Martian Ventifacts or Martian Artifacts? What's Your Take on This?

to my knowledge..

Mars never had enough time and conditions for life as we know it to evolve..

I am not saying that microbiological life could not or is not present on the red planet..

only that looking for ancient relics or structures is only a waste of time...if people instead of wasting their time looking for such anomalies they invest the time in learning the history of Mars they would totally agree with me..

Mars had a ELE event in its early stages of development...making life impossible to evolve..research Mars canyon

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by smurfy
Rocks including sedimentary can absorb moisture, or perhaps re-absorb periodically in the case of Mars in certain areas. This is the Phoenix lander's legs in the early morning,

I know, that's why I said that I haven't seen any signs of moisture in the rocks or in the ground, because I have seen it on the photos from Phoenix.

I think that the lack of signs of moisture in the ground but visible on Phoenix (and, according to some people, on Curiosity's wheels) may be a result of different temperatures, as the metal from which the rovers and landers are made reacts to temperature in a different way, being a much better temperature conductor.

But they have found water frost on the ground, also at the Phoenix lander site.




This was an early morning frost, it had 'gone', (their words) by 6am. In the same area water cloud was also noticed, but at night the air dried out, and it is thought that the ground is absorbing the moisture.

Originally posted by heineken
Mars never had enough time and conditions for life as we know it to evolve.

How much time would microbial life need to evolve into complex life? Under Mars conditions? Would one or two billion years be enough? To my knowledge, we only know (to some extent) how it happened on Earth ...

I am not saying that microbiological life could not or is not present on the red planet..

only that looking for ancient relics or structures is only a waste of time...if people instead of wasting their time looking for such anomalies they invest the time in learning the history of Mars they would totally agree with me..

... then they might perhaps agree with you, either totally or to some extent

Mars had a ELE event in its early stages of development...making life impossible to evolve..research Mars canyon

That, too, should rather be interpreted as 'maybe impossible to evolve'. Apart from that, nobody says that potential relics or artifacts must have necessarily originated from life that was native to Mars. But, yes, they may as well be 'ventifacts', which would be the easier explanation while including less assumptions that require more evidence. It wouldn't explain the geometry very well but I'm just trying to keep an open mind ...

Originally posted by smurfy
But they have found water frost on the ground, also at the Phoenix lander site.



This was an early morning frost, it had 'gone', (their words) by 6am. In the same area water cloud was also noticed, but at night the air dried out, and it is thought that the ground is absorbing the moisture.

Yes, but did that frost melt and turn into moist or did it sublimate?

Those photos of frost in the ground do not show what happened next or how the frost got there, while the frost on Phoenix's legs looks like frozen drops like the ones I just saw on my refrigerator.

Photos taken after it do not show any effects of the possible moisture.

Originally posted by ArMaP

True, that's why I usually make three versions of every 3D image I make: a "cross-eye" stereogram, an anaglyph and an animated GIF.

Here go the cross-eye 3D versions of the features I selected. I used the MastCam 34 (left) and MastCam 100 (right) images for the stereo effect.

Quick tutorial for viewing cross-eye 3D images without 3D glasses:
- look at the center of the two images (the black line in each image set)
- slowly move your eyes inwards until you see a third image appearing in the middle
- focus either with eyes or by increasing/reducing distance from screen, until it's sharp

Feature 01
---------------------------------------------------


Feature 02
---------------------------------------------------


Feature 03
---------------------------------------------------


Feature 04 (divided in two parts)
---------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------
The left eye image has a reduced resolution and needed to be blown up to match the cropped right eye pic. It does add some depth, but I think the large 3D anaglyph version with more context is better suited for analyzing the details.

Hope this helps ... !

Originally posted by jeep3r
Apart from that, nobody says that potential relics or artifacts must have necessarily originated from life that was native to Mars.

That reminds me of the famous "Brookings report" (the real name is "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs"), because of one of the things it says:

4 . Though intelligent or semi-intelligent life conceivably exists elsewhere in our solar system, if intelligent extraterrestrial life is discovered in the next twenty years, it will very probably be by radio telescope from other solar systems. Evidences of its existence might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets.

