Sorry for the great delay, but projects here occupy a great deal of time, and have kept me from having the needed time to reply. Here is a little bit of information for those with the patience to hang on this long!
Pete wrote:
Sorry 'bout the late reply and the continued thread-jacking...
That is quite all right. My work schedule and responsibilities have kept me from this forum for a few days but I will remedy that now.
On the subject of geysers on Mars
Pete wrote:
I agree that most of the images to which you linked bear signs of flowing liquid, but I wouldn't call those features "geysers". I'll wait for evidence of geyser ejecta (see Triton) or actual imagery of an erupting geyser (again, Triton), neither of which seem to have been collected from Mars...yet.
The first thing here is that we (and many other people) are familiar with the signs of flowing liquid. On this we agree- a liquid flowing over the surface created the features we are looking at.
I think that we also agree that because there is erosion on Mars that is ongoing (and dust devils are just one obvious sign of this) that many of these features would have been eroded away over any significant period of time. So far, so good.
Now, we want to figure out where the liquid came from that produced these features. The slots under the stones are first contenders because they are an unknown. We also have identification from geologists, which is not a guarantee but is a nod in the right direction. Professionals recognize these as places where water might emerge, if these features were seen on Earth. With that as a starting point, let's see if I can build a case.
Also, note that a hole in the ground that, through natural forces ejects a stream or spray of liquid is indeed a geyser by definition. Most definitions state that water is the active material in question, some simply say "liquid". Here is a link for definitions of the term.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... n&ct=title
So the term for a crack or hole in the crust or surface of a planet or moon that ejects a liquid (which might be water and might include steam) is "geyser". I think we can agree on that, but if you object, please tell me so and why. We see a hole or slot and the action of a flowing liquid seems to be working there, so I will use the term geyser until something says otherwise. At least people following the thread can understand what I am implying.
As for evidence, the problem is that varying conditions due to the change of the seasons might mean that some erupt only at night, or late evening, or early morning. We would be unable to get images in those case, and so such evidence would be unobtainable at this time. Too bad they did not include a small strobe or halogen lamp to take night images, and to dispense with the color calibration controversies once and for all.
On the subject of erosion on Mars
I wrote that:
NASA tells us constantly that erosion on Mars is at a standstill; that the landscape is as it was for billions of years.
Pete wrote:
I have never heard this from Nasa or any teacher/professor/expert worth their boiling-point-elevating freezing-point-depressing salt.
Steven Squyres was looking at some tiny "craters" (little more than potholes) on the sides of some of the dunes that Opportunity was studying. On seeing these little potholes, he said basically that these little craters could be anywhere from a few thousand years old to a hundred million years old. In other words, his implication was clear- nothing changes on Mars, and nothing erodes. To say that these potholes might be a hundred million years old was ludicrous.
I will find the link to this- it was published on the NASA/JPL site in a press release and so it should be fairly easy to locate.
So we already know the following about erosion on Mars. First, there are definitely dust devils (and we have the images and the movies, as well as countless images from orbit showing the dust devil trails over the ground.) Second, we know that there are plenty of impact events. Third, we know that there is water present as clouds, frost, ice, fog, etc. and that this water could, in principle, soak into the rocks or the ground. We also know that at night, the ground is likely to freeze. Well, water freezing inside rocks is one of the most powerful forces of erosion known. It splits and chips the rocks constantly, and I have plenty of images of the results of that process on Mars, which I will post if requested. (You know I won't pass up an opportunity like that!)
Then we have the images of the so-called "dust slides". A single question stops the speculation that it is dust in its tracks. How does dust change color by sliding down a hill? How does that change fade in the course of a few hours? It does not, on both counts. It appears that we are seeing eruptions of liquid that then dry out. Look at this page and go to the bottom:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mwater5.htm
What strikes me is how few people have seen the images in stereo. This absolutely answers many questions about the true shapes and the actual associations of features in the images. That is one of the reasons I try to produce plenty of stereo images for people. But another result emerges from those stereo images.
You can see clearly how some force (and I feel that it is from geyser spray) produces the "stems". The spherules are harder than the surrounding gypsum and when the spray from a geyser (which might carry grit and sand) strikes them, the spherules shield the rock behind them from eroding as rapidly. Results? Spherules on stems. Look at the Fram Crater Sol 085 images for a little of the evidence I have put together.
http://xenotechresearch.com/framgey1.htm
I have many more examples that clearly show unidirectional orientation o the stems, showing that a single directed force had to be responsible for their formation. But I also have images that show the actual location of a geyser that formed the stems and eroded the rock in the region. I will put that page on my site very shortly, as I know that everyone will want to see it.
Pete wrote (about the soil pedestals and the microscopic images):
...But it's still comparing micro and macro. Are soil pedestals self-similar down to the microscopic scale?
In truth, these pedestals are only about half the size of the smaller ones in the terrestrial image. The "micro" images are no more magnification than a hand magnifier. The spherules you see on the soil pedestals are between 3 and 5 millimeters across, so they are "macro" enough.
