Strange mars "artifacts"?

cassioli · 2004-02-23 02:43:17

(Too big image deleted; see next post to see what I am referring to)

This image looks quite strange to me(sorry, but how can I just link an image without displaying it?): in the center of the image you can see some "regular" features, some rocks which looks like if they have been "consumed" , or "eroded" by something: how could you else explain those strange 90? angles in the rock? It looks like something was dragged for more and more times over the same part of the rock, until it was consumed.

Could it have been done by volcanic activity? Maybe it is just water erosion?

Does anybody know where to find a closeup of the features I'm referring to?

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-24 01:26:01

Hi Luca and welcome to New Mars!
I think I see what you mean. But it's possible the strata, which are leaning 'backwards' perhaps because of the impact which caused the crater, have layers with different degrees of hardness.
Windblown dust and sand could have preferentially eroded the softer layers, leaving the "90 degree angles in the rock" you mention.

Your use of the word "artifacts" puzzles me somewhat. What do you yourself think caused the regular 90 degree groove?
???

cassioli · 2004-02-24 02:55:46

Hi Luca and welcome to New Mars!
I think I see what you mean. But it's possible the stata, which are leaning 'backwards' perhaps because of the impact which caused the crater, have layers with different degrees of hardness.
Windblown dust and sand could have preferentially eroded the softer layers, leaving the "90 degree angles in the rock" you mention.
Your use of the word "artifacts" puzzles me somewhat. What do you yourself think caused the regular 90 degree groove?
???

It's quite difficult to explain it usinng my poor english...:( Anyway, if you repeatedly drag something heavy over a "soft" rock, the rock will be eventually eroded.
Actually, if dragging continues for a really long time something over a rock, it will be eroded even if the object is not so heavy: I am thinking to the erosion of very old stairs in old monuments and buildings, due to people's steps.

I am also thinking to tracks left over ancient Roman ways by Roman wagons after repeated passages: they were just wooden (or iron?) wheels, but the rocks composing the"streets" were consumed a lot.

Actually, some "tracks" are visibile on the martian outcrop. It could appear too "science fictious", but...
Anyway, I repeat, it could just be the result of water or lava erosion.

Here it is the closup I was looking for:

You can see the "90? structure" on the right, and the "tracks" on the left part of the image.

Luca

cassioli · 2004-02-24 09:56:19

The closer you get, the stranger it gets...
[http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1P1296 … 61R5M1.JPG](zoom) [http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1P1296 … 61R1M1.JPG](zoom)

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-24 19:29:56

Luca, I've often said here at New Mars that I enjoy a good mystery or a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I'm having trouble seeing anything especially mysterious in these photos of yours.

I believe rock formations can often assume peculiar shapes and an experienced geologist would probably look at the erosional features you point out here and explain them quite easily. Unfortunately, I know little about geology and I can only make guesses at their origins, such as wind/sand or possibly water/sand erosion

However, even if we were to assume you are correct and that something has dragged over these surfaces many times to produce the grooves and angles, can you suggest anything which might have been responsible?
It sounds to me as though you're insinuating that some kind of animal may have made these 'tracks'. Or have I misinterpreted your comments?
???

GraemeSkinner · 2004-02-25 01:20:44

Luca, I've often said here at New Mars that I enjoy a good mystery or a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I'm having trouble seeing anything especially mysterious in these photos of yours.
I believe rock formations can often assume peculiar shapes and an experienced geologist would probably look at the erosional features you point out here and explain them quite easily. Unfortunately, I know little about geology and I can only make guesses at their origins, such as wind/sand or possibly water/sand erosion
However, even if we were to assume you are correct and that something has dragged over these surfaces many times to produce the grooves and angles, can you suggest anything which might have been responsible?
It sounds to me as though you're insinuating that some kind of animal may have made these 'tracks'. Or have I misinterpreted your comments?
???

Thats one of the problems in try to work out what some of the objects in the images mean. It would be so easy for someone in the media to pick up one of these images and start a mass wave of publicity of 'signs of past life found on Mars'. I too enjoy a good mystery (conspiracy theories bug me due to the number of kooks it attracts), but the formations seen in these images will likely be solved by geologists.
From a distance the images do give a 'dragged over' look, but when you look at the following [http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … B031R1.jpg]image it reminds me of walking on a beach with outcroppings of sedimentary rock, hell, if I looked through my photo archives I'd probably find a coastal photo that had rocks eroded in a similar way to the image above.
My first sight of the 90degree erosion made me think of wind/sand, but this higher view of the rocks make me think its water erosion, and that would mean a good deal of water was once present at that location. That does not give me any great problems in thinking, I've thought for a while now as Mars being a fairly wet planet in its past (how far in the past is a different question all together though).

cassioli · 2004-02-25 02:16:58

Luca, I've often said here at New Mars that I enjoy a good mystery or a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I'm having trouble seeing anything especially mysterious in these photos of yours.