It looks like we are not alone in thinking that looking through all those rocks it's a way of trying to find something about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Originally posted by jeep3r
It does add some depth, but I think the large 3D anaglyph version with more context is better suited for analyzing the details.

To me it's much better than an anaglyph, probably because the glasses I have do not use exactly the same colours as used in the images (they use a darker blue) or because my left eye doesn't see colours exactly in the same way as my right eye.

Hope this helps ... !

It does, thanks.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yep, absolutely! And it also ties in with my view that visual evidence is important and shouldn't be ignored. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for panoramic cameras on the rovers. Doing science and acquiring other data is probably the harder part, but it really has to go hand in hand ...

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by smurfy
But they have found water frost on the ground, also at the Phoenix lander site.



This was an early morning frost, it had 'gone', (their words) by 6am. In the same area water cloud was also noticed, but at night the air dried out, and it is thought that the ground is absorbing the moisture.

Yes, but did that frost melt and turn into moist or did it sublimate?

Those photos of frost in the ground do not show what happened next or how the frost got there, while the frost on Phoenix's legs looks like frozen drops like the ones I just saw on my refrigerator.

Photos taken after it do not show any effects of the possible moisture.

Apparently it did not sublimate, or most of it didn't and that the moisture was absorbed by the ground, that the moisture/ice seen on the lander's legs was attached to dust and dirt particles, (it does look like that in fact) same as on the ground, and that is but one region of Mars.
This link might help in part, but it's not the whole story, whatever that could be, and the only way to find that out is for men to go there and do exactly what they do on Earth, and even then?

www.space.com...

The whole story is really in flux, as is Mars itself, as is the Earth, as is the Solar System. Curiosity today is observing what Mars is doing today, and whatever it can glean from the historical record, and of course all the Flotsam and Jetsam from Earth is also there with an abiding French letter.

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by ArMaP

True, that's why I usually make three versions of every 3D image I make: a "cross-eye" stereogram, an anaglyph and an animated GIF.

Feature 01
---------------------------------------------------

Feature 02
---------------------------------------------------

Feature 03
---------------------------------------------------

Feature 04 (divided in two parts)
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
The left eye image has a reduced resolution and needed to be blown up to match the cropped right eye pic. It does add some depth, but I think the large 3D anaglyph version with more context is better suited for analyzing the details.

Hope this helps ... !

edit on 20-3-2013 by jeep3r because: text

edit on 20-3-2013 by jeep3r because: spelling

Thanks Jeep for that, although it is not actually working for me as my left eye is the weaker in astigmatism and makes for some curious effects here for me, with the background looking as if over the foreground, otherwise I have 20/20 corrected vision.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by jeep3r
Apart from that, nobody says that potential relics or artifacts must have necessarily originated from life that was native to Mars.

That reminds me of the famous "Brookings report" (the real name is "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs"), because of one of the things it says:

4 . Though intelligent or semi-intelligent life conceivably exists elsewhere in our solar system, if intelligent extraterrestrial life is discovered in the next twenty years, it will very probably be by radio telescope from other solar systems. Evidences of its existence might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets.

It looks like we are not alone in thinking that looking through all those rocks it's a way of trying to find something about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

An 'artifact left' in the positive means ET engineered, same as our Earth human astronauts have already left our engineering on the Moon, they are in fact ET's.
I'm not sure however, that the 'artifacts left' is wholly in context, "artifacts left at some point in time by these life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus." is the quote I have.

Hi jeep3r, I hate to be pedantic but you say this is in the Sol107 Mastcam archive , well I've just been through it and couldn't find it. I'm not implying that it isn't there but do you have any record of exactly which one it is?

reply to post by ArMaP


There're two points that play against my beliefs (ours in fact):

1.I can not see any geographic organization or spacial logic in the way these supposed evidences are spread on the ground. Their locations seem random wich may suggest they are rocks (or not ..);
I'd love to see a terrain map if these things marked to see how they relate to each other

2. The scale factor. It's hard to define the actual size of things and I think these objects are way too smaller than their earthly models.

