Simulations Show Liquid Water Could Exist on Mars / New Phoenix Lander results

3488 · Aug 2, 2008

Hi Ron,Jon Clarke suggested on the Phoenix thread in M&L that possibly liquid water has been found. If so IMO, the water muct have an extremely high salinity to remain liquid under those conditions. Like your continuing work here. Please your amazing imagey coming.Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

rlb2 · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Ron,Jon Clarke suggested on the Phoenix thread in M&L that possibly liquid water has been found. If so IMO, the water muct have an extremely high salinity to remain liquid under those conditions. Like your continuing work here. Please your amazing imagey coming.Andrew Brown.  Posted by 3488</DIV>Thanks Andrew, I appreciate your informative updates - keep those coming. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

rlb2 · Aug 7, 2008

New Mars worm movie I made from Phoenix microscopic imager from images posted for sol 70.Ice-worm/nematode/bacterium or none of the above, you decide???Images have different lighting and some apparent sublimation appears to be going on, nerveless I thought I would share it with you... Watch worm like object move in circled area -  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/9/9cc575fa-4eed-4187-b9d2-f71215f1b30d.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="305" height="264" /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrBgoRBRJw  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

silylene old · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>New Mars worm movie I made from Phoenix microscopic imager from images posted for sol 70.Ice-worm/nematode/bacterium or none of the above, you decide???Images have different lighting and some apparent sublimation appears to be going on, nerveless I thought I would share it with you... Watch worm like object move in circled area -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrBgoRBRJw Posted by rlb2</DIV> Hello rlb2, Interesting.  There are a couple of other positions also showing 'movement'.  However, in the other two locations, it is clear that this 'movement' is due to lighting changes and/or a particle moving slightly.  The putative 'worm' to me looks more like lighting changes combined with the chance movement of one particle in the center of the 'worm'... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

rlb2 · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hello rlb2, Interesting.  There are a couple of other positions also showing 'movement'.  However, in the other two locations, it is clear that this 'movement' is due to lighting changes and/or a particle moving slightly.  The putative 'worm' to me looks more like lighting changes combined with the chance movement of one particle in the center of the 'worm'... Posted by silylene</DIV>Hy silylene, if it is something that is alive - I hope it isn’t a passenger from Earth.  It is kind of funny how most people perceive things. For instance extremafiles such as ice-worms live in extreme environment, when we pick them up in our hand they melt from the warmth of our hands, they shriveling up and die. This is because they cant live in an environment warmer than 10C - direct sunlight can kill them. A similar fate happens to a lot of extremafiles.  Some extremafiles live in an anaerobic (without air- oxygen) such as some microorganisms that anaerobic reduce perchlorates. This all happens and yet we call them extremafiles, to them we live in an extreme environment and the funny thing about it is they were here first…   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

thor06 · Aug 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hy silylene, if it is something that is alive - I hope it isn’t a passenger from Earth.  It is kind of funny how most people perceive things. For instance extremafiles such as ice-worms live in extreme environment, when we pick them up in our hand they melt from the warmth of our hands, they shriveling up and die. This is because they cant live in an environment warmer than 10C - direct sunlight can kill them. A similar fate happens to a lot of extremafiles.  Some extremafiles live in an anaerobic (without air- oxygen) such as some microorganisms that anaerobic reduce perchlorates. This all happens and yet we call them extremafiles, to them we live in an extreme environment and the funny thing about it is they were here first…   Posted by rlb2</DIV>Hi rlb,    I'm still fascinated by these images and videos.I think/hope it is just a matter of time before we get proof of life.  I agree with Jeter in the Phoenix thread, it would be so cool if you found a critter, and Ron Bennet became ubiquidous with Martian life. PS: is there a thread for the natural gas/energy beam tech from your web site?  also fascinating.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

