NASA Mars photo leaked - wood found on mars!

reply to post by RFBurns


Have a look at sol 111, both the navcam and the pancam. While not identical (of course) there are some very similar outcrops.

In particular check marsrovers.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage



Thanks checking them out now as I have been working my way through the whole archive again to replace stuff I either lost during my move or didnt already have.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Phage


Well there is a good few of them using the L and R 7 filter, which is just the very low end of our vis spectrum and upper UV range, not a whole lot of data can be gathered from that, and at the distance. No microcam data for very close up analysis. I just find it highly unusual that such a geological feature was not given closer examination. But you know that only raises suspicion.

I mean these missions were highly focused on studying the makeup of the planet, a geologist's dream! And certianly the hardware was geared for that. But when encountering such a formation like that, they dont get as much data to study it? That really doesnt make any sense when it can be seen that they spent soooo much time looking at plain old rocks and hills that dont have any more infomation in them other than seeing obviously they are rocks and hills....kinda get my meaning there? Its just typical and is more reason why people question NASA. Not just because of ugly red pictures or No Admittance Seems Admirable of a blue sky or green moss or anything, its also because of the apparent missing geological data in a geological mission intended to learn all about the geologcial makeup of the planet.

And that of course raises all the issues of them hiding data from the puplic. Even something like this, not having any real data on something that is claimed to be a simple rock when in counless other datasets, there is plenty of data on the plain old rocks.


Never Adds So Abundantly it seems.




Cheers!!!!

I sometimes get better images when I use a negative image,rather than standard positive. I find things,fossil and otherwise.

reply to post by masonwatcher


That does look like a cut piece of rotting wood. Good luck getting a sample to make sure.

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by masonwatcher

 

That does look like a cut piece of rotting wood. Good luck getting a sample to make sure.

Ya it would have been nice if there was more data on it. Which was my whole point, why didnt NASA get more data when right next to the thing.

And of course, some would say..as I do, they probably did and are just keeping that from us. Its hard to imagine such effort in telling everybody that these missions are not sight seeing missions, yet all they publish is sight seeing pictures of this thing, no geological data, no RGB data, no microcam data, nothing! Nothing at least publicly anyway.

No Actual Scientific Achievement.




Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by internos

 

hey, so what do you think the "wood" is Internos?

Thanks!

wZn

Sorry, i didn't see your post before.
In my opinion it's a combination of four factors: its shape, its apparent texture, its position relatively to the surface and our brain's tendency to recognize/associate known shapes/objects to what we don't figure out at first glance: these four things, put together, created one of the most intriguing so called "anomalies" i've personally ever seen in Mars photos: for "apparent texture" i mean that what we see is not necessarly what it is: angulation, lighting, many things influence the general appearance of a photo of this type: and of course the lack of true colors doesn't help

In the other hand we have all around rocks with the same ACTUAL texture, rocks with similar same shapes an rocks that lay the same way on the surface, slightly in relief: this one, it's a combination of the three + our brain's intervention, imho: of course, it does look like a plank of wood, that's for sure: i have several very similar in my courtyard right now
Mine is just an opinion, but also someone else thinks (more or less) the same way:

On December 1st, 2008, Universe Today published an interesting article:

Wood Plank Found on Mars?
Written by Nancy Atkinson

Over the long holiday weekend, Universe Today was flooded with emails from readers who asked us to comment on an image taken by the Opportunity rover that appears to show a plank of wood laying on the surface of Mars. The image, above, (here's the full resolution image) was taken in May of 2004, about four and a half years ago, in the early part of the Mars Exploration Rover mission. Since the image appears to have caused a bit of excitement across the internet recently, I decided to contact Dr. Jim Bell from Cornell University, who is also the lead scientist for the Panoramic cameras on the rovers. Bell was surprised to hear from me about the image, but happy to offer some insight.

My first reaction, is that it's delightful that there is such public interest in images from Mars. Indeed, it does look like a wooden plank. But does that mean it is a piece of wood on Mars? Sadly, no.

Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell

What you're seeing is a piece of flat, platy, layered sulfur-rich outcrop rock like we've seen almost everywhere the Opportunity rover has been in Meridiani Planum.
Sometimes, like in this case, those flat, platy rocks have been tilted or dislodged, this one probably from the forces associated with the huge impact crater that formed nearby.

See this image of several rocks in the area that have been tilted:
Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell

And this one's being viewed edge-on, of the rock in question. That edge-on view, combined with the layered nature of these rocks in general gives the surface a sort of grainy texture. So, indeed, it looks like a wooden plank on Mars.

So, could it maybe be wood?

No, sadly. I say 'sadly' because personally I think it would be incredible and spectacular to find a wooden plank on Mars! However, in this case, it's just a trick of the lighting and the viewing angle.

1. This image was released back in May of 2004, just a couple of days after it was taken by Opportunity. MER Principal Investigator Steve Squyres made the decision before the mission started to release all the images taken by the rovers and make them freely available to anyone. If NASA was hiding something, they wouldn't have posted this image, as well as all the other images of the area that are available. Please, go look at them all if you have any doubt.

2. The best planetary geologists on Earth have looked at this image, and have all concluded this is just a rock. It's an interesting rock, but a rock nonetheless. Think again if you believe some internet sleuths out there have a better understanding of this object than highly trained and experienced planetary scientists.

3. If this object really was a piece of wood, NASA and all the scientists on the MER mission would probably be shouting from the rooftops. As Jim Bell said, it would be incredible and spectacular, and don't think for a minute these scientists wouldn't be jumping for joy if they found something as amazing as log on Mars.

And in case you're wondering about the other interesting feature in the image, the shiny object in the background is Opportunity's heat shield.

www.universetoday.com...

Dr. James F. Bell III ' opinion deserves to be taken very, very seriously, in my humble opinion: i'm not asking you to buy it blindly, just to evaluate all the explanations provided by him, his knowledge, his experience, his task within Mars Rovers program, and to judge by yourself: i personally think that his explanation is the best possible one we could get presently, and that it covers the question in a very satisfactory way.

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by internos

 

hey, so what do you think the "wood" is Internos?

Thanks!

wZn

Sorry, i didn't see your post before.

In my opinion it's a combination of four factors: its shape, its apparent texture, its position relatively to the surface and our brain's tendency to recognize/associate known shapes/objects to what we don't figure out at first glance: these four things, put together, created one of the most intriguing so called "anomalies" i've personally ever seen in Mars photos: for "apparent texture" i mean that what we see is not necessarly what it is: angulation, lighting, many things influence the general appearance of a photo of this type: and of course the lack of true colors doesn't help

In the other hand we have all around rocks with the same ACTUAL texture, rocks with similar same shapes an rocks that lay the same way on the surface, slightly in relief: this one, it's a combination of the three + our brain's intervention, imho: of course, it does look like a plank of wood, that's for sure: i have several very similar in my courtyard right now

Mine is just an opinion, but also someone else thinks (more or less) the same way:

On December 1st, 2008, Universe Today published an interesting article:

Wood Plank Found on Mars?
Written by Nancy Atkinson

Over the long holiday weekend, Universe Today was flooded with emails from readers who asked us to comment on an image taken by the Opportunity rover that appears to show a plank of wood laying on the surface of Mars. The image, above, (here's the full resolution image) was taken in May of 2004, about four and a half years ago, in the early part of the Mars Exploration Rover mission. Since the image appears to have caused a bit of excitement across the internet recently, I decided to contact Dr. Jim Bell from Cornell University, who is also the lead scientist for the Panoramic cameras on the rovers. Bell was surprised to hear from me about the image, but happy to offer some insight.

My first reaction, is that it's delightful that there is such public interest in images from Mars. Indeed, it does look like a wooden plank. But does that mean it is a piece of wood on Mars? Sadly, no.

Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell

What you're seeing is a piece of flat, platy, layered sulfur-rich outcrop rock like we've seen almost everywhere the Opportunity rover has been in Meridiani Planum.
Sometimes, like in this case, those flat, platy rocks have been tilted or dislodged, this one probably from the forces associated with the huge impact crater that formed nearby.

See this image of several rocks in the area that have been tilted:

Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell

And this one's being viewed edge-on, of the rock in question. That edge-on view, combined with the layered nature of these rocks in general gives the surface a sort of grainy texture. So, indeed, it looks like a wooden plank on Mars.

So, could it maybe be wood?

No, sadly. I say 'sadly' because personally I think it would be incredible and spectacular to find a wooden plank on Mars! However, in this case, it's just a trick of the lighting and the viewing angle.

1. This image was released back in May of 2004, just a couple of days after it was taken by Opportunity. MER Principal Investigator Steve Squyres made the decision before the mission started to release all the images taken by the rovers and make them freely available to anyone. If NASA was hiding something, they wouldn't have posted this image, as well as all the other images of the area that are available. Please, go look at them all if you have any doubt.

2. The best planetary geologists on Earth have looked at this image, and have all concluded this is just a rock. It's an interesting rock, but a rock nonetheless. Think again if you believe some internet sleuths out there have a better understanding of this object than highly trained and experienced planetary scientists.

3. If this object really was a piece of wood, NASA and all the scientists on the MER mission would probably be shouting from the rooftops. As Jim Bell said, it would be incredible and spectacular, and don't think for a minute these scientists wouldn't be jumping for joy if they found something as amazing as log on Mars.

And in case you're wondering about the other interesting feature in the image, the shiny object in the background is Opportunity's heat shield.

www.universetoday.com...

Dr. James F. Bell III ' opinion deserves to be taken very, very seriously, in my humble opinion: i'm not asking you to buy it blindly, just to evaluate all the explanations provided by him, his knowledge, his experience, his task within Mars Rovers program, and to judge by yourself: i personally think that his explanation is the best possible one we could get presently, and that it covers the question in a very satisfactory way.

Well without any geological data and all we got are nav cam and L0/R0 filter photos, we only can rely on what NASA and the scientists tells us..correct?

Without data, no one can say it is this or it is that to any conclusion.

So with that in mind, that there is no scientific data, to say "well there are rocks nearby that look like this so thats what it is" is not a valid explanation or one that IMO is worth any credibility to any extent, no matter who makes the statement. Lets see some data of this rock, or ones exactly like it, where it was analyzed, scrutinezed and finalized that yes this is definately a weird looking rock that happens to appear like a piece of wood.

No data, no definative answer. A photo isnt good enough, even for "REAL" science.





Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-12-2008 by RFBurns]

reply to post by internos


Hi RFBurns.
First of all, you might want to take a look at

ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote by SimonGray, especially where it reads:

Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

when you play, make sure to know the RULES, first: but it's not a matter of T&C, the problem is that since you quoted ALL my post i assume that you are arguing with all my post, otherwise, your quote would be MEANINGLESS, right? So, be it.

Originally posted by RFBurns

Well without any geological data and all we got are nav cam and L0/R0 filter photos, we only can rely on what NASA and the scientists tells us..correct?
Without data, no one can say it is this or it is that to any conclusion.

No data, no definative answer. A photo isnt good enough, even for "REAL" science.

