Mars Rover Spirit finds best evidence so far of possible Microbrial Life on Mars

Thanks for all that handy info StellarX! Much appreciated!

I remember during the Apollo 11 mission, one of the astronauts - either Neil or Buzz commented that the soil underneith appeared wet. Was there ever a reasonable answer provided by NASA for this?

reply to post by InfaRedMan


As i remember they found water but generally NASA hides as much of the truth for as long as they can. You can u2u Zorgon and ask him what evidence we have in favor.

Stellar

It's all very strange at any rate. I can't understand why you'd want to cover up an unremarkable element that appears basically 'everywhere' in some form or another. Plus - water isn't always going to equate to 'life' though it certainly raises the odds significantly.

H2O isn't a national security risk is it? lol.. Unless you've been watching too many Mad Max re-runs :s

I doubt anyone would begrudge NASA saying "we reckon it's water", even if they turned out to be wrong. Most people would just shrug and say, "yeah, I thought it was water too" and just leave it at that. The way NASA acts though, you'd swear they would be shut-down for saying as much.

Who know's, perhaps it's Oak Matured Shiraz down there under the surface to perfectly accompany all the Chedar Cheese Moon Rocks.

You can only shake your head and wonder... Can someone pass me a cracker?

reply to post by StellarX

NASA Images Suggest Water Still Flows in Brief Spurts on Mars

NASA photographs have revealed bright new deposits seen in two gullies on Mars that suggest water carried sediment through them sometime during the past seven years.

"These observations give the strongest evidence to date that water still flows occasionally on the surface of Mars," said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program, Washington.

A new gully deposit in a crater in the Centauri Montes Region. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems


A new gully deposit in a crater in Terra Sirenum. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

"The shapes of these deposits are what you would expect to see if the material were carried by flowing water," said Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego. "They have finger-like branches at the downhill end and easily diverted around small obstacles." Malin is principal investigator for the camera and lead author of a report about the findings published in the journal Science.

The atmosphere of Mars is so thin and the temperature so cold that liquid water cannot persist at the surface. It would rapidly evaporate or freeze. Researchers propose that water could remain liquid long enough, after breaking out from an underground source, to carry debris downslope before totally freezing. The two fresh deposits are each several hundred meters or yards long.

Sources:
www.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...

Other links...

Water On Mars: Back to the Future?
The Camera That Found the Watery Evidence
The Mars Drilling Project
Upcoming Probes Will 'Follow the Water'
AUDIO REPORT: Mars May Be Dormant, Not Dead
Mars Water Could Sustain Human Colonies
A Wet Mars Will Keep NASA Busy


[edit on 19/12/2007 by internos]

reply to post by internos


I have posted extensively on why i believe there are very large standing bodies of water on Mars today and my reference to Zorgon was in relation to water on our Moon..

Thanks for all the effort and i am sure others will find benefit by it!

Stellar

They're great images Internos. I have seen them once before. I do have my reservations about them though - but that could equate to my lack of technical knowledge when it comes to taking pictures such as those. The earlier and later images in both instances appear identical except for the anomolies.

What are the chances of two images being taken at the exact same time of day (light and shadow appear very similar), from the exact same orbit (scale and focus appear very similar) and from the exact same position in orbit? The angle looks almost identical.

As I said, perhaps it's just me & my lack of tech knowledge - and they (NASA) can control those orbiters with the accuracy of a swiss clock.

If authentic, then it's definately an erruption of some type of fluid. There appears to be a dappling effect in the soil below which looks a lot like some of the dried up lake/Dam beds I've seen in Australia lately.

[edit on 20/12/07 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
As I said, perhaps it's just me & my lack of tech knowledge - and they (NASA) can control those orbiters with the accuracy of a swiss clock.

If authentic, then it's definately an erruption of some type of fluid. There appears to be a dappling effect in the soil below which looks a lot like some of the dried up lake/Dam beds I've seen in Australia lately.

Hi, InfaRedMan
The first thing to do, in order to be able to make further assestments,
is to track back the original map projected images: let's take the ones from Terra Sirenum, for example.

2001:
MOC narrow-angle image E11-03412
Crater north of Newton at 36.5 S 161.8 W
www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...

Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image E11-03412

Acquisition parameters
Image ID (picno): E11-03412
Image start time: 2001-12-22T04:52:58.12 SCET
Image width: 1024 pixels
Image height: 3968 pixels
Line integration time: 0.7231 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.51
Crosstrack summing: 2
Downtrack summing: 2
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: 6A (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 40 (decimal)

Derived values
Longitude of image center: 161.99°W
Latitude of image center: 36.58°S
Scaled pixel width: 2.93 meters
Scaled image width: 3.01 km
Scaled image height: 17.65 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 295.16°
Local True Solar Time: 13.56 decimal hours
Emission angle: 17.99°
Incidence angle: 24.65°
Phase angle: 21.33°
North azimuth: 93.68°
Sun azimuth: 31.54°
Spacecraft altitude: 374.61 km
Slant distance: 391.82 km

2005:
MOC narrow-angle image S09-02603
Monitor gullies and bright features in S05-01463 and E11-03412
www.msss.com...
www.msss.com...

Ancillary data for MOC narrow-angle image S09-02603

Image ID (picno): S09-02603
Image start time: 2005-08-26T03:29:46.82 SCET
Image width: 2048 pixels
Image height: 6656 pixels
Line integration time: 0.4821 millisec
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.14
Crosstrack summing: 1
Downtrack summing: 1
Compression type: MOC-PRED-X-5
Gain mode: 0A (hexadecimal)
Offset mode: 34 (decimal)
Derived values
Longitude of image center: 162.01°W
Latitude of image center: 36.59°S
Scaled pixel width: 1.44 meters
Scaled image width: 2.96 km
Scaled image height: 10.98 km
Solar longitude (Ls): 276.08°
Local True Solar Time: 14.12 decimal hours
Emission angle: 10.22°
Incidence angle: 29.60°
Phase angle: 20.10°
North azimuth: 94.37°
Sun azimuth: 18.24°
Spacecraft altitude: 374.20 km
Slant distance: 379.63 km

Shortly, we have to compare this one
www.msss.com...
with this one
www.msss.com...

A this point, we are able to notice that they are cropped areas from bigger images,
and most important, different ones
Almost all the data are at least slightly different, and almost all them affect more or less the appearance of the image.
Basically, they resized, rotated and decreased in contrast one of the two images in order to make match their angle and their general appearance for comparisons purposes.
Just to make a visual point, i cropped an area from each one of the two, without resizing, rotating etcetera:


This way to make a comparison, as we can see, doesn't make the point so well as the NASA's one


Maybe it would be usefull for the scientists, but much less for an "external observer": i mean that most likely NASA made this work on these two images in order to allow everyone to instantly notice these important differences.
Hope this helps

=================================================

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by internos

 

I have posted extensively on why i believe there are very large standing bodies of water on Mars today and my reference to Zorgon was in relation to water on our Moon..

Thanks for all the effort and i am sure others will find benefit by it!

Stellar

Yes, my bad (sorry ) of course my purpose was to remove the reference to your post in the moment i noticed you were referring to the Moon, but i've forget to do it.
You did an excellent work with your previous posts


[edit on 20/12/2007 by internos]