nimbus · Aug 9, 2008

IMO rlb is just begging the question.  I'll consider his hypothesies when he's gotten in touch with some of the mars rover/probe scientists and gotten neutral/positive feedback from them about those hypothesies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rlb2 · Aug 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi rlb,    I'm still fascinated by these images and videos.I think/hope it is just a matter of time before we get proof of life.  I agree with Jeter in the Phoenix thread, it would be so cool if you found a critter, and Ron Bennet became ubiquidous with Martian life. PS: is there a thread for the natural gas/energy beam tech from your web site?  also fascinating.. Posted by thor06</DIV>Thanks.I posted a Beamed Energy thread at SDC message board before the July 2004 crash. A lot has happened since then, a new urgency towards conserving energy and global warming. There have been some new developments and I have tried to stay on top of them, boy wouldn’t T. Boone Pickens, natural gas proposal, like this idea.  Today the Japanese and other countries are seriously thinking of large scale solar collectors in space. Using Beamed renewable and non renewable energy would be safer and cost a lot less than the Japanese Solar proposal. With new lasers, much less size of energy collection or reflecting device would be needed and more than one monochromic beam can be used, combed lasers, at the same time. All you would be doing is reflecting it back to earth; beamed spread may be more manageable today. A link to a 2005 updated paper I wrote for Project Engineering/Creative writing class in college in 2003 is here: http://www.ipower.com/member/download.cmp?filename=/home/users/web/b2494/ipw.shineinn/Beam_Wasted_Energy.htmNo I am not that young, I went back to get another engineering degree after working for Boeing for over 20 years. I’m going to check my archive, I made some AutoCAD rendered 3D drawings with my original paper, and I will post it as soon as I find it. Some of the ideas from the proposal need updating like type of beamed energy used, a duel purpose Proposition to propel solar sails therefore share the cost with such government agencies as NASA, etc, etc. I will start a new Post on this subject and notify you. When I first proposed it in 2003 energy was real cheap. Now it is a whole different ballgame. I even made a space-tether CAD drawing where the solar concentrator device unfurls above the atmosphere, once at geostationary orbit it then cuts loose from the tether to accelerate out towards Mars or Jupiter. Here are a couple AutoCAD rendered drawing I made below.  My new website, Shine Innovations, is here:http://www.shineinnovations.com<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/6/48e0027a-b8ae-4207-a61d-bc6aedc97601.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="232" height="133" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/4/5783b1e7-1e4f-4f6d-b4d6-43cfd21561d1.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="208" height="135" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/7/8dbaa9f1-1b91-45a5-974e-5040062b3e6e.Medium.png" alt="" width="201" height="133" />  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

rlb2 · Aug 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO rlb is just begging the question.  I'll consider his hypothesies when he's gotten in touch with some of the mars rover/probe scientists and gotten neutral/positive feedback from them about those hypothesies. Posted by nimbus</DIV>Thanks a lot everyone but it is still too early in the process to know what is going on however I can’t wait to see who gets the credit for this one, if I am right. I found the sublimation of water ice at the Phoenix site and showed proof a week before they did, and all I got for it was no reply. My life is too short and so is Phoenix’s to go through the normal channels and wait sometimes months for a reply…   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