I find VERY interesting these statements: especially where you claim that there's "no data" but the NavCam images. Since you look to be interested in scientific data from THAT specific area of Mars, here you go:
COULD EROSION OF MERIDIANI PLANUM REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL SULFATE-RICH MARTIAN SOILS?
by T. M. McCollom, B. M. Hynek, and A. L. Nahm, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, UCB392, University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, [email protected].
Presently at: Geomechanics-Rock Fracture Group, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering/172, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


TWO YEARS OF CHEMICAL SAMPLING ON MERIDIANI PLANUM BY THE ALPHA PARTICLE X-RAY SPECTROMETER ONBOARD THE MARS EXPLORATION ROVER OPPORTUNITY.
J. Brückner, R. Gellert, B. C. Clark, G. Dreibus1, C. d’Uston, T. Economou, G. Klingelhöfer6, G. Lugmair, D. W. Ming, R. Rieder, S. W. Squyres, H. Wänke, A. Yen, J. Zipfel, and the Athena Science Team, 1Max-Planck-Institut für Chemie, J. J. Becher Weg 27, D-55128 Mainz, Germany, [email protected], 2Depart. Physics, Univ. Guelph, Guelph, On, Canada, 3Lockheed Martin Corp., Littleton, CO, USA, 4Centre d’Etude Spatiale Rayon., Toulouse, France, 5Lab. Astrophys. Space Res., E. Fermi Inst., Univ. Chicago, USA, 6Instit. Anorgan. Analyt. Chemie, Univ. Mainz, Germany, 7UCSD, Scripps Inst. Oceanogr., La Jolla, CA, USA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA, 9Center Radiophys. Space Res., Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY, USA, Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, CA, USA, Forschungsinst. & Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

See also
An astrobiological perspective on Meridiani Planum
Andrew H. Knoll a,*, Michael Carr b, Benton Clark c, David J. Des Marais d, Jack D. Farmer e, Woodward W. Fischer a, John P. Grotzinger f, Scott M. McLennan g, Michael Malin h, Christian Schro¨ der i, Steven Squyres j, Nicholas J. Tosca g, Thomas Wdowiak k a Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA b United States Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Rd., MS 975, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA c Ma Lockheed Martin Corporation, MS8000, PO Box 179, 12257 State Highway 121, Littleton, CO 80127, USA d NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 239-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, USA Department of Geological Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Department of Geosciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA Malin Space Science Systems, PO Box 910148, San Diego, CA 92191, USA Institut fur Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat, Staudinger Weg 9, D-55128 Mainz, Germany Department of Astronomy, Space Sciences Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
k Department of Physics, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA
______________________________________________


And these are just articles that cover the presence of sulfur and its interaction with the surroundings.
I don't know what you mean for "no data": no data like the one gathered by the ALPHA PARTICLE X-RAY SPECTROMETER during the two years mentioned in t the article?

Athena's Alpha-Particle-X-Ray Spectrometer will determine the elemental chemistry of rocks and soils accurately in order to complement and constrain the mineralogical analyses of the other instruments. Athena's APXS will perform elemental analyses of martian surface materials by directly touching a rock or patch of soil.

Through the use of alpha particles and x-rays the APXS will accurately determine a sample's abundances of all rock-forming elements except hydrogen. Analyzing the elemental make-up of martian surface materials will provide scientists with information about crustal formation, weathering processes, and water activity on Mars.

This graph shows that rocks located deeper into "Endurance Crater" are chemically altered to a greater degree than rocks located higher up. This chemical alteration is believed to result from exposure to water. Specifically, the graph compares ratios of chemicals between the deep rock dubbed "Escher," and the more shallow rock called "Virginia," before and after Opportunity drilled into the rocks. As the red and blue lines indicate, Escher's levels of chlorine relative to Virginia's went up, and sulfur down, before the rover dug a hole into the rocks. This implies that the surface of Escher has been chemically altered to a greater extent than the surface of Virginia. (released October 7, 2004)


This graph shows that the interior of the rock dubbed "Clovis" contains higher concentrations of sulfur, bromine and chlorine than basaltic, or volcanic, rocks studied so far at Gusev Crater. These data were taken by Spirit's APXS after the rover dug into Clovis with its rock abrasion tool. The findings might indicate that fluids once flowed through the rock depositing these elements. (released Aug. 18, 2004)

NOTE: these are all papers written by people who were drunk and who have been chosen randomly.
Is it THIS the data you are missing? Or do you think that Mars Rovers are supposed to take a sample from every single rock they find on Mars?


marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov...
marsrovers.nasa.gov...


