Martian earthworks and parallel tracks.

There are strange blacked-out areas however, unless you have a program which can see inside blackness, I do not think we are going to get any further on those.

Erik, I fully accept that it is possible to make 'deep' marks in flour or sand with a RC vehicle. I do not dispute your explanation. It does not explain how these marks came into being on Mars, so although it is a valid experiment, it may not offer a realistic explanation for these earthworks.

However, I cannot see how the rovers would make these kind of tracks - firstly since the images I posted appear to have very deep tracks if they are made by the rover, secondly, I do not see any manouver which could create the black and white earth movement. It would need the rover to have a JCB bucket on the front to make that kind of shaped earthwork. I feel that you are being totally unrealistic saying that the rover made these marks - particularly the B & W one on the plain below.

Of course, as with any of this stuff, I could be wrong, but I still think it is unlikely these earthworks are made by the rover. There is no evidence of any previous deep tracks which go around in a circle and there are other instances of earthworks which appear to be unexplained as well. I will try and find them to post here.

The image details acording to the url analysis.
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
produces this analysis

Rover Spirit
Sol 1763
Site AZ
Camera Navcam
This is version 1 of a photograph produced for M - MIPL (OPGS) at JPL on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 GMT at 14:42 which is Sol 1763.
It was taken with the Navcam instrument, through the Left camera, using no filter on the Mars Rover Spirit.

The map showing where Spirit was at that time is here so looking at that I guess it would be looking down into the crater Home Plate.
I am trying to find another view of these or other earthmovements.

reply to post by qmantoo

However, I cannot see how the rovers would make these kind of tracks - firstly since the images I posted appear to have very deep tracks if they are made by the rover, secondly, I do not see any manouver which could create the black and white earth movement.

The rovers sometimes intentionally produce scuff marks in order to better analyze soil and rock conditions. It is done by change from forward to reverse, repeatedly.

Then Opportunity rolled back, scuffed the soil, and drove 55 meters (180 feet) closer to "Beagle Crater." The scuff helps scientists and engineers analyze how the wheels interact with the soil.

www.spaceref.com...

marsrover.nasa.gov...

Here's an image from Sol 2163. Scuffing in circles. I think that is what you are concerned about.
marsrover.nasa.gov...

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Martian Bocce ball O.

I was thinking they look like evaporated puddles but that would be more far fetched to some folks.

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

Martian Bocce ball O.

I was thinking they look like evaporated puddles but that would be more far fetched to some folks.

clearly the rover knows how to dance and jump...

The rovers sometimes intentionally produce scuff marks in order to better analyze soil and rock conditions. It is done by change from forward to reverse, repeatedly.

So, Phage, do you think these are rover 'scuffing' marks?
Maybe you can point out where on the map I linked previously marks where this 'scuffing' area is. What Sol and where in the daily log it mentions this 'scuffing' going on?

Personally, I think this is a load of codswallop which NASA is giving us. How many miles worth of tracks could they photograph if they needed to analyse the different conditions? They have forward cameras and backwards cameras, plus many photos with tracks in them which can be analysed by the scientists. No, I dont think these are rover tracks - however much you may tell us.

It is strange how everyone is offering different 'factoids' about things which are periphery to the main point of the thread. NOT whether these are rover tracks but just about everything else they can desperately think of. Many on this thread seem to be rather like politicians answering other questions and not the one asked.

Originally posted by jhn7537
So what am i looking at?

More pictures of rocks on Mars....

a simple rover pic pointing to this site would close the arguments when the rover was there...

reply to post by qmantoo

So, Phage, do you think these are rover 'scuffing' marks?

Yes

Maybe you can point out where on the map I linked previously marks where this 'scuffing' area is.

No I can't. The map you linked doesn't show sol 2171.

What Sol and where in the daily log it mentions this 'scuffing' going on?

The available logs don't cover every activity.

They have forward cameras and backwards cameras, plus many photos with tracks in them which can be analysed by the scientists.

Yes, but the cameras don't show what lies just beneath the surface. For example:
qt.exploratorium.edu...

It is strange how everyone is offering different 'factoids' about things which are periphery to the main point of the thread. NOT whether these are rover tracks but just about everything else they can desperately think of.

On the contrary. These are rover tracks.

OK, so this is the rover doing one of these scuffing activities?

Somehow I just cannot see the scientists planning a scuffing activity and in the image above, there is an area of 'scuffing' around the rock in the foreground. There is also an area of 'scuffing' over to the right too. Are both of those the rovers doing too?

Really I have to stretch my imagination to visualise the scientists acting like boy-racers on a beach.