About seeing what is in the images
I wrote:
I have run into "I can't see it" enough to know that in many cases, it is poor monitor adjustment that obscures the images. On a properly gamma-adjusted monitor, the results is nothing short of amazing. But some people simply cannot see them.
Pete wrote:
Uh...I'm pretty sure this isn't the case for me.
And this is an impossible point to argue. If you cannot see it, then you cannot. It does not matter what the picture shows if you cannot see it.
I wrote:
One very clear indicator- pentagonal forms. Regular pentagons occur all the time in biology and never in geology. That is something to keep in mind.
Pete wrote:
That's actually correct as far as crystals are concerned - pentagonally symmetric crystals don't exist. Of course, rocks aren't perfect crystals...
One can plainly see pentagons in the images of cracked up Martian surface. Are those biological too?
Not at all- they are definitely mud polygons, and while some have five sides, they are not symmetrical at all. They are only roughly pentagonal.
Pete wrote:
Stones here on Earth can easily look pentagonal from a single point of view, particularly sedimentary rocks, like the ones by the river near where I live. I guess what I'm saying / getting at is the images of alleged fossils don't look convincing to me.
It is when you have multiple images from varying perspectives, and you can see the results in three dimensions that you can see clearly what is a regular pentagon versus a simple rough form. In some cases you can just rotate the image by 72 degrees and overlay it and if the features match very closely, you know it is the same angular width as a regular pentagon. With repeated features this is a strong indicator of regular pentagonal symmetry.
I wrote:
I found more images and was able to construct a three dimensional image.
Pete wrote:
I'd like to see those images, since they would confirm that these objects are actually pentagonal instead of probably just looking like that by chance.
Here you go:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Pentobj2.htm Cross eyed stereo, bottom of the page.
I wrote:
What sort of geology would produce that? And what sort of geology would produce two pentagonal things in that close proximity?
Pete wrote:
I also wonder what sort of geology could possibly excavate two intact fossils and deposit them onto the Martian dust surface in such close proximity.
They might well have been part of a single larger structure and the two pieces fallen apart over time. I sort of suspect this due to them both being pentagonal and roughly of the same scale. That is just a scpeculative thought, but consider that if it had been an animal skeleton, we would likely find many fossils right next to each other, and each would have been a bone from the whole.
Pete wrote:
By the way, have you contacted Nasa with your findings?
Yes indeed, and the results were rather interesting in their own right.
My site keeps track of visitors, and the emails I sent had a series of specific links to my site in order. The email was received and the links visited by the recipient (Matt Golumbeck was one) and then I saw where the same links, in the same order, were being visited by other people at other organizations.
The visitors included people from Arizona State, Stonybrook, National Institute of Health, the CDC, and then went on to include various military agencies. No response was received from any of the recipients, but now they are regular visitors and have been for the last couple of years.
On any given day, my visitors are from 5% to 40% military and government, and they range through agencies I had never heard of before. The fact that they visited the same links as I sent in the email, and in the same order as in the email, is enough to convince me that the email had been forwarded to them from the original recipients. Would you agree?
Futhermore, I was soon contacted by phone and by email from employees of both NASA and JPL who stated that I was correct, but that they were not allowed to speak due to the non-disclosure agreements that they had signed. All declined to be named, but three told me that there was a marine biologist on the MER team early on, and some hav since forwarded various useful links to me that have helped my to substantiate my claims. I do not wish to expose these people or create trouble for them.
For Harry:
I sense that you are very close to believing what I have posted, but I also understand your reluctance. It can be difficult to accept that something we have been told by a reputable organization is actually wrong. Not only that, but it can also be difficult knowing that people see you as "one of those Mars weirdos" who believes in aliens.
The fact is, things we believe are shown to be wrong all the time, and it is then that the "weirdos" who believe those things that turn out to be true are then perceived as "visionary". But that is poor fare when you have no idea when the facts will be known or accepted. There are still people claiming we never went to the Moon. I know better.
Harry wrote:
I for one would love to know that life exists elsewhere.
But! there is something fishy here.
Why! after so many millions of years these things look fresh.
I would assume that these objects were formed from inorganic means.
The rock surrounding the fossils is very soft- little more than gypsum silt that accumulated at the bottom of a sea and slowly compacted and dried. The spherules are worn out by erosion, sometimes by wind or sand, other times by spray from geysers (my theory) from the remaining water table.
Some are newer and less eroded, others are worn greatly. This is also true on Earth in fossil beds that have been found. Some of the fossils look almost new, others are so worn as to be unidentifiable. There are places here where you are crunching fossils under your feet, and some look brand new. A limestone bed is a perfect example. You can extract sea shells from limestone deposits that look almost new in many cases. I have some sand dollar fossils in hand that are over 37 million years old, yet you would not question them if you found them on a beach.
All things are relative, and when such fossils are found, we are fortunate when they make their way to a museum instead of a child's toy chest or rock collection to be stepped on, lost, or destroyed. Mars presents us with a great chance to find out the answers to some of our oldest and deepest questions about the origins of life. I hope that when those answers are made known, we are able to gain some insight into ourselves and our place in the larger scheme of things.
