I want to try to stay on topic (Meridiani etc.) but the thread is a complex and interesting one. Let's see if I can do it some justice, and the moderator can decide whether this needs to spawn some new, mutant thread based on my research and speculation. Without the feedback from those tolerant individuals (and their prodding as well) I might not put this together in the same fashion, so let us see if I can rise to the occasion.
FOR PETE:
Thanks for the post, aichip - lots of info!
You are very welcome. I enjoy the pursuit and I also enjoy sharing what I have found, as well as a little speculation based on those findings.
I wrote:
aichip wrote:
What this all implies is simple:
...
5 - life may form in just a few million years, but impact events might reset the biological clock many times before the environment stabilizes on a planet (I have a technical article about this, but I am still searching for a web link)
Pete wrote:
I don't see how this is implied by the information in your links...
Agreed, that is why I included the qualifier about locating a web link. I have some papers here that espouse the view clearly enough, but I had no web link. I will post the following which is full of excellent references about the subject:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200011/0229.html
There is a wealth of information in those links about the aspects of prebiotic chemistry and how life had to form very rapidly, only to be destroyed perhaps a dozen times from large impact events.
Mars might have had an easier time of it, having less mass and therefore attracting fewer impactors. If the Martian meteorite ALH-84001 is any indicator, life would have been in business in less than 160 million years from the formation of the planet.
Pete wrote:
I have never heard of observed geyser activity on Mars, nor could I find mention of it online. What is this statement based on?
My work, primarily. I will present some of it here. I had some geologists that I presented some work to identify some of the images as being geyser fields, and they wondered where those geysers were located. I had independently found them looking at various Mars surface images. When I informed them that the images were of Mars, they refused to have their names associated with them.
You see, they get the bulk of their funding through government agencies, or through universities that receive government funding. To attached their names to the work, regardless of how sound, would have been professional suicide. They stood to lose their credibility as well as their funding.
I, on the other hand, am privately funded and I have nothing on the line. I don't have to worry about who it upsets or how the community as a whole takes it. I present my case from an interest in the data, with no worries about financial or educational repercussion. I agree with your skeptical feelings about this because no "authoritative" source has supported it, but I believe that you will be convinced by the following images.
First, I will present a geyser from Opportunity, Sol 122. This looks like a pipe broke underground or somebody left a water hose running in the yard. It is very clear, and a feature that wind cannot create.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsgey2.htm
Next, there is a large field on the edge of Endurance Crater that seems littered with geysers. This particular image is the one that caused such excitement with my geologist contacts, and I was emailed by somebody who had a very similar experience when two geoligists he knows saw it. There is no doubt in their minds that this is a geyser field. Note the locations of the slots beneath the rocks, and how wind cannot "stick a finger" into the soil to do this.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/imo114.htm
Look at this image, at the upper left edge. Follow the track through the soil, which appears to be a mud flow. See how some liquid had to flow to create this feature? The spherules are sorted and clear sand appears in some areas, which in my estimation were cleaned by that flowing liquid.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr5.jpg
Now, look at this one, and you can see clearly what appears to be mud. Follow the flow lines, note that some spherules are covered with dust and others are very clean. Wind did not selectively clean off some spherules- what would be the mechanism?
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clrc.jpg
The lower flow lines at the point of the V are very dramatic and clear indicators of fluid flow.
In the center of this image, you can see how the remaining liquid flowed back into the slot under this rock slab, and that insight suddenly explains the bizarre appearence of very clean areas and sorted materials. A liquid in motion performed this modification.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o114clr9.jpg
Now ask yourself, "what created the hollow under this slab?" Certainly not wind! The stone slab is sunken into the soil, and the slot leads deep beneath it. What can move below the stones and soil and create a transport mechanism that removes soil? Water.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/o128r67a.jpg
Here is an excellent view in stereo (cross eyed version) showing the details of such a geyser, and it is clearly not a wind formed feature.
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey5.htm
But I have more- and a much better one showing not only the geyser slot under the stone, but also the flow lines of mud from the action of a liquid. Look at this link:
http://xenotechresearch.com/mwater1.htm
Finally, this close up shows what was clearly mud. It is probably long dried by now, but I will tackle that issue directly after this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/o118clr1.jpg
I have hundred of these images, some in full color and stereo (which is particularly striking) showing slots, what appears to be mud, flow lines, and even in some, wet soil. Without truly belaboring the point, I will move on to other, perhaps more convincing evidence.
Here is an image showing what is clearly a wash gully beside this rock. It is in stereo, and you must slightly cross your eyes to resolve it.