Where are the images of all these tracks in close-up so that they can actually see the composition of the soil? This one above is mainly 'scuffing' on rocks so they probably did not get much from that little experiment.

This one here has such a distance between 'scuffing' areas that I think even you Phage could not admit this is the rover doing this.

reply to post by qmantoo

qt.exploratorium.edu...
qt.exploratorium.edu...

On rock:
marsrover.nasa.gov...

this has nothing whatever to do with these different areas of 'scuffing' which I reckon the rovers are not creating. It wont just go away however many images of tracks and soil you give us. There are many, many different examples of this ground disturbance, far too many for NASA to be doing crazy circles and then analysing the soil underneath. It costs thousands each minute in salaries and communications services, why would they waste their time on this kind of experiment?

I think there is a war going on between two different species and one routs out the other and destroys the city/civilisation. This is what is being shown in these photos not evidence for a bunch of speed-crazy scientists.

From your link above

The image on the right, taken by the rover's navigation camera on sol 51, shows the rock post-scuff. In this image, it is apparent that Opportunity scratched the surface of "Carousel" and deposited dirt that it was carrying in its wheel rims.

that is another stretch - what...the rover reached around and scooped up some dirt in its wheel rims and then deposited it onto the rock "carousel" so the scientists could take a picture of it? They have no idea where it came from, or when, just that they found it in their wheel rim. Science likes to tag and bag everything so the thought of not knowing these facts is inconceivable.

reply to post by qmantoo

I think there is a war going on between two different species and one routs out the other and destroys the city/civilisation.

Ok. But I sure hope the rovers don't end up as collateral damage.

This is what is being shown in these photos not evidence for a bunch of speed-crazy scientists.

The rovers aren't real fast. Not exactly NASCAR.

They have no idea where it came from, or when, just that they found it in their wheel rim.

Who said they have no idea where it came from? It's dirt. Try driving your car through loose dirt. I bet you get some in your rims.

Originally posted by qmantoo

Rocks.
More Rocks.
And Erosion (ancient water, wind, sun, etc: erosion comes in many forms).
There are plenty of natural formations on earth that look artificial simply because we are used to comparing them to artificial means, but that doesn't meant they are.
The sandworms did it.

And here we have some kind of intellectual reasoning to show us that there is a thinking person behind this post ?

Firstly, ANCIENT water is not likely to have left us with a structure like this. Wind, sun cannot cause the soil to be moved in this way on Mars. Maybe you actually give it a small amount of thought and tell us what, in your opinion, you think may have caused this soil disturbance?

Secondly, we are not talking about conditions on Earth since the wind, water and other earth erosion mechanisms have a far stronger effect here than on Mars.

So, now what can you contribute to the discussion ...."sandworms did it" ? I hope you did not go to university to learn this discussion skill, if so then you may have wasted your money.

Actually, it is intellectual reasoning. It's much more likely scenario that millions of years of harsh conditions produce such an effect than say, some machines (not made by humans) that are or once were roving around or that there are inhabitants there.

In the first photo I do not see unnatural soil disturbances. I see rocks protruding out of the ground in various formations. The "tracks," if I'm looking at what you mean to say are tracks, are a small ridge of rocks and only that. The second image is only through geologic processes (heat, pressure, time, erosion, etc).

Natural geologic processes, all of them.

No, we aren't talking about conditions on earth. But it's likely to be an accurate hypothesis that the mechanism by which erosion and natural geologic processes occur over a long period of time, when there is a similar means (wind, water, heat), even in a different environment (Mars versus Earth), would also be similar among similar compounds (rocks, etc).

As far as worms, you're the one who mentioned them in your OP. I'm simply having fun with that, and was not supposed to be a discussion skill. What did I contribute to the discussion? In short, which I already mentioned: some type of erosion and/or geologic process.

Certainly likely NOT an extraterrestrial rover or Martians.

Certainly likely NOT an extraterrestrial rover or Martians.

so these are not rover tracks at all but natural formations. I see.

It's much more likely scenario that millions of years of harsh conditions produce such an effect

Not harsh conditions if you are an alien - only if you are a human. Start thinking outside the ordinary, and it is obvious that if there were any aliens at all, then they would not need oxygen, water, etc since these are specific to a fewer number of 'rocks' in the universe than are other compounds.

Depending on their home planet and the conditions there, they may have exoskeletons which could easily survive what humans could not tolerate.

Where is the evidence for this harsh environment you see? I see no weathering, no rounded corners I see sharp edges, I see pillars holding up rocks which should have been eroded by wind and any 'harsh' environments on Mars.
I see sandstorms but I see no erosion from sand.