Foods for thoughts only. Great topic. Please don't let it die too soon.

Originally posted by smurfy

Thanks Jeep for that, although it is not actually working for me as my left eye is the weaker in astigmatism and makes for some curious effects here for me, with the background looking as if over the foreground, otherwise I have 20/20 corrected vision.

Does the anaglyph version work for you? Just asking because I personally found it helpful and rather intriguing to see those features in 3D ...

Originally posted by Bigfoot73
Hi jeep3r, I hate to be pedantic but you say this is in the Sol107 Mastcam archive , well I've just been through it and couldn't find it. I'm not implying that it isn't there but do you have any record of exactly which one it is?

No probs. I also had difficulties finding the images, but they are there. Here go the links:

Mastcam RIGHT (100mm):
Features 1 & 4
Feature 2 Part 1 and Part 2
Feature 3

Mastcam LEFT (34mm):
Features 1 & 4
Feature 2
Feature 3

Please note that Mastcam 100 offers the better resolution. Also, in the Mastcam 100 images, feature 2 can only be found on two separate images, which would need to be stitched together in order to see the whole formation.

Source: NASA/JPL MastCam Archive for Sol 107

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by smurfy

Thanks Jeep for that, although it is not actually working for me as my left eye is the weaker in astigmatism and makes for some curious effects here for me, with the background looking as if over the foreground, otherwise I have 20/20 corrected vision.

Does the anaglyph version work for you? Just asking because I personally found it helpful and rather intriguing to see those features in 3D ...

Sorry, I was offline from yesterday. The anaglyph works fine, once I found the blue filter. Normally the other 3D pictures work fine, but it was the left cam blurring on those ones that affects the way my left eye wants to view it.

Thanks jeep3R I appreciate it. The100mm lens is far sharper and some of those features look more anomalous close-up on the originals.
I think too much is made of wind erosion (particularly as these days the atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and those are dust storms we see, not sandstorms) and muddy geological gloop doesn't account for much either.

Originally posted by Bigfoot73
I think too much is made of wind erosion (particularly as these days the atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and those are dust storms we see, not sandstorms) and muddy geological gloop doesn't account for much either.

So, do you think those strange shapes were made on purpose?

Originally posted by Bigfoot73

I think too much is made of wind erosion (particularly as these days the atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and those are dust storms we see, not sandstorms) and muddy geological gloop doesn't account for much either.

That's an interesting aspect, indeed.

What exactly does erosion do to surface features on Mars and what are the effects today? What were the effects in the remote past? I didn't find a lot on that subject, but there has been an analysis of the Pathfinder landing site with some further details regarding that particular area. Some of the findings also relate to the general geological history of Mars:

The observation that the Mars Pathfinder landing site looks very similar to its appearance after it was deposited by catastrophic floods around 1.8–3.5 Ga allows quantitative constraints to be placed on the rate of change of the site since that time. The abundance of erosional features such as an exhumed former soil horizon, sculpted wind tails, ripplelike and other lag deposits, and ventifacts (fluted and grooved rocks) all suggest the site has undergone net deflation or loss of 3–7 cm of material (...)

Most ventifacts probably formed soon after the catastrophic flood, which likely introduced a large, fresh supply of sand-size particles distributed across the rocky plain.

Source:
Erosion rates on Mars and implications for climate change: Constraints from the Pathfinder landing Site (Abstract), M. P. Golombek N. T. Bridges, Journal of Geophysical Research (Volume 105, Issue E1, pages 1841–1853, 25 January 2000)

Apparently, detailed geological analysis makes it possible to draw conclusions from what rocks look like today in order to argue what must have happened to them over the aeons, all the way back to the Hesperian period on Mars. From that perspective, Bigfoot73 would probably be right when saying that the erosional effects during most of the Amazonian Period on Mars was rather limited.

Ultimately, it's difficult to say exactly when these particular features had been formed, deposited or left behind. But it seems they could have been lying there for a very long time.