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207STP1.JPG
This gully clearly is made in soil washed from the side of this rock. The stereo images proves that this is not just an illusion; it is consistent in three dimensions. You can even see the layering on the side of the rock where the soil washed off.
The color view (not stereo) is here:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O207CLR5.JPG
Now, such a feature is very delicate, and would weather away in short order. Erosion would remove it and that would be the end of it. But how fast is erosion on Mars?
NASA tells us constantly that erosion on Mars is at a standstill; that the landscape is as it was for billions of years. I can absolutely prove otherwise. First, let's look at reason, then the photographic proof.
We know that there are dust storms on Mars, and while we have not seen one with the rovers in over two years, we are constantly told of the dangers and how they scour everything with fine dust and abrasive. We even see dust devils and know that they are moving dust and soil. What about other forces?
If what we are told is true, that erosion really does not take place on Mars today (and has not for geological ages) then we should expect that the rover tracks will remain clean and sharp for ages, as tracks on the Moon would, right? Well, when Opportunity was stuck in Purgatory Dune (the first time), it took a few sols to break free, and when it did, the path they followed was to back out over the existing tracks.
Not exactly, as it happens, but close- and they imaged those tracks with the microscopic imager when they did back out. What did we see?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 56M2M1.JPG
This is the microscopic image of the track! It shows a pattern of erosion that is absolutely identical to that created by raindrops on soil with rocks! Here is an image for comparison:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Soilpeds.jpg
Here is a page showing everything in context:
http://xenotechresearch.com/newice1.htm
In other words, in a matter of a few sols, the tracks were so eroded they were almost unrecognizable, and they show patterns that appear like rain erosion. The spherules are on sand pedestals. Wind cannot create these vertical sand pedestals. This is the first piece of evidence that perhaps geyser spray might have created this erosion.
Here is another piece of evidence that the soil periodically wetted.
http://xenotechresearch.com/marsmud.htm
There can be no question that a liquid flowed to create those lines in the sand behind those spherules. The fluid meniscus is the only thing that creates those hollows and curves that flow around the spherules. And note that the soil stuck together and squashed exactly like mud when the rover instruments were pressed to it.
Can I present evidence that the soil is damp now? Absolutely. I have assembled it on this page:
http://xenotechresearch.com/wetnow02.htm
So, damp, coherent soil is present and that is the only way that the wheels can make tracks that are sharp and clear. You can verify this yourself with no more than builders' sand and your hands. You absolutely cannot create a sharp print in bone dry soil. It is physically impossible, and anyone who has ever made a sand castle can verify this.
Given this fact, let's see if I can present images of what appears to be liquid on Mars today. Try this:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O146stc2.jpg
In this full color stereo image, you can clearly see the tracks of a dark material in the soil, identical to the marks made by water spilled on soil. It even runs and breaks into droplet trails!
But images of Bounce Rock show what appears to be damp soil (where it is darker) and three sols later, it is light again! It apparently dried out. Here are the images.
wet margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/O063thma.jpg
Dry margin around Bounce Rock:
http://xenotechresearch.com/Bdrythm1.jpg
I am putting these together now in more resolution side by side for comparison and will post a link when the page goes up.
So there are two (of many) images that I have that show what appears to be water on the soil. I have hundred of images of color and monochrome, stereo and flat, shnowing erosion, geysers, water traces, flow pattern, etc. All of those images are directly linked back to the NASA/JPL site so you can verify any of them.
Here is a page in progress that shows some of those water-related features.
http://xenotechresearch.com/mhydro1.htm
With regards to water on the surface, none address the issue of briny soil. With salts (which are proven to be present) the evaporation and freezing changes radically. And, a thin layer of dust (as well as inter-grain stiction forces) greatly reduces evaporation to the point that mud can persist for days. The work of Derek Sears and others proves this.
As Dr. Levin related to me in a recent email:
You may recall that Steve Squyres at one point said he was puzzled by the sparkling objects in the soil that looked like "tiny droplets of water," but qualified that by saying, if so, it would only be brine (as if that were not liquid water!).
This typifies the blinders that many NASA people seem to be wearing. There is indeed water present on the surface, and the soil appears to beloaded with brine. When the rover wheels kick up the soil, it is suddenly exposed to the thin air and the warmth of the sunlight, and the water quickly evaporates and leaves the sparkling white material (salt crystals) that we see.
In other words, they keep looking for the "salt layer" but it is not there! They will never locate it because the salt is being crystallized on the spot as the soil is churned up! This is a direct consequence of the thin air and warm sunlight.