The second image is only through geologic processes (heat, pressure, time, erosion, etc).

All these can work both ways. I see no evidence in the rocks on the ground for any of these. Show me how you arrive at this conclusion - other than parroting what NASA has said in their publicity and press briefings.

reply to post by qmantoo


When we say "Harsh Environment" we mean conditions in which most life here on Earth would have a hard time living in.

Mars atmosphere is very low in pressure. Averages at 0.636 kPa. Air pressure that low means that water would boil at a temperature of -37 deg F or -38 deg C.

Every living organism on Earth requires water in liquid form, and that is impossible, at least on the surface of Mars.

Now, I know that is for living organisms here on Earth. Who is to say what other living organisms from other planets might require? It may not be the same as what we see here on Earth.

However, that is the problem: we do not know of ANY OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS. We only have one template to go by as far as life is concerned, and that is life here on Earth. Until we discover life off of this planet, we do not have anything else to compare it to.

We do know however, that "Earth like conditions" once existed on Mars. Because of that, they are hoping that it may be possible that "Earth like life" may have formed and existed on Mars at one time. But, with the way Mars is now, that life would not survive on the surface very easily.

Is it possible that life did develop there and adapted? That is a possibility.
Is it possible that life developed under different conditions on other planets that require different environments, for example, Mars as it is today would be just fine for them? That is a possibility.

However, those things are also HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. We have no proof. No evidence at all that they do exist. We only have speculation that life in places other than Earth should exist based upon things that we do know:

1) There are a staggering number of stars and planets in the universe.
2) Due to that staggering number, the odds of life forming on only one planet (Earth) in the entire universe is highly unlikely.
3) Life (at least here on Earth) is very tenacious. Life here is made from the most common elements that are also the most abundant in the universe.

And that is all we actually know. Until we actually find something that is not like anything here on Earth, or we can sample and who's DNA does not match anything here on Earth, we simply do not have anything to compare it too.

Having a photograph of something and saying it MUST be "A" or "B", with no room for discussion of in between, is incorrect thinking. It's being as "closed minded" as you are accusing others of being.
Pointing to something in a photograph and insisting that is MUST have been made by a ET source, and being unwilling to entertain other explanations again, is just as closed minded as those you accuse. Worse, since insisting that it MUST be the way you say it is does not have any scientific basis what so ever, but only HIGH speculation on your part.

Insisting that others are "parroting NASA" for explanations of things you show, again shows closed mindedness and ignorance on your part. Humans have been studying Mars since well before NASA was a gleam in anyone's eyes. Even today the red planet is studied by people other than NASA, and their findings (planet geology, atmospheric make up, etc) are the same.

Several times you've been offered a way to test certain things yourself, but you either ignore it, or dismiss it. Like the Rover's speed. You've been told time and again, the Rovers do not move that fast, and yet can still make tracks like you're seeing, and I even suggested a way for you to test this yourself, so that you can either confirm what we are saying..........or show us that we are wrong. Instead, you wave it away, and still say they are moving fast, like a dune buggy on a beach I believe you suggested.

Being curious about things on Mars is great. Wondering what something is, is wonderful. Questioning official explanations is fine too.

But dismissing things out of hand, and refusing to even do the same research or tests that have been suggested to you, simply because they do not conform to how YOU think things are?.........

....that is just as closed minded as all those you accuse of being.

You've done this with the water cycle for Mars, the atmosphere and winds of Mars, and now the Rover tracks.

Why not instead use the Scientific Method?

1) Ask a question.
2) Formulate a theory to answer it.
3) Design a experiment to test that theory.
4) Do the experiment and record the results.
5) Do the experiment again to make sure you get the same results.
6) Come to a conclusion and share it with others, so that they may also do the same to confirm your results.

Is the above so hard? So hard that you insist on putting yourself into a closed box of "belief" and insist that it MUST be the way YOU say based only on photographs and what you think something IS simply because you "believe" it MUST be that way?

are thous NASA guys drinking on the job? Yea we knew it all along aliens cant drive.
Hey bob bet i can make the rover do donuts . Your on fred .

However, that is the problem: we do not know of ANY OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS. We only have one template to go by as far as life is concerned, and that is life here on Earth. Until we discover life off of this planet, we do not have anything else to compare it to.

There are plenty of organisms which do not need oxygen and plenty of organisms which live in harsh environments. At the bottom of the sea and in our bodies. We have plenty of weird and wonderful species on Earth which we keep on discovering. Yes, they are all carbon-based if that is what you mean, so we have no life forms based on other atoms.