[edit on 15/12/2008 by internos]

reply to post by AirTrafficController

a square cut piece of wood wouldn't bend like that,

Um, you ever seen a boat?
Wood bends and is bent in nature and for purposes of building all the time...just sayin...

Love the thread - the picture is just smashing!

S&F!

Great Post!

*P*E*A*C*E*

[edit on 15-12-2008 by silo13]

reply to post by internos



Actually no your conclusion is wrong in what my intent is/was.

First off, I was merely trying to include all pertent information so that my reply would have reference. I can see the point of the quote rule making keeping replies resonable. In this case, it wasnt intended to "argue" or some attempt to argue or anything else that was to violate any posting or quoting rules. It was merely to include your info as well.

Making the assumption that I am trying to instigate something other than to reply because of past abuse of quote functions by others is just that..assuming. I have seen far worse quoting posts than this as of late. They are all over the place.

Anyway getting back to the subject before someone says Im purposely causing off topic rule violation. A simple black and white image doesnt give enough data, hi-def or not. There are 6 geological imaging filters on the pancam, plus the microcam for close up study. It would make sense to utilize this equpment to study such a strange geological feature..beings the missions of both Spirit and Opportunity are of "scientific geological nature".

Granted they have "some" data on the first rock I have found that. Where is the data on the second location? It certianly is not on the rover's datasets or I would have found them the day these were published. By comparison, they have alot more data available on the PDS on plain old rocks and hills than this strange geological feature they call a rock.

It is also not the first time the issue has been raised even directly to NASA about "where is the data on this rock/wood thing you ran over". It has been raised in many forums and in many blogs including countless letters to NASA, I even sent letters about it the day that image got plastered all over the net and after finding it on Opportunity's dataset website.

Taking data they got from the first rock and applying it to another somewhere else and not confirm that the other is in fact the same thing as found before is hardly being scientific in the real sense and doesnt make any sense at all from a scientific point of view. To conclude that it is in fact the same thing, in two different locations, one needs the data to confirm it.

If they have this data, why is it not posted on the datasets on Opportunity's website to do the comparison?

I should be able to find data on the 2nd one found that confirms without a doubt that it is in fact the same thing as the first.

And that data should be identical..right? If they are saying it is the same thing, the data will reflect that. But how is that supposed to be verified when there is no data present in the 2nd dataset to actually do the confirmation?

Im not that convinced that they are the same. The mere lack of this missing data is suspect, and since I am a taxpayer, I deserve to be able to see this data in the PDS just as everyone else has that right, and not just take some university staff memeber or even NASA's "word" of "thats all it is folks, just a rock like the other one, move along and dont ask".

The data you presented is valid, that much I have been able to confirm for myself doing my own searching. But no where on Opportunity's raw datasets is there confirming data that clearly tells me that the 2nd rock/wood object is in fact exactly like the first. Your data that you posted is for Spirit's scanner, not Opportunity's encounters with the rock/wood in question. Again drilling in one rock at location A does not mean that the rock at location B is the same..period. That can be confirmed by looking at rocks here on Earth. If all the rocks were the same, why are there so many different rocks?

Thats where I have a problem with it, many other people also see this as a problem, and continue to do so. This very thread would not have been started if there wasnt any doubt.

Now since there isnt any firm data to say one way or another, this item is in my unsolved file and will remain there until I can see the data clearly posted up at the offical Opportunity dataset website and compare it to the data on the first rocks at the same Opportunity dataset website.

And why not examine every rock. They (NASA) always tells us thats all it is folks, just rocks and hills...right? And for 20 million dollars I would expect at least some confirming data to prove this rock is like that rock so its a bunch of rocks. Actually all I would expect from NASA is to at least provide undisputable proof with data I can clearly see, that both rocks found in two completely different locations are the same.

