-
-
- Welcome to Part VII of this occasional series on the
27,000+ MSSS Mars photos that have been released to the WWW this summer.
I have some more links to Mars photos for you to browse below, but first
I want to say that I have received a good deal of e-mail concerning the
photos and my comments. The vast majority of it, even most of the few e-mails
that have been critical of my conclusions and/or methods, has been positive
in tone. So I am encouraged by the response.
-
- At the same time, some of the criticism has been rather
pointed. I am thinking of one e-mail, in this regard, that really took
me to task, in a very righteously indignant tone, for covering material
that Richard Hoagland has already (allegedly) talked about.
-
- Well.
-
- Let the record show that on 29 May 2000 I posted on my
personal website and on the "Sightings" website the first example
that I know of on any paranormal website, of a canyon or rill or stream
bed with the by-now familiar series of ripples, or dunes or dams or structural
"ribs" marching in neat rows across the bottom. I said that it
looked "rippled, washboarded".
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0104420.html
-
- Not until 7 June 2000, a full week and a half later,
did Richard Hoagland post on his website another example from the same
class of feature in another rill elsewhere on Mars. (He says that it is
a "glass tube" -- I have my doubts about his judgement of it
as a "glass tube", though I am fully prepared to consider the
possibility that this recurring class of feature might be artificial constructions
of some sort, made by someone or something unknown to us, for purposes
we do not presently understand. Or, equally, we may be looking at a natural
feature of some sort -- or perhaps some combination of the two. In my view,
we simply do not know enough at this point to make a definitive judgement
one way or the other.)
-
- Similarly, on 28 May 2000 I posted a link to a photo
that shows a pyramidal feature. I mused as to whether it might possibly
be an "eroded pyramid".
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0400334.html
-
- Hoagland's website also prominently mentions this feature,
but again, not until a full week and a half after I mentioned it on my
website and on the "Sightings" website.
-
- As for the question of the dark splotches on numerous
crater bottoms and stream bed channels and the very real possibility that
the myriad spots of which they are composed may possibly represent hitherto
unknown (by us) Martian life forms -- on this issue Hoagland has been silent.
I see no mention of it at all on his website.
-
- Similarly, on 17 June 2000 I posted the following image
and said that it appeared there were "seeps" or water "springs"
flowing from the cliffs.
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/mediummaps/M0402619.jpg
-
- That same week, just four days later, NASA and MSSS made
a surprise announcement that they had discovered more than 150 photographs
that showed evidence of possible water springs flowing from the sides of
crater and canyon walls. I noticed this precise phenomenon and revealed
it on my website and the "Sightings" website in advance of the
NASA/MSSS announcement. I had no knowledge of what they were about to announce.
It was all done in a hurry, with no prior notice. Richard Hoagland had
not mentioned the evidence of this particular phenomenon in the MSSS photos,
prior to the surprise announcement by NASA/MSSS. Had Hoagland talked about
water on Mars? -- sure, but then so had every other Tom, Dick and Harry.
But had he talked specifically about the evidence in the MSSS photos for
springs flowing from the sides of canyons and craters? No. Had he placed
links to MSSS photos showing such evidence on his website? No.
-
- Far from invading Richard Hoagland's territory without
proper attribution, I have independently looked at many Mars photos and
made observations which Hoagland has not made. I have also posted material
that he has subsequently mentioned, without, however, acknowledging my
prior posting. I would not even mention this were it not for the snooty
e-mail I received taking me to task for daring to declaim in Hoagland's
shadow.
-
- I have also been criticized for my comments about the
poor quality of the NASA/JPL/MSSS photography. I will endeavor to be faithful
to the criticism without reproducing the lengthy comments in their entirety.
As I understand it, the essential criticism is that "all digital experts
will tell you one can never critically judge a GIF or Jpeg for detail."
The writer continues, "Ö NEITHER, of these types of files can
be used for ANY kind critical analysis (sic)." The only analysis being
done should be through the unprocessed PDS .IMG or .IMQ formats, or in
other words, the ORIGINALS."
-
- And, the response continues, it is best left to imaging
experts and professionals, not to the likes of you or me, to pronounce
aloud our opinions on the internet, where, for goodness sakes, real people
might read them and actually think that things were not right on Mars and
that we might be being misled by NASA/JPL/MSSS. As the writer puts it,
"Otherwise, all we are adding to this mystery is unfounded speculation,
and muddied facts, and ruining the scientific approach that this should
be dealt with (sic)."
-
- The writer further points out that by enlarging imaging
files that are already inherently flawed, because of the pixelation that
occurs when data in a .jpeg file are compressed, an additional quantum
of error is introduced into the image.
-
- Well, let me simply say that I understand and appreciate
the basic points the writer makes. However, the entire discussion itself
would have never arisen were it not for the simple fact that a good number
of the images that MSSS have posted are blurry, out of focus, and have
atrocious contrast (and those are the ones you can actually see, still
other images are not even there at all, or are nearly, or totally blacked
out). In many cases the .GIF version of a given photograph is much larger
and detailed than the .JPEG version. However, in a number of cases the
reverse is true, and the .GIF image is much smaller and harder to see than
the .JPG image. When the images in question show possible suggestions of
rectilinear lines, rectangular features and right angles this naturally
raises questions as to possible artificiality.
