| Page Link: |
|
Supporting Evidence An Investigation Into The Possibilities Of Error - Conclusions 1. Soil experiments - conclusions All experiments indicate that the Martian soil, no matter how salty or otherwise, must be damp. In simplest terms, the minimum amount of water present would be equivalent to the dampness needed for a good sand castle or sand sculpture. Supporting evidence is both photographic (NASA MER images) and from hands-on experiment. Furthermore, the images from panoramic, navigation, and microscopic cameras all indicate that liquid water is present on the surface of Mars at this time, as it is visible in troughs and low spots as darker, and even muddy-looking soil. Duplication of the appearance of the Martian soil required a spray of fine high speed droplets of water. This was the only method that produced the proper texture, adhesion, and appearance. Led by this result, a calculation of the terminal velocity of raindrops on Mars confirmed that Martian rain would indeed be fine, high speed droplets. This is due to its basic terminal velocity being over 5 times what it is for Earth for an object falling through the atmosphere. The thin air would force water droplets to fall when they are very small, and even though the gravity is much weaker, the air is also much thinner. This means that objects will encounter very little resistance when falling and will hit the ground much harder and at much higher velocity. From these results and the appearance of the soil, it must be concluded that it does rain on Mars periodically, with a fine droplet pattern and impact speeds of 80 to 200 kph. UPDATE: The verification of active geysers shows that much of the wet soil and erosion (such as blueberry stems) result from high speed mist and spray being ejected from geyser fumaroles. As expected, liquid water does not last very long on the surface unless it is soaked into the ground. However, it can and does exist for short periods of time, and a great many terrestrial organisms could live quite well under those conditions. 2. Imaging experiments - conclusions The MER microscopic imagers are no different in operation or imaging capability from any common digital camera of good resolution. It is also possible, with no more than a magnifying lens and some photo editing software, to create nearly perfect knock-off images that would be very difficult to distinguish from the genuine article. As a result, no supposed MER image should ever be taken at face value unless you can personally download it from the NASA site yourself. There are those elements among the population who would create false images and then push their own agenda, using these methods (otherwise known as cranks or crackpots). Unless you see the image directly downloaded for yourself, you should not accept any image data as being genuine. This is why I scrupulously post ALL direct links to NASA so that you can guarantee that you are getting real image data. 3. Image processing methods - still in progress 4. Water, salt crust, and brine experiments - experiments in progress 5. Vacuum chamber experiments - test hardware is being constructed now! 6. Clay, brine, and dirty ice - still in progress 7. Various minerals and image artifacts - conclusions Many non-biological materials can produce artifacts that appear to be orderly or of living origin. However, certain facts about how artifacts are generated can reduce the risk of mistaking them for real image objects. Knowing those facts can help to eliminate most every occurrence of artifacts being taken literally. Repeated forms are a powerful tool for debunking artifacts, as are complex and large features. The probabilities of these things occurring are far smaller that we might believe. Forms that occur in more than one image, particularly from more than one angle, are more likely to be genuine. Forms that have repeated or rotated copies of some shape or style are also far more likely to be real. Shadows are a sure method of determining the "solidity" of a feature- artifacts do not leave shadows! |