I printed them and attached them to the wall in my room.
When I look at them, out of their context, they don't appear at all Mars photos...

I believe rock formations can often assume peculiar shapes and an experienced geologist would probably look at the erosional features you point out here and explain them quite easily.

I know this; somebody here posted a link to the "Giant walk", a basaltic formation so called because it looks like made of giant exagonal tiles. But it is the natural result of lava crystallization.

Unfortunately, I know little about geology and I can only make guesses at their origins, such as wind/sand or possibly water/sand erosion
However, even if we were to assume you are correct and that something has dragged over these surfaces many times to produce the grooves and angles, can you suggest anything which might have been responsible?
It sounds to me as though you're insinuating that some kind of animal may have made these 'tracks'. Or have I misinterpreted your comments?
???

I have absolutely no idea of what could actually have created those formations. At least, not reasonable ideas which I could post into a scientific forum...

Maybe I'll create a short web page to explain my theory out of here.

Luca

No life on Mars · 2004-02-25 06:54:28

Hello cassioli !
I think only person in this forum who can explain "Strange mars "artifacts"" is ERRORIST. You and ERRORIST should create homepage with this heading:
"We (cassioli and ERRORIST) can see things on Mars which never exist on Mars":p
or " Mars for dummies" :band:
I want give some tribute to your homepage see at bottom center of this image I can see "big fat worm"

cassioli · 2004-02-25 09:57:46

Hello cassioli !
I think only person in this forum who can explain "Strange mars "artifacts"" is ERRORIST. You and ERRORIST should create homepage with this heading:
"We (cassioli and ERRORIST) can see things on Mars which never exist on Mars":p
or " Mars for dummies" :band:
I want give some tribute to your homepage see at bottom center of this image I can see "big fat worm"
(IMG)

This is the reason I didn't post my theory here for... To avoid silly replies

Anyway, I can't see any "big fat worm" in your photo, just like I can't see plants, animals, stairs and similar things on NASA photos, like a lot people is doing in other fourms... (I'll post you the link, if I find it again; I didn't boomark it...)

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-25 19:00:47

Luca, I don't really know what your hypothesis entails with regard to the rock outcrop. I have a suspicion, based on what I've seen so far, that I won't be convinced by it but I could be wrong.
However, I fully support a person's right to submit ideas based on reasonable evidence, no matter how out-of-the-ordinary they may appear. I understand how scientific paradigms arise and I know how pervasive they can become - to the extent of stifling new ideas that 'don't fit'. I believe we need to evaluate new things with as much of an open mind as we can.

Don't be too disheartened by No life on Mars, who appears to be having fun deriding you and Errorist for suggesting controversial explanations for martian surface features.
I believe you have the right to air these notions here but I say again that you have to be prepared to be shot down by reasonable counter-arguments. My position on this, as I've said, is that I haven't seen anything in your photos which looks sufficiently unusual to require a controversial explanation.
But if you find more and better evidence, I am prepared to listen.

cassioli · 2004-02-28 05:41:28

Ok, here we are: this is an image (80 KB) representing my theories about the outcrop origin.

There are 5 horizontal sequences of happenings:
Which one do you think is more probable?
Why?

Luca

Rxke · 2004-02-28 09:18:45

You should ask the opinion of Mr_Toad. He's new here, but he's a professional geologist. Read his thread about the rovers in the section 'water on Mars.' Quite interesting. I hope he will visit again soon. I sent him an IM, asking him to give some opinions on certain pictures, hope he'll be so kind to do so

atomoid · 2004-03-02 06:25:20

i like sequence number four because it looks like mars had a healthy contingent of stromatolyte ecology billions of years past, then was covered by sand over the ages only to be revealed many eons later by meteor impacts.

No life on Mars · 2004-03-02 17:16:58

Citat fra space.com
NASA:
Don't expect any evidence of life to be detected by the current rovers, however. Scientists agree that if life ever existed on Mars, it did not get beyond simple, microbial stages. Remains of such life on Earth are typically detected not as conventional fossils but via mineral or chemical signatures only in very well preserved rock.

"Unless we find a dinosaur bed, we're not going to be able to [find signs of past life] in situ very easily," Craddock said. Instead, samples would need to be returned to an Earth lab for more study, he said.

:bars2:

cassioli · 2004-03-22 14:04:54

Luca, I've often said here at New Mars that I enjoy a good mystery or a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I'm having trouble seeing anything especially mysterious in these photos of yours.

I eventually found again the photo I was thinking of when looking at those Mars photos:

This is a detail of a [http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … treet2.jpg]bigger photo.

Mars photo:

Luca

cassioli · 2004-03-22 14:07:10

Luca, I've often said here at New Mars that I enjoy a good mystery or a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I'm having trouble seeing anything especially mysterious in these photos of yours.

I eventually found again the photo I was thinking of when looking at those Mars photos:

This is a detail of a [http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … treet2.jpg]bigger photo.

