Simple proof there is no life on Mars

Also, on a different matter, oxidation is a unique feature of Mars, not indicative of water (after all, oxidation requires the atmospheric O2 as Kano mentioned). Why is it so plentiful at the surface? More importantly is it plentiful sub-surface as with the Earth?

Earth's hydrothermal, epithermal etc. processes creates oxides near to the surface which we expose through mining. This could be a strong clue as to what the actual culprit of the oxidation of the Martian surface could be...

I can't seem to edit and there's more to say so sorry for the tripple-posts-in-a-row.

But I wanted to say to Kano's question (I think it was his), can limestone//calcium carbonates be formed without life.

Basically no, I can't think of a method that this specific mineral or stone would form without life helping to combine those elements together to form the compound. I'm sure there'd be some random process or unique conditions that would allow it but the basic necessities are erosion of calcium bearing volcanics into a "beaker of water" (the ocean) and then super-saturate it which allows in this case - life - to easily take that element/compound (a calcium ion or salt essentially) and make aragonite.

That later forms calcite and dolomite and is the principle building blocks of limestones and dolostones which are formed on Earth essentially from coral beds.

Corals have drastically altered the environment to live (much as Humans are doing) and their effects are seen through topography and ocean chemistry both which they change to allow themselves access to light as a sea-mount subsides or oceans rise and to gain access to building materials.

Anyway, long-winded response, but it allows for others to interject factoids and opions

Curtesy of J P Skipper....

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

barsoom.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

I am getting a bit tired of trying to argue this in a scientific way so hopefully this will put the whole 'debate' ( i wish ) into perspective.

Their in no particular order but i might sort them as some can take a while to load.

Stellar

StellarX: great links! thanx for putting them up. I'm not sure what I'm looking at in many of these images but it don't look like dead and dying to me. I think the OP is grinding an ax with a toothbrush.

Originally posted by StellarX
Curtesy of J P Skipper....

...form MarsAnomalyResearch.
Anyway, please add to the links some other data like context images and coordinates because taking something out of context can alter its meaning...

Originally posted by Apass

Originally posted by StellarX
Curtesy of J P Skipper....

...form MarsAnomalyResearch.
Anyway, please add to the links some other data like context images and coordinates because taking something out of context can alter its meaning...

If you wish just google the specific image indentifier and you should find a link to the context. The images are all map projected best quality tiff's which are normally the third image option on the list for each specific science/image data strip. It would probably be best if you leave the coordinates out of it and just give your brain a chance to consider what it sees before you start feeding it all the dozens of reasons why what you see ' can not be'.

Stellar

Sorry, I cannot leave the coordinates out of it. The coordinates are an important peace of information. First of all...they can tell you what you're looking at - sand dunes, land formation or water/dry ice, for instance...
And it is not my job to search for them. If you present these pictures as evidence, you should present them into their context.
What the lack of context can do to a picture, look here:



The context picture


And the analysis of the picture in the context


The first picture is from something like paranormal.about.com

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Life is a chemical chain-reaction which in the case of Earth (believed to be fairly similar to the composition of Venus and Mars) has altered the composition drastically.

Earth now has an atmosphere mostly of Oxygen and Nitrogen (more of the latter) and almost no Carbon-Dioxide.

This is no accident, life altered the atmosphere as well as things such as soil chemistry and ocean chemistry of the Earth.

Martian soil chemistry is dead (contains little to no organics) and is thus a "regolith".

Martian atmospheric composition is mostly the same as Venus' (as well as crustal compositions and zoning)

Differences are mostly due to what's available, Venus has higher concentrations of Sulfur in its clouds (significantly compared to Mars).

The Martian atmosphere is almost entirely CO2 and is barely noticeable, it is therefore anabolic and obviously not being altered by life forms.

The Atmosphere being such a small mass would be the most rapidly altered chemistry by life forms.

This is a simple proof that life doesn't exist on Mars, thus NASA only searches for if life ever existed and was aborted; anything else stated is merely to get money.

Strat_Rf, are you proposing that we accept NASA's, or any other governmental agency's data as scientific fact? Before making an informed hypothesis (it can only be a hypothesis as neither of has been to Mars yet, at least I haven't) I would prefer to see 3 independent sets of scientific data, preferably non-governmental. Using government provided data is always suspect because the government may have an agenda that we are not aware of, and may have reason to alter the data in a manner that would further that agenda. To postulate a 'simple truth' based on data supplied by NASA would seem to be less than scientific. I would prefer to see the satement preceeded by the comment: "If we were to assume that the data provided by NASA is true and accurate then the simple fact is...." Until one of us goes to Mars the simple fact is you haven't the slightest idea of whether or not there is life on Mars.

And, oh, by the way, is your 'simple truth' one of those 'truths' that Neil Armstrong suggested removing the protective layers of to find 'great ideas undiscovered? (Neil Armstrong, White House address, July 20, 1994).