Again sorry about the quote in the previous post. Just trying to include everything so I wont be accused of leaving something out. Im not NASA.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 15-12-2008 by RFBurns]

Sorry, i was just pointing out the importance of quoting the points you are in disagreement, just that, i swear

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by internos

 

Anyway getting back to the subject before someone says Im purposely causing off topic rule violation. A simple black and white image doesnt give enough data, hi-def or not. There are 6 geological imaging filters on the pancam, plus the microcam for close up study. It would make sense to utilize this equpment to study such a strange geological feature..beings the missions of both Spirit and Opportunity are of "scientific geological nature".

And it would make sense, of course i agree: it was a formation that i would have investigated for sure: this point is not in discussion, the formation IS extremely odd.
Another point is that according to the dates, NASA ignored this feature and carried on: but when asked, Jim Bell, the lead scientist for the Panoramic cameras on the rovers, provided the explanation that we know, BUT also admitting that the feature is "strange" or "unusual" or whatever but of course not an ordinary rock. Here i miss the description, or more data: for example:
did they notice it? If yes, why no samples were taken from that specific rock?
Now, i think that they did investigate the feature straight after seeing it: i mean they started most likely the same day they saw it. Now the problem is that they have found no discrepancies with the other natural formations all around: basically, they concluded that the appearance was the same of the other rocks with the same composition (just my guesses here). Anyway, i admit one thing: too much time is past before this clarification. I don't believe that this was the first time that this question has been posed to them regarding that object.

To sample all the rocks would mean to slow down the travel (and the mission): and the travel is already very, extremely slow:
here, Opportunity's Traverse Map Archive
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Mars rovers collected samples with some criteria, and it seems that the formation in question was matching the same features of rocks which samples were already collected.

As said, i don't want to impose the explanation as the only truth: just saying that it's the most likely in according to what we know about Mars Rovers program. They could have decided to don't share the photos at all, and to release just a photo every 10000 taken: who would have noticed the difference? And if this photo would have contained some feature to hide, why to publish it (and all the other photos showing it) rather than simply hide it?
These are the reasons (together with the scientific data available for the area) that lead me to think that the explanation provided by Dr. James F. Bell is good and fair enough: yes, a sample would have been a conclusive proof, but then i bet that someone else would have claimed that the Alpha-Particle-X-Ray Spectrometer results were faked, and so on.
In my opinion, the explanation is reasoneable, acceptable and consistent with what we know about the area. But of course, i can't prove it.


[edit on 15/12/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Well we can at least agree that there could have been further analysis of the 2nd formation to actually confirm what it is.

I think also that if they had only published 1 picture out of 1000, that would have their doors broken down by not just many inquireing public watch dog's of NASA, but also many independant scientists and researchers to boot, not to mention countless universities that are not contracting to NASA like those that do that get all the data first and then throw out their conclusions for everyone else to ponder.

Well the formation is interesting for sure. I first thought it to be petrified wood, a very very old piece of petrified wood. The hazcam shows two of these things in that 2nd area after the rover takes a parking break from running over one of them. I am just guessing, but I would bet that it was at that time, when parked at the edge of that small cliff, that it "phoned home" and told the tale of two rocks.

The current analysis could very well be accurate, but it could also be wrong. It sounds logical, plausible and official, but then again any good sales pitch can have the same effect and after people dont get what was pitched in the sales pitch, lawsuits begin to get filed.

Again its in the unsolved file for now. What would a piece of petrified wood be like when analyzing it with the scanner after it has aged 250,000 years or more? How would that result come up on that scanner and then have something to compare to say, yep it is or yep it is not?

Plus with the notion of all that UV radiation some believe that is abundant on the surface, that rock/wood is exposed to it. What kind of effect would that play out on a piece of wood that is petrified and 250,000+ years old? Would it show up on that scanner as something different or perhaps just like a rock?

Lots of questions, not enough data to say either way I think. Unsolved file.





Cheers!!!!