We do know however, that "Earth like conditions" once existed on Mars. Because of that, they are hoping that it may be possible that "Earth like life" may have formed and existed on Mars at one time. But, with the way Mars is now, that life would not survive on the surface very easily.

It all boils down to the fact that NASA is not really looking for life on Mars at all. If theye were then they would investigate everything which looks strange and find out what it is. But they dont, all they do is to photograph and document it and then show us the compressed-to-death images they have taken. Explain that then.

Having a photograph of something and saying it MUST be "A" or "B", with no room for discussion of in between, is incorrect thinking. It's being as "closed minded" as you are accusing others of being.
Pointing to something in a photograph and insisting that is MUST have been made by a ET source, and being unwilling to entertain other explanations again, is just as closed minded as those you accuse. Worse, since insisting that it MUST be the way you say it is does not have any scientific basis what so ever, but only HIGH speculation on your part.

Of course it is hightly speculative and way out there by scientific standards because NASA dont give us anything to go on. If they released the same quality images they are getting, then we could at least have a fighting chance at determining what these things are.

Even today the red planet is studied by people other than NASA, and their findings (planet geology, atmospheric make up, etc) are the same.

Yes, yet the Indians have not released 40,000+ images they took and the Chinese have not released theirs to the world in a public PDS-like form. Japan's JAXA images are really pretty terrible too and only mostly good for fly-by creations. So their findings ARE the same load of compressed rubbish we get from NASA. yes.

Instead, you wave it away, and still say they are moving fast, like a dune buggy on a beach I believe you suggested.

No, I said that NASA must have been driving it like a dune buggy on a beach in order for these marks to have been made by the rover BUT you and I both know they dont go anything like that fast. Dont misquote me to suit your argument please.

On one hand you say that Earth conditions are different from Mars and on the other hand you say do experoiments here to prove hypothesis. Where are the scietists doing this to find out what causes rilles, triangular craters, double craters, multiple craters with one crater inside and at the centre of the other?

Whats this? A Thread about rocks? This calls for a Geologist!

STAND ASIDE! *holds Geologists hammer aloft*

Ok sorry

Ok first of all there is nothing there than cannot be explain by nature, if not now but in the past, bear in mind the rocks you are looking at may be BILLIONS of years old, here on earth we have rocks that we can date to around four billion years. Picture the enormity of time between their creation and their exposure.

Now the thing about rocks is, nature carves them into every shape and size you can imagine, take the columnar basalt at the giants causeway in Ireland:



Scotland:



And all over the world, seen here in California:



Now from a distance they looked like carved pillars of some sort of temple, but in reality are the result of perfectly natural geologic processes.



Its not just simple geometric shapes, there are rocks outcrops that look like faces, houses and all sorts, all the result of nature roughing things up, smashing and carving its canvas to its will.

If you imagine it, there is a rock that looks like it, there is even a series of events that can cause rocks to shear off that look like building blocks (much to the chagrin of Archaeologists I am sure).

So even if we saw something that looked like a wall of blocks with cement holding it together, in reality it could just be broken up rocks with properties that favor rectangular shapes, cemented together with infilled sediment.

Don't get me wrong, I want their to be life on mars, but the evidence in my mind will come from analysis of the rocks and soil and their content. The area the rover touched down is once believed to have had water flow, so the area is ideal for fossils. However the time needed to find even one may be far beyond the working life of the rover, and NASA has other analysis to do and rightly so.

What you REALLY need are a team of Geologists up there, beards stuffed awkwardly into space helmets hammering away at the outcrops to see what they can see.

Surface fossil evidence is dependent on the rocks, any fossils present may be covered in dust, eroded to the point of not even being recognizable as fossils, or just plain not identifiable to our understanding. I have (had) the most awesome Ammonite fossil I pulled out of a stream here in Scotland. But a few rough moves about (was not as gentle as i should have been) and dry air has caused the slate to pretty much disintegrate and shear off in layers as is its nature thus destroying my fossil.

But yeah, if you can imagine it, I can probably find you a rock that looks like it.

Sorry.

Originally posted by rocksandstuff
Whats this? A Thread about rocks? This calls for a Geologist!

Scotland:



And all over the world, seen here in California:



Now from a distance they looked like carved pillars of some sort of temple, but in reality are the result of perfectly natural geologic processes.

The sad thing is if photos like these were taken on Mars some people here would start a thread with a title something like

PROOF!!!!!!!! Martian temple found on Mars!!!!!!!!!!

Then show a picture with coloured crayon markings and arrows all over it.