[edit on 18-9-2006 by johnlear]

Originally posted by Apass
And the analysis of the picture in the context

No. The shadow of the tower is very dark and correct. The "shadows" on the cliffs you point out, are not shadows at all, they are the normal dark tones present in an IR/UV photograph. We know those frequences have been used for topography shots, thus you can't interpret them right.

[edit on 18/9/06 by SteveR]

Originally posted by Apass
Sorry, I cannot leave the coordinates out of it.

I can and i very well did....

The coordinates are an important peace of information. First of all...they can tell you what you're looking at - sand dunes, land formation or water/dry ice, for instance...

They can not tell you anything of the sort! What they can do ( on earth) is tell what sort of terrain you can expect to find in that specific area based on prior knowledge.

And it is not my job to search for them. If you present these pictures as evidence, you should present them into their context.

You do not have to search but only to look at the picture and let your brain do , for once, what it wants.

What the lack of context can do to a picture, look here:

The first picture is from something like paranormal.about.com

Who's the one leaving out contextual information this time? All you need to do is enter the last full number ( of whatever image that 'confuses' you) in google to get as much context as you like.

Stellar

The area where the 'tower' is seems to be on the southern most rim of the large, deep canyon area between where the Ius Chasma and Coprates Chasma meet in the Valley Marineris. (70.61W 13.23S). Thats about 850 miles east south east of Chasma Tithonia, location of the city of Tithonia. (M0204304 GIF).

double post. My bad.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by johnlear]

Originally posted by SteveR
No. The shadow of the tower is very dark and correct. The "shadows" on the cliffs you point out, are not shadows at all, they are the normal dark tones present in an IR/UV photograph. We know those frequences have been used for topography shots, thus you can't interpret them right.
[edit on 18/9/06 by SteveR]

Aha...and the shadows?...where are them?


edit to remove quote error

[edit on 18/9/06 by Apass]

Just saying it is a factor you must consider when you think all dark tones are "shadows."

Originally posted by StellarX
I can and i very well did....

I saw that...

They can not tell you anything of the sort! What they can do ( on earth) is tell what sort of terrain you can expect to find in that specific area based on prior knowledge.

(bold mine)
Exact. And that's prior knowledge needed to interpret the picture. Without some prior knowledge your brain can play tricks on you. Like saying an asteroid is a potato.

You do not have to search but only to look at the picture and let your brain do , for once, what it wants.

My brain wants me to go to the mountains or biking or dream of electric sheap (thanks to Ph. K. Dick) or see happy faces in the clouds or gazing at stars (through a telescope). And I do pretty much all of that. But also, my brain wants me to believe that these lines are not straight and parallel.
So because of that, if I want to understand an image, I want to know all that is available on that image. And everybody should do that when presenting such images as evidence.

Who's the one leaving out contextual information this time? All you need to do is enter the last full number ( of whatever image that 'confuses' you) in google to get as much context as you like.

Yes, but this is NOT my job. It is not me who is presenting these images as evidence. It is you.

Originally posted by SteveR
Just saying it is a factor you must consider when you think all dark tones are "shadows."

I never said all dark tones are shadows. I just said that the cliff shadows show a different direction for the light (that is from the bottom right corner) that is not compatible with the "shadow" casted by the "tower". If I were to suspect some dark patches then the "tower" would be a very good candidate. The cliff shadows are just that, cliff shadows.

spell......

[edit on 18/9/06 by Apass]

Light/dark areas are more to do with IR/UV absorbance, not lack of light. Remember what you're looking at!

I do know what I'm looking at. But do you?
If the tower has a shadow...why not also the cliffs?

edited to add:

In actuality there is no shadow discrepancy: the sun is at such a height that its light is able to reflect on the broad slopes of the talus cones and "refract" back at the camera *as if* these talus cones were being lit from a southerly direction
the source of the image

(bold mine)


[edit on 18/9/06 by Apass]

Look at the "tower" area more closely. The shadow and the object (if that's what they are) aren't the same tone. It's rather different. Thus it's not all one thing like you suppose it is. I contend you can tell a shadow from an unreflective surface in IR/UV by noticing the subtle tones.

Does that make any sense?

Additionally, your quote doesn't change anything here.

[edit on 18/9/06 by SteveR]

No, my quote is just funny.
OK, lets go to the source of the image
source
now, lets see what Sun azimuth means.

In a raw or unprocessed MOC image, this is the angle in degrees clockwise from a line drawn from the center to the right edge of the image to the direction of the sun at the time the image was acquired.

So a sun azimuth angles of 26 degreees will place the sun exactly where I said: In the bottom right corner of the image. Just as the cliff shadows showed.
Note that the image is not map projected since the north azimuth is not 270 degrees. In the image we see, north is down (93 degrees clockwise, again, from the straight line from the center to the right edge of the picture)