Mars photo:

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-22 19:46:35

Again, I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here. I can't see anything which yells "ARTIFICIAL!!" at me.
???

cassioli · 2004-03-23 02:54:50

Again, I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here. I can't see anything which yells "ARTIFICIAL!!" at me.
???

If you can't find anything artificial in an ancient Roman street, I don't know what else I could show you...

I am NOT saying that "surely there WERE people running on street on Mars in the past"; I am just saying that Opportunity's outcrop is VERY VERY similar to an ancient Roman street.

What is the reason of this, I donpt know.

But you can't say it is not true!

Luca

No life on Mars · 2004-03-23 04:50:41

Hej Luca!
Roma street are made of granit (hard stone) and this on Mars are sulfur rich (40%) stone which means very soft stone. On Mars are plenty of granit so I can see logic. Be patient in next crater opportunity is heading for nasa expect to find parts of
"artificial" Mars railroad. :band:

cassioli · 2004-03-23 05:23:23

Hej Luca!
Roma street are made of granit (hard stone) and this on Mars are sulfur rich (40%) stone which means very soft stone. On Mars are plenty of granit so I can see logic. Be patient in next crater opportunity is heading for nasa expect to find parts of
"artificial" Mars railroad. :band:

No RAILroads, just ROADS. Maybe ancient Martians were a bit primitive...

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-23 06:29:01

Ha ha! You got me!
But I think you cheated a little bit. That small section of a genuine Roman road (if that's what it is and you're not pulling the wool over my eyes once more! ) is so badly weathered as to be very natural-looking. If we could see more of the picture and make out a long straight series of stones disappearing over the horizon, as was typical of Roman roads, then their artificiality would be obvious.
The fact that the outcrop of rock which Opportunity has been studying is in the internal wall of a crater, and leads nowhere, detracts from any argument that it could have been purpose-built. If it was there before the impactor excavated the crater, why was it not destroyed? If the so-called 'road' was built after the impact occurred, why didn't the builders skirt around the crater instead of awkwardly trying to pave the sloping interior wall?
???

cassioli · 2004-03-23 12:33:47

Ha ha! You got me!
But I think you cheated a little bit.

Yes... just a bit...

That small section of a genuine Roman road (if that's what it is and you're not pulling the wool over my eyes once more! ) is so badly weathered as to be very natural-looking.

This is the reason which I posted only a detail of the image for! But I also posted the link to the full image.

If we could see more of the picture and make out a long straight series of stones disappearing over the horizon, as was typical of Roman roads, then their artificiality would be obvious.

Did you try the [http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … treet2.jpg]link? [http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … treet2.jpg]CLICK HERE!!!

The fact that the outcrop of rock which Opportunity has been studying is in the internal wall of a crater, and leads nowhere, detracts from any argument that it could have been purpose-built. If it was there before the impactor excavated the crater, why was it not destroyed?

Actually, it IS destroyed! Well, it WOULD, if it WAS a street...

Luca

cassioli · 2004-03-23 12:47:28

So, did you want the full picture?
Ok, here it is:

"Appia" street

But please note that it is not "badly weathered": those tracks are due to the passage of hundreds (or thousands) of wheels of Roman carts!

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-03-23 19:16:58

I confess you got me yet again! :laugh:

I was in a hurry and managed to miss the link to the bigger picture - sorry.
But that doesn't alter my current opinion that your attempt to portray the Opportunity outcrop as a dilapidated martian road, or as building foundations, is not really very convincing.

SBird · 2004-03-24 15:56:46

I'd have to side with Shaun here. The resemblance between the road and the Mars features *is* striking. However, I've seen rock formations that looked just like that hiking before. As you've mentioned, the road is merely a possibility and a low probability one at that - it's much more likely that this is a natural formation. What it would take is ripping up those rocks to see if they're just the top of an outcropping or actually fitted stones like a Roman road.
Until then, I'm going to go with rock outcropping as my bet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-23 02:43:17

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#2 2004-02-24 01:26:01

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#3 2004-02-24 02:55:46

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#4 2004-02-24 09:56:19

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#5 2004-02-24 19:29:56

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#6 2004-02-25 01:20:44

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#7 2004-02-25 02:16:58

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#8 2004-02-25 06:54:28

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#9 2004-02-25 09:57:46

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#10 2004-02-25 19:00:47

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#11 2004-02-28 05:41:28

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#12 2004-02-28 09:18:45

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#13 2004-03-02 06:25:20

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#14 2004-03-02 17:16:58

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#15 2004-03-22 14:04:54

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#16 2004-03-22 14:07:10

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#17 2004-03-22 19:46:35

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#18 2004-03-23 02:54:50

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#19 2004-03-23 04:50:41

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#20 2004-03-23 05:23:23

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#21 2004-03-23 06:29:01

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#22 2004-03-23 12:33:47

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#23 2004-03-23 12:47:28

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#24 2004-03-23 19:16:58

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

#25 2004-03-24 15:56:46

Re: Strange mars "artifacts"?

Board footer