammer in the field of view for scale, I'm unsure.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"

Thanks, I would say followed by drying to.

dfrank

Just so you'll know...Charles Shults has been discussed here before. Here is one thread.

Posters here pretty much concluded that his ideas weren't very credible.

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

Agreed, also has the rock grinder been applied to the white stuff? If it is "dried" stuff it had to happen slow, explosive devolitization would not leave that effect i.e. implies an atmosphere. And, anytime we are looking at Mars geology we do not know if we are looking at 3.? or 4.? bya stuff.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"

“Background isn't supposed to have anything to do with the merit of scientific work’ I did like that part. If I put on my resume I joined BAUT and was banned for 30 of my first 45 days they would not like me either.

I don’t know who is right or wrong. I am just a weatherman that sees things in the rover images that don’t add up so here I am. Nobody on this forum can say I didn’t kiss a lot of rear to have this opportunity.

I think scientists are all weird, they have something in them to bring to the table. I showed you the image. The Rover took it. Let’s do the science thing. No claims just questions.

Dfrank, aka Darwin from Mars Rover Blog

That manipulated image is composed with undocumented processes from undocumented sources, but probably from multiple official NASA images from the general Planetary Data System (PDS) or here at the specific MER raw image site, Opportunity :: Sol 1296 :: Pancam.

(Dfrank, please help us out by leading us more surely to official images you want inspected. I'm weary of having to support you. Thanks for at least describing the true source well enough to be located, but links are appreciated. It imposes less on your readers. 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 ...

Do we need to default to grayscale? In this image erosion does not need color enhancement. I just wanted to show the mud.

dfrank

Binary,

You have always supported me, bad boy. We all have our purpose, you must know something. I will let you guys know right away I am not real smart, but I aint stupid.

dfrank

If you want to ask people to analyze images, ask them to analyze official ones, and lead them there, not ones gobbed up by who-knows-what sloppy processes. It's the polite thing to do for people you are expecting to help you understand something.

Those undocumented processes make a difference in what is seen by analysts. They certainly shade the results, and I know you don't want shady results. Provide us the raw images, unmanipulated, please!

And there is no proof of mud there in that image, or the originals, so I would advise you to use different wording.

I hope you just wanted to show us something that to you looked like mud and ask what it could be, right? You're not going to assert some non-mainstream interpretation of what it is here in Q&A are you?

__________________
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'm not a bad boy.

I try to support you in technical presentation because I see you having trouble and I see you causing undue trouble for others.

I definitely do not support the erroneous conclusions you present about what you look at. Wrong is wrong.

__________________
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 ...

Yes I am. If you are going to just go by mainstream then it’s not Q and A. You are not saying the answers can only be mainstream, are you? If you are we are limiting the response to it must be dust and wind.

Dfrank

I can assure you that you will not find answers from reading anything Sir Shults has to say.

That doesn't sound like a question, it sounds like a claim.

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

OK, then...if your question is "does this image show mud?", then the answer is NO.

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

That was in response to a question of why I wanted color. That’s why we all want color. We can go grayscale. The erosion is there I think. You guys know more than me. Lets don’t make this a color issue. We can do this in grayscale. WHY IS THE SURFACE DIFFFERENT? Tell me why the Martian wind and dust is different in that area. That is a question, no?

dfrank

That is a question, yes. At least the (SHOUTED?) first sentence is. The "tell me" is an imperative sentence with which I'm having trouble complying.

Different from what? In what area? Area I in the diagram? Area II? The crater wall slope as opposed to the surrounding plains? The rim? The white rocks as opposed to the dark rocks? The soft eroded rocks as opposed to the harder less-eroded rocks? The small mounds of regolith, opposed to the rocks?

I'm lost. Help, please.

__________________
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 ...

Cant help you with comprehension. Call in the boss.

dfrank

I suspect you're not going to get a lot of help if you prefer to refuse to clarify your vague questions. That's not in the spirit of BAUT Q&A.

What boss are you talking about? You have confused me further.

__________________
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 ...

The environment of Mars is not that of Earth. Pressure is minuscule and gravity is less.. So a damp surface material might be dried by winds and appear as we see... It does not follow that a liquid was present here. It just looks like it by Earth like conditions I agree. We have not yet proof of water on Mars. Mud might be as close as we get. This image is interesting but, proves very little. Lets go have a look.

The difference in the surface is apparent between area I and area II. There must be a reason. What is it? If you can not see it then I say call your boss. I don’t know what spirit you have on BAUT, but the truth is what I am all about.

dfrank

He was there real fast on the face man. Why not me?

dfrank

Thank you. You're asking what is the difference in the surface between Area I and II as marked on that image? Does this image from NASA include the diagonal dividing line between your lighter Area I and darker II? Mark up an official image if it would help you ask your question.

I see lighter rocks and darker rocks, in fractured bedrock of an impact crater's wall. They are certainly from different stratigraphic layers. The light rock is, I believe, what they referred to as the "bathtub ring", an intriguing feature visible from the rim. It probably offers clues to the level and persistence of ancient waters on Mars that helped form, or modified, these sedimentary rocks. The different colored rocks were laid down at different times, in different chemical environments, forming different minerals that look different.

That's it on a gross level, light vs. dark. But, I suspect that's too easy. Is there some other, finer detailed, more subtle, surface variation that you are asking about? Please be explicit. We're not mind readers. Really. We don't know what you're thinking.

You assume I have a boss to call. Why? What is your point? That doesn't make any sense. Is it true for you?

You surely do seem not to recognize the spirit of BAUT Q&A in which almost all questioners do what they can to help the people who are trying to help them. Refusing to clarify questions is not in that spirit. It assists the search for truth, important to you if that's what you're all about.

__________________
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 ...

You are right it aint that simple. Let me hold your hand. Look at the image. See the wash pattern, between area I, and all the other. Let us not go to the source yet. This is just questions.

Don’t go to photon emission. I been there.

dfrank

01101001 has posted a link to the original JPL/NASA image, in grayscale. Looking at it, the features appear to be as he described, fractured rock.

As to why the surface is different, you have answered your own question, I think. The surface appears differently because it is different, part of it is rock outcroppings exposed by the wind, part of it is covered by soil. You can find the same thing in many locations on earth... no mystery.

If you want to have Phil look at the image and give his opinion, PM him (The Bad Astronomer).

(BTW, let's be sure to keep this thread Q&A and not try to espouse any ATM ideas here.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

You don't have to be patronizing. Let go of my hand, and just help with earnest words. Otherwise I shall lose interest.

No, I see no wash pattern. To me a wash pattern is the result of a wash. I don't see evidence of one.

"between area I, and all the other" Other what? You mean some "pattern" between your Area I and your Area II? Along the long yellow line? Under the yellow line?

Can't you just mark up an image for us with what you are asking about? Why do we have to play 20 questions?

__________________
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 ...

Thanks I will.

dfrank. aka Darwin from Mars rover blog

I don't see a "wash" pattern, but I am not sure what a "wash" pattern is.

I do see some ripples on the left of the image which look to me like windblown material.

Is that what you meant? washboard?

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

I did not see a PM area for this Bad Astronomer. Just tell Him Darwin wants to talk to him.

Dfrank

The Bad Astronomer profile

See there: Send a private message to The Bad Astronomer

Be considerate of his time, please. He might be busy fighting anti-science.

__________________
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 ...

We should do this private, shuuuse

dfrank, aka Darwin from the Mars Rover blog