thor06 · Aug 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks.I posted a Beamed Energy thread at SDC message board before the July 2004 crash. A lot has happened since then, a new urgency towards conserving energy and global warming. There have been some new developments and I have tried to stay on top of them, boy wouldn’t T. Boone Pickens, natural gas proposal, like this idea.  Today the Japanese and other countries are seriously thinking of large scale solar collectors in space. Using Beamed renewable and non renewable energy would be safer and cost a lot less than the Japanese Solar proposal. With new lasers, much less size of energy collection or reflecting device would be needed and more than one monochromic beam can be used, combed lasers, at the same time. All you would be doing is reflecting it back to earth; beamed spread may be more manageable today. A link to a 2005 updated paper I wrote for Project Engineering/Creative writing class in college in 2003 is here: http://www.ipower.com/member/download.cmp?filename=/home/users/web/b2494/ipw.shineinn/Beam_Wasted_Energy.htmNo I am not that young, I went back to get another engineering degree after working for Boeing for over 20 years. I’m going to check my archive, I made some AutoCAD rendered 3D drawings with my original paper, and I will post it as soon as I find it. Some of the ideas from the proposal need updating like type of beamed energy used, a duel purpose Proposition to propel solar sails therefore share the cost with such government agencies as NASA, etc, etc. I will start a new Post on this subject and notify you. When I first proposed it in 2003 energy was real cheap. Now it is a whole different ballgame. I even made a space-tether CAD drawing where the solar concentrator device unfurls above the atmosphere, once at geostationary orbit it then cuts loose from the tether to accelerate out towards Mars or Jupiter. Here are a couple AutoCAD rendered drawing I made below.  My new website, Shine Innovations, is here:http://www.shineinnovations.com Posted by rlb2</DIV> This is great, thank you.  I appreciate your caution regarding the "anomlies" in the micro images.  I think it keeps even the most skeptical around to see what the end result might be.    The natural gas energy idea is so neat.  I remeber when BP built the TROLL gas drilling platform, the cost was in the billons.  Include a power plant on the next one and beam the electricity up, then down to anywhere in the hemisphere.  No ship(LNG ships are a little scary), no pipeline, no "don't build a power plant in my backyard".         You are forward thinking, a true innovator. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

nimbus · Aug 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks a lot everyone but it is still too early in the process to know what is going on however I can’t wait to see who gets the credit for this one, if I am right. I found the sublimation of water ice at the Phoenix site and showed proof a week before they did, and all I got for it was no reply. My life is too short and so is Phoenix’s to go through the normal channels and wait sometimes months for a reply…   Posted by rlb2</DIV>I really doubt you had better interpretations of their data than they did, and this sooner than they did.  They just like to go further in their asymptotical approach of certainty, since the govt/public is paying them, and they have more reputation at stake than an internet forum username's..You find some interesting stuff (like the standing dust patterns) but jump way too fast to conclusions.  An image artifact isn't a water bear, some shadow tricks and lint aren't worms or signs of life... With all due respect..m.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rlb2 · Aug 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is great, thank you.  I appreciate your caution regarding the "anomlies" in the micro images.  I think it keeps even the most skeptical around to see what the end result might be.    The natural gas energy idea is so neat.  I remeber when BP built the TROLL gas drilling platform, the cost was in the billons.  Include a power plant on the next one and beam the electricity up, then down to anywhere in the hemisphere.  No ship(LNG ships are a little scary), no pipeline, no "don't build a power plant in my backyard".         You are forward thinking, a true innovator. Posted by thor06</DIV>Thanks for the kind words. Here is the new post in the Technology section, I look foward to continuing this discussion about the pros and cons of a Space Based Beamed Energy Proposal.http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a8bb00402-3c25-402b-8f45-b62faa6a11d9Forum%3acdb5bb05-7ac3-460a-bbcb-6a96b863ed32Discussion%3aba2fb25d-362c-4a1f-a8c8-566ca56646c0&plckCurrentPage=0&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