Pete wrote:
This smacks of sensationalism. Desert varnish has been found - no organisms yet! "No non-biological method of creating them is known" does not automatically mean that microbial organisms are at work.
Admitted, it is rather sensational, and you are correct. But consider that ALL rock varnish shows the metallogenium and/or pedomicrobium organisms, and that they are producing backwards amino acids. Sounds rather alien to me, as terrestrial life consists of only left handed amino acids, and the right handed versions are often claimed to be signs of alien life if produced by an organism.
Is it so hard to believe that rock varnish, a very hardy organism, is living on Mars today? Enough seriously scientific people believe that it is credible that there is an international movement to prevent bringing potentially dangerous organisms back to Earth from Mars.
But if organisms are not creating the rock varnish that we have observed on Mars, then we are stuck with the problem of finding another mechanism that produces it and no credible mechanism has yet even been proposed. We have an explanation that makes a lot of sense and is very believeable unless we decide to balk at alien life- for some reason.
Pete wrote:
I see grainy images cropped from images of rocky Martian landscapes. To jump to the conclusion that these things are fossils seems like "face-on-Mars" reasoning to me. If only we could send humans over there! They would be able to conduct this kind of analysis so much more efficiently than probes.
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. Part of it is purely experience. Our visual systems have to be trained, and this is well known. The military takes all its snipers and special operations candidates through a rigorous course that specifically targets "learning how to see".
The problem here is that our vision has to learn how to extract information from the visual field, and that many people are not experienced enough to do it well. It depends strongly on the materials you have been exposed to and are familiar with, and with time your ability to filter out grain and noise improves markedly. Otherwise, trying to see the images can be as frustrating as explained E sharp to a tone deaf person, or the difference between red and green to a colorblind one.
Many times, the "paredolia" phantom is raised, but that is easy to dispense with. I will post a page with greatly enhanced contrast of some of the fossils so that these features can be seen more clearly. I have tended over the last year and a half not to process the images too much, as some people made accusations of fakery. Instead, I have tried to stick to those which can be recognized by the man in the street.
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.
I wrote:
Later analysis shows the last object to be hollow rather than solid. Note the pentagonal symmetry.
Pete wrote:
What kind of analysis? The POV-Ray render, while nicely done, looks like a bit of a stretch to me, I have to admit:
I found more images and was able to construct a three dimensional image. It is hollow and five sided. And, look at the hollow pentagon rock directly below it. No question there, that rock is absolutely a hollow pentagon with wafer thin sides. What sort of geology would produce that? And what sort of geology would produce two pentagonal things in that close proximity? Biology, on the other hand, does it regularly.
It might be helpful for me to add more information to the site, and this sort of forum often leads me to improve my presentation. This is the most valuable thing that I gain from these postings and the debate. It helps me to test and refine my conclusions, and make a stronger case.
Pete wrote:
Feelings of "belief" are valuable in science, but only for developing theories that are then tested by looking for evidence. Isn't formal scientific research supposed to be free of "belief", especially in the predominantly observational field of astronomy? An observer's belief and prejudice can deeply influence what he or she sees in data, which can lead to premature or optimistic conclusions.
The point here is that I have a huge body of material that supports my belief, and nothing I have found so far, counters it in any way. I saw something odd, had a suspicion, and looked for more evidence that might confirm or deny it. Everything has fit exactly into place, and none of it violates the laws of physics or chemistry. That is a strong indicator that my conclusions are valid. But I realize that many people cannot believe such a claim until some venerable news anchor puts it on the 6 0'clock news. Oh, well. I cannot worry about that. I am only truly concerned with the evidence.
Thanks, Pete, for the feedback and questions. That is what debate is all about, and I value those things.
For Harry:
Hello again. You have touched on some very interesting ideas, and probably correct ones.
That life began in space is a common theme for astrobiologists. I see that early solar systems appear to be bioreactors in the sense that the organics form and develop all over the place, but once they settle on planetary surfaces they have the chance to evolve in a more stable environment where resources are common.
Space is loaded with organic molecular clouds, and some coalesce to form stars and planets. This is a clear indication that life's basic building blocks are present throughout the universe. We cannot discount the thought that life is common in space, because if we do, then we have to explain how it came to be here and not there.
After all, the same materials and conditions are present, and to think it only happened here is monumental pride and folly. How do we explain that life could only come to be here, but nowhere else? There is no reasonable answer for this. It smacks of religion rather than science.
Well, I have ranted enough. Let us see where this all goes now.