-
- And so we have come full circle. Understanding that manipulation
of the digital image can introduce spurious data into the image, the question
naturally arises: do the observed rectilinear lines, rectangular features
and right angles observable in some photographs occur because a) they are
really, objectively there on Mars? or because b) they are artifacts of
the imaging process, i.e., pixelation introduced into the image that creates
an impression of geometrically regular detail that is not objectively real?
-
- I insist that this is a fair question. I have raised
it and will continue to raise it. It does not help that so many of the
photos are of such very poor quality. Why is this so? Technical glitches?
Perhaps that can explain some of it. However, there are also quite a good
number of crystal clear, extremely detailed photos -- which begs the question:
why are some photos so very, extremely clear and richly detailed, while
many others are so abysmally poor? The same digital cameras take them all
(there is after all, just the one satellite orbiting Mars). This my critic
does not address.
-
- And if digital image analysis should be left to the experts
and professionals, and not engaged in by mere "lay" people such
as you and me, then does that mean that you and I cannot call a crater
a crater, a rill a rill, a volcano a volcano, a dune a dune, a cliff a
cliff, an ancient river channel an ancient river channel, a straight line
a straight line, a rectangle a rectangle? And so forth?
-
- What nonsense! On to the photos.
-
-
- 1. http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0201270.html
-
- This one was sent to me by an alert reader. It has more
channels with the ripple-like "ribbing" or dunes in the bottom.
Click on the .gif image here to see greater detail of them. It's a big
file. The image will take a few minutes to load -- it's worth the wait.
-
- http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/nonmaps/M0201270.gif
-
- Here you can see clearly how the "ribbing"
or "dunes" or whatever these many parallel features really are,
begin more or less indistinctly, then take on a striking regularity. Approximately
50% down the page you can see that there is a distinct "path"-like
trace or trail visible along the edge of the surprisingly regular line
of features. (Is it a path or trail? If so, for whom or for what?) I do
not know what we are looking at here. A natural geological feature? Or
a parallel series of baffles, dams or narrow basins designed to catch/retain/slow/hold
in situ any precipitation or moisture that occurs in the locality? This
line of thinking is speculation on my part, but remember that NASA/MSSS
are now on record as believing in the possibility of occasional water flows
from the walls of some craters and canyons. Perhaps this phenomenon occurs
widely on Mars and this class of feature is created to take advantage of
occasional flows of water that may burst out in the vicinity of these depressions.
-
- Are these "ribs" themselves a life form, or
part of a life form? Perhaps a form of life that prefers the microclimate
in the bottoms of canyons and rills? Looking at them you have the feeling
that they somehow have something to do with a living creature-- maybe they
have been constructed after all -- maybe even by themselves, in an analogous
fashion to a coral reef or oyster shoal in a terrestrial marine environment-
remember we are dealing here with basins, cracks, rills and depressions
that were formerly (and maybe still occasionally are) wet environments!
(But I wouldn't want to get too carried away. My digital imaging critic
says that this kind of rank speculation by mere amateurs imperils the scientific
process.)
-
- Ain't Mars great! Are we having fun yet?
-
-
- 2. http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0305495.html
-
- Thanks to yet another alert reader for this wonderful
crater "splotch". It resembles other splotches featured in my
previous posts. There are many, many of these on Mars. What is nice about
this image is it provides another detailed .GIF file that zooms in nice
and close up.
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/nonmaps/M0305495.gif
-
- Give it a few minutes to load. And voila! More "Dalmatian
Spots". Gadzillions of them. Oodles and oodles of them. As in the
similar image from another crater that I featured in my previous post (Part
VI) you can once again see the tendency for the "spots" to cluster
in long rows, with other "spots" more or less randomly dispersed
between the rows. I see a possible analogue with terrestrial desert vegetation.
Anyone who has traveled in, lived in or flown over the American Southwest
knows that in the desert you will see long lines of vegetation along the
beds of arroyos. The arroyos have no water in them most of the time. But
they do sometimes flow with water for brief periods of time. In addition,
there may be water present in small amounts in the subsurface strata below
ground level -- the vegetation takes advantage of this water and thus follows
the course of the arroyo across the desert floor. Are we seeing something
similar on Mars? I think it's possible. My opinion is not a definitive
judgement as to the character of these highly interesting "spots",
but they certainly give me the feeling they may be alive.
-
- And here's another view of the same "splotch".
The same reader alerted me to this link.
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/images/M0300094.html
-
- Click on the wide angle image (the context photo on the
right) to enlarge it in your browser. Notice that the "splotch is
very neatly circumscribed. Now hit the back button on your browser and
click on the image on the left to enlarge it. Notice the same, obvious
linear arrangement of the "spots". Is the "splotch"
so neatly circumscribed, and do so many of the "spots" appear
in rows because they have, well, Ö well, because they have been planted
in rows? Might we be looking at Martian crops, growing in Martian fields?
Is that the proper terrestrial analog, perhaps more apt than the desert
arroyo analog?
-
- Click on this and let the image load. It will take a
few minutes. It is worth it.
-
- http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/nonmaps/M0300094.gif
-
- The more I look at this class of feature, which appears
with slight variations in many different craters (though not in all craters),
the more I am inclined to believe that the black spots may be Martian life
forms. I acknowledge that my belief may be erroneous, but I am inclined
to seriously consider the possibility.
-
-
-
- Next: "Sauder's Top Ten Mars Photos". Coming
soon on "Sightings"!
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|