rlb2 · Aug 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really doubt you had better interpretations of their data than they did, and this sooner than they did. They just like to go further in their asymptotical approach of certainty, since the govt/public is paying them, and they have more reputation at stake than an internet forum username's....You find some interesting stuff (like the standing dust patterns) but jump way too fast to conclusions.  An image artifact isn't a water bear, some shadow tricks and lint aren't worms or signs of life... With all due respect..m.  Posted by nimbus</DIV>_________________________________________________________________I really doubt you had better interpretations of their data than they did, and this sooner than they did. I posted some work of movement in the soil of the microscopic images from the sol 4 microscopic images back on June 16,th and tried in vain to notify other people in the phoenix program of the importance of finding movement in the microscopic imager images that may back up future claims of water sublimation and/or life. If you going to make a extraordinary claim then its best to have more than just one set of evidence.... It took them a month after June 16th to post more microscopic images on sol 52.I made over 3,000 color images from the MER raw images, that is not an easy task to do. No I didn't work for them, just overcome with curiosity. So I do somewhat know what I am doing. The sublimation at the Phoenix lander I found first and I can back that up with evidence, I even showed them how to do it however they would have eventually found it, it was right under their noses............ The learning curve at the MER rover site has been over 4 years, they can learn a lot from people who worked on that program such as the importance of shooting certain images for movement of soil, stuck wheel, dust movement, burred salts, etc, etc. in Phoenixs case the use of the robotic arm. Phoenix has a very short time to go through a similar learning curve before the mission is over. I didn't claim to have a better interpretation than they do, I said on numerous occasions that they hold most of the cards...Their holding most the cards but they promised that they would release more information for wider amount of peer reviews streamlining the process.. They just like to go further in their asymptotical approach of certainty, since the govt/public is paying them, and they have more reputation at stake than an internet forum username's..I agree with that and never claimed otherwise, however most of us here are more than just some user name....You find some interesting stuff (like the standing dust patterns) but jump way too fast to conclusions.  An image artifact isn't a water bear, some shadow tricks and lint aren't worms or signs of life... With all due respect..m.  Now please read my posts very carefully before you jump to a conclusion about me jumping to conclusion, I never claimed such. I said, On another note, this is strictly a hypothetical thought and nothing more, about a segmented animals species know as a water bear, Tardigrade, ... It probably is explainable in a traditional since but if not, with other scientific confirmations, we may now have a real opportunity to expand the boundaries of the existence of life outside this pebble we call home.... I am just posting what I found here with some comments like I have been doing for over 4 years from what I found at the MER sites. If most of the people here wants me to stop then I can easily pick up my marbles and go play somewhere else...................  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

nimbus · Aug 12, 2008

Finding hints of "movement" in that set of pictures.. Fine.  Making the link to worms is pushing it.  Same with the water bears.  Remember what happened to the polar bear in the very early reconaissance pics from Phoenix?  It's gone, and yet everyone could "see" something there..  An apparent digital artifact just doesn't start being peculiar till it repeats in enough different pics, preferably under different conditions.  Michael Mozina was pretty stuck (with all due respect) to some similar digital instrumentation glitch that bled pixels in a sinusoidal variance, at cardinal directions from planets passing in the field of view of one of the Soho (I think) cameras.  It's like someone seeing lens flare for the first time speculating he's caught an alien tractor beam on camera...User name reputations.. : Unless you're very well known publicly, I think you can get away with a whole lot of borderline posts on some forum on the internet.  I just don't think someone on a top level govt science team who either contributes to or actualy presents their science in front of cameras, and as such are the face of the whole team and indirectly of the whole organisation, is under the same standards as someone posting anything less than outright crankish on a small (proportional to e.g. NASA TV's or CNN's audience, when the findings are major) public forum with zero rules besides some peer pressure...  You don't stand to lose anywhere as much for as little as some of the unfortunate slip-ups or misunderstandings that can happen to someone on the Phoenix team with national TV cameras pointed at their face.I see that you're not jumping to any conclusions... But come on, water bears and nematodes?  Unless we're from the same common ancestor, that's not bloody likely

It's less of a stretch to merely point out that if it can happen on earth, it can happen over on Mars.. But that's still really far out speculation.  All based on digital artifacts?   It's not that I want you to stop posting these.. I think the standing dust thing is really very interesting.  I'm as glad you posted that as I am that Andrew does so many pictorials.. And I like those as much as anyone else

I saved that one in the same folder as the Saturn hexagon, that recent green nebula-like cloud, the dark spot on Neptune where you can see it's a huge window further into the inside, that sound that NASA picked up that sounds like linguistics (about which, btw, I've never been able to find any who/what/when/where info)  etc.I guess that's one simple way for you to understand my perspective:  The standing dust images are definitely interesting and worth pointing out.  Inferring that whoever was operating the cameras HAD to be looking at/for it is one step too far.  Calling a piece of lint caught in light/air current plays a worm, or some white glitch in one picture a polar bear (you didn't, but to me it's the same), or some very small, very rough digital artifact a sure sign that something's there, out of the ordinary.. That's one step too far too.I've made this post as long as it is to make sure you understand what my perspective is, so you understand me correctly when I say that no, I don't want you to stop posting your findings.  Another thing I think, is that you should find some way to get feedback from (idealy) someone on the team for each sighting. It would be a shame to do all this work and have to stop at speculation.I would've private messaged this but would rather everyone understood the points I'm making, because I'm neither ragging on you, nor do I feel my pov regarding what's too much speculation and what isn't is off topic.. Sorry for rambling, take care and thanks for your efforts,m.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rlb2 · Aug 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  All based on digital artifacts?  Calling a piece of lint caught in light/air current plays a worm, or some white glitch in one picture a polar bear (you didn't, but to me it's the same), or some very small, very rough digital artifact a sure sign that something's there, out of the ordinary.. That's one step too far too.I've made this post as long as it is to make sure you understand what my perspective is, so you understand me correctly when I say that no, I don't want you to stop posting your findings.  Another thing I think, is that you should find some way to get feedback from (idealy) someone on the team for each sighting. It would be a shame to do all this work and have to stop at speculation.Posted by nimbus</DIV>  I don't have time to answer all that, I already answered most of it. But I will leave you with this thought. If it wasn't for all the dedicated hard work of these astrobiologist, geologist, etc, etc. many paid by NASA to go out into earth’s extreme environment to examine new life forms like the Atacama desert, Antarctica, etc, etc then we might as well be back in the seventies. The Atacama desert is a model here on earth by NASA, similar to a Martian type environment. One of the names most mentioned in the last JPL/Arizona news conference was the similarity of the Atacama desert and places on Mars about the newly discovered perchlorate salts. It was also noted that perchlorate salts is not harmful to some life forms in fact some use it for energy. If we suppress information and the people who bring them that information then we are wasting our time exploring. A lot of the images I showed you aren’t due to artifacts. It is so bogus to claim otherwise, this is usually done by people who don't know how to interpret the images so they can quickly explain away things they don't understand. The funny thing about it is that some people buy into to that, that’s why it works...lg_20943 <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/7/9895bd2f-2a5b-4481-a767-9419c8bf8d0d.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/# <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

nimbus · Aug 14, 2008

Hey Ron,I'd had a few too many drinks when I wrote that.  The basic point I was making was that it does in fact look like digital artifacts.  The dust thing doesn't, though.  And the second point was that I'm not trying to supress.. It's the opposite actualy.  I'm pointing out the holes in what may or may not be hints of something or other.  That's the only way it'll graduate from suspiciously biased to plausible explanation for what we see. I think the standing dust, barring any good reason why it isn't dust, or that somehow the patterns aren't as the pictures depict them, are very likely beyond observational bias..   But not the worm pics in the microscope views.  That's just too close to the lighting and possibly air currents (if there are any - one way to shoot this criticism down easily) to really be believable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rlb2 · Aug 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey Ron,I'd had a few too many drinks when I wrote that.  The basic point I was making was that it does in fact look like digital artifacts.  The dust thing doesn't, though.  And the second point was that I'm not trying to supress.. It's the opposite actualy.  I'm pointing out the holes in what may or may not be hints of something or other.  That's the only way it'll graduate from suspiciously biased to plausible explanation for what we see. I think the standing dust, barring any good reason why it isn't dust, or that somehow the patterns aren't as the pictures depict them, are very likely beyond observational bias..  But not the worm pics in the microscope views.  That's just too close to the lighting and possibly air currents (if there are any - one way to shoot this criticism down easily) to really be believable. Posted by nimbus</DIV>No problem it is part of the evaluation process to have an open mind about other opinions, I do see how it would be perceived by some people as being unexplainable especially without organics but it isn't an artifact. If U of A does confirm organics then what? Do you know how fast the wind speed would have to be at the Phoenix Lander site in such a thin atmosphere to pick up just a fine dust particle, so no it isn’t the wind that is moving it. This formula might help.The density of the Martian air at the Datum is 2.0E-5 slugs/cu ft. at -25 f and is approximately 1 percent of what it is on Earth. Earth's air density is .00237 slugs/cu ft at sea level at 58 f. As a result, the difference between the Martian and Earth's air density and the power produced from the wind is much less on Mars than it is on Earth. Using    P = 1/2 Cd pAV^3where P = power, Cd = Coefficient of drag, p = density of the air, A = surface area, and V = velocity. F = P/Vhttp://members.cox.net/mars.windsurfer/index.htmWhat if this paper is true then what. "This could mean levels of organics on the surface of Mars a thousand times higher than expected." — Rafael Navarro-González a Nature news feature published Aug 9th 2008, posted by exoscientist on another thread. I don't have any idea how accepted this is yet but it has been said that McKay of NASA is said to have bought into it. http://www.mediabistro.com/portfolios/samples_files/f_H_nfRIm0m4VCEEe4129Gees.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

nimbus · Aug 15, 2008

No problem it is part of the evaluation process to have an open mind about other opinions, I do see how it would be perceived by some people as being unexplainable especially without organics but it isn't an artifact. If U of A does confirm organics then what?Then we need some direct link between the organics or any other life-hinting data and the worm or "waterbears".  Or at the very least some corelation between the two.Do you know how fast the wind speed would have to be at the Phoenix Lander site in such a thin atmosphere to pick up just a fine dust particle, so no it isn’t the wind that is moving it. This formula might help.The density of the Martian air at the Datum is 2.0E-5 slugs/cu ft. at -25 f and is approximately 1 percent of what it is on Earth. Earth's air density is .00237 slugs/cu ft at sea level at 58 f. As a result, the difference between the Martian and Earth's air density and the power produced from the wind is much less on Mars than it is on Earth. Using    P = 1/2 Cd pAV^3where P = power, Cd = Coefficient of drag, p = density of the air, A = surface area, and V = velocity. F = P/V http://members.cox.net/mars.windsurfer/index.htmThat's not enough.. I meant that you should demonstrate either or both that the squiggling object is not a piece of lint in that little volume inside Phoenix. The weight of the piece of lint (if it's from earth), or whatever else it could be (like those little strands of sulfur you find around volcanoes - I'm living at the bottom of the Fournaise volcano on the Reunion Island, there's lots of those when you hike the volcano's rim), the shape of the microscope observation chamber, how the aerodynamics would look like in there (if there are any), etc etc.   It's not enough to say organics were detected and that something's merely looking like it's moving on its own.  The light/shadow alternative needs to be adressed, too.  You need to effectively eliminate any non-life explanation you can.. What if this paper is true then what. "This could mean levels of organics on the surface of Mars a thousand times higher than expected." — Rafael Navarro-González a Nature news feature published Aug 9th 2008, posted by exoscientist on another thread. I don't have any idea how accepted this is yet but it has been said that McKay of NASA is said to have bought into it. http://www.mediabistro.com/portfolios/samples_files/f_H_nfRIm0m4VCEEe4129Gees.pdfI don't have time to read those now, I'll have a look in a few hours after work..  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robnissen · Aug 17, 2008

[QUOTE I am just posting what I found here with some comments like I have been doing for over 4 years from what I found at the MER sites. If most of the people here wants me to stop then I can easily pick up my marbles and go play somewhere else...................  Posted by rlb2[/QUOTE]I doubt that you have found life on Mars, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't stop posting here.  I really enjoy your pictures and the interesting things you find.  And while I doubt that you have found life on Mars, I would not bet my life on it.

solarflare · Aug 18, 2008

[/QUOTE]I doubt that you have found life on Mars, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't stop posting here.  I really enjoy your pictures and the interesting things you find.  And while I doubt that you have found life on Mars, I would not bet my life on it. Posted by robnissen[/QUOTE]I agree rlb2 should stay, if rlb2 and others of a like mind leave here then we will be left with some brain dead armchair scientist who bully other people into thinking that anything outside there way of thinking is "Fringe Science." I'm talking about people who would go over to Umanlyspaceflight.com to get their daily dose of propaganda. Its funny watching these armchair scientists squirm day to day as what they are told by some of the scientist on the Phoenix Lander teams changes scoop by scoop. You can grow asparagus no you can’t grow asparagus yes you can grow asparagus. They may have well be saying you can jump off the cliff, no you can't jump off a cliff yes you can jump off the cliff. If the Phoenix  Lander team did say "you can jump off the cliff" and mean it then we would be rid of some of the bullying Umanlyspaceflight.com armchair scientist and true legitimate discussions like this one here can go on. I'm not mocking the Phoenix science team they are doing a great ice braking job.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 18, 2008

[QUOTE I'm talking about people who would go over to Umanlyspaceflight.com to get their daily dose of propaganda. Its funny watching these armchair scientists squirm day to day as what they are told by some of the scientist on the Phoenix Lander teams changes scoop by scoop. You can grow asparagus no you can’t grow asparagus yes you can grow asparagus. They may have well be saying you can jump off the cliff, no you can't jump off a cliff yes you can jump off the cliff. If the Phoenix  Lander team did say "you can jump off the cliff" and mean it then we would be rid of some of the bullying Umanlyspaceflight.com armchair scientist and true legitimate discussions like this one here can go on. I'm not mocking the Phoenix science team they are doing a great ice braking job.   Posted by solarflare[/QUOTE] It is poor Netequitte to bash other web sites. If YOU have something specific to say, say it for yourself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

solarflare · Aug 19, 2008

[/QUOTE]It is poor Netequitte to bash other web sites. If YOU have something specific to say, say it for yourself. Posted by MeteorWayne[/QUOTE]You say what, who died and made you king. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Aug 19, 2008

I never said rlb2 should stop posting, the thought never crossed my mind. I never said he should stop posting even the stuff I disagree with.  I said what I thought and why I thought so. Rlb2 implied he should leave, I guess as a way to gain leverage somewhere, at worst to blame me for thin skin or at best simply because he misunderstood me.  I don't know where between those two the reason for implying I or anyone else should want him gone, or if it's for yet another reason.I just think the assertion that something that looks way more like a piece of lint than a worm conveniently similar to a species here on earth, that some digital artifact has to be another analog to one more earth species is lacking, or that some burp in the NASA image release schedule implies they want to hide something, or that he's got the people paid to analyse the data straight off the instruments full-time trumped.  Nowhere in that opinion is any reason to want rlb2 to quit posting here.   Thanks for not implying that I do.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Aug 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say what, who died and made you king. Posted by solarflare</DIV>Your manners died. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

solarflare · Aug 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your manners died. Posted by nimbus</DIV>How many faces do you have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Simulations Show Liquid Water Could Exist on Mars / New Phoenix Lander results

3488

Guest

rlb2

Guest

rlb2

Guest

silylene old

Guest

rlb2

Guest

thor06

Guest

nimbus

Guest

rlb2

Guest

rlb2

Guest

thor06

Guest

nimbus

Guest

rlb2

Guest

rlb2

Guest

nimbus

Guest

rlb2

Guest

nimbus

Guest

rlb2

Guest

nimbus

Guest

robnissen

Guest

solarflare

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

solarflare

Guest

nimbus

Guest

nimbus

Guest

solarflare

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page