Why can't you (MJ and Jan) discuss this thing like normal people, and
not like some fanatic religious people? You all the time seem to shout:
"believe!

If you are referring to me, you are out of order.

I pointed out that your colors are wrong, or at least the picture with
text as posted by ESA is extremely misleading.

I pointed out that you THINK mars should look reddish, and so, while you had
a true RGB camera pic that was green(ish), you tweaked color so it looked
like you THINK it should look.

Now I will be a bit less kind:
It is called falsifying evidence, false science.
I have pointed you the Dr Levin's papers on calibration.

This was all known before that thing even was flying.
I pointed you to the discussion about mpeg and other artefacts,
in sci.spacetech in 1999.
I published an excerpt from Dr Levis paper that has a referral to
the Hubble measurements for calibration that indicate that mars should
look green(ish).
Your picture is green(ish).
You are SO SURE that mars is red, that you cite 'calibration error',

questioning the highly accurate scientific work on the camera system
by the German team.

I pointed out the limiting effect of RELIGION on science, in this
group.

You need to do a reality check, withdraw your pics, have ESA publish
in colors they REALLY measured, and try to explain WHY the sensors
give those results, THEN you do science, Else you are to me just a
scientific fraud, con artist, who draws pictures of what the thinks
people will want to see.

In that process strengthening the belief 'mars is red' and misleading
people.

I say there can be a lake there, oil, water, anything.

There is the neutron spectrometer data that shows there is water there
less then a meter underground.
One more pic or remark from you like that and I will link to CNN.

Just watched the formula 1, bit of aggression can get you in the prices.

In article <mjones-AD3070.00505617032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>,
Mitchell Jones <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:

But, of course, any water flowing into the bottom of Valles Marineris
will without a doubt be mineral laden water from underground
hydrothermal sources. The salinity will be high, and as dissolved
minerals accumulate in water, its vapor pressure declines. Moreover, it
is a simple, linear relationship known as Raolt's law--to wit: the vapor
pressure of a solvent containing dissolved minerals is directly
proportional to the mole fraction of the solute in the solution, where
"mole fraction" is simply the number of moles of the substance (water,
in this case) divided by the total number of moles in the solution.

Anyway, regardless of how far above 10 deg C water can remain liquid in
Valles Marineris, it is a sure thing that pools of liquid water are a
real possibility there. Given the photo referenced earlier, showing the
fog and the apparent pools of blue water, it is my guess that Valles
Marineris was carved by underground icemelt flowing into the bottom of
the canyon, with the source of heat being the magma chamber under the
nearby Tharsis volcanos. I would suggest that geothermal heating from
magma near Valles Marineris melts buried ice from an ancient Martian
sea, and that liquid water then flows out into the bottom of the canyon.
Based on the above calcs, such water could remain liquid at least to 10
deg C and, arguably, to 12 deg C. Since solar heating would seldom push
the summer temperature above 10 deg C, and since water flows entering
the canyon from vents at the bottom would cool quickly by evaporation to
temperatures at which they would remain liquid, it follows that if
steady inflows of geothermally heated water are available at the bottom
of the canyon, pools of liquid water will exist there.

Interestingly, there is a photo of a portion of Reull Vallis, one of the
canyons feeding into Valles Marineris from the north, which appears to
show a lake of liquid water more than 100 km in length, and averaging 15
or 20 km in width. See
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMAZ625WVD_1.html to
view this photo.

If you see nothing but bare rocks, then I suggest that you note the
following facts:

(1) If there is no wind or other source of disturbance, the surface of
water is as flat as a sheet of glass.

(2) If there are no suspended particulates, water is perfectly
transparent.

(3) The intrinsic color of water is blue, a fact that is revealed
progressively, as the water becomes deeper and deeper. [See
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/5B.html.]

(4) The sky is not blue on Mars, so there is no opportunity for
reflection to make shallow water appear to be blue, as often happens on
Earth. Thus if water on Mars shows blue, it will be deep water only.

With those facts in mind, I suggest that you download the hi-res tiff
version of the above referenced photo and study it carefully. If you do,
you will note that a distinct water line is visible most of the way
around the lake, and that as the water gets deeper and deeper, its blue
coloration is progressively revealed.

I say that's a lake--a huge one, as a matter of fact.

Here is how such a lake would come into being:

(1) An upwelling of hot water from a deep geothermal source would spread
out on the bottom of the canyon.

(2) Atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the canyon would be roughly
8.49 mmHg and, if the air temperature were above roughly 10 to 12 deg C,
vaporization by boiling would promote rapid cooling of the water and
would increase its salinity.

(3) Over the eons, the salinity of the remaining water would be
progressively increased, each time the atmospheric temperature rose high
enough to cause a repetition of (2), above.

(4) Eventually, the salinity of the water, due to the buildup of
multiple solutes, would be so high that boiling would seldom occur.

Conclusion: the photo of the fog shows an episode where the air
temperature rose high enough to promote boiling; and the photo of the
lake in Reull Vallis shows the normal case, where the air temperature is
*not* high enough to promote boiling.

Interestingly, a continuation of such boiling episodes for millions or
billions of years would result in total saturation of the water, and
continued "salting out" of minerals onto the bottom. The result would be
a buildup of immense mineral deposits in the locations where the
repeated boiling episodes were occurring. The area beneath and around
the lake at Reull Vallis, for that reason, may very well contain some of
the richest surface mineral deposits in the Solar System.

There probably aren't any fish in the lake, however. :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

Rodrigo Brito wrote:

In article <1111952664.549896.272710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
extrasense@comcast.net wrote:

NASA is brain dead.
We must somehow work around it.

ES

***{It isn't just NASA personnel who can't see the plain facts in front of
their faces. The problem is that there are two kinds of people in the
world:
a tiny minority who see with their own eyes and think with their own
brains,
and all the others who see what is socially expedient, so they can fit in.
Virtually all present day "scientists" fall into the latter category,
because
the advent of government schools and government funding of education, plus
the passage of scores of years, has driven most of the real scientists out
of
science.

One cause is simply that the availability of government loot ("grant
money")
has the effect of establishing a false consensus in each area of science
where government money is available. What happens is that the grant givers
look at the distribution of opinion in the area, deny money to the
scientists
who are in the tails of the distribution--i.e., those who have "extreme"
views--and, when the next grant giving session rolls around, the
distribution
will be narrower, because many of those who were excluded will have moved
toward the center, in an attempt to re-qualify themselves for a share of
the
loot. Result: with each grant giving cycle, the distribution of opinion
narrows, until finally a very tight grouping around a single, mainstream
point-of-view will be observed in each area--a grouping not based on
evidence, but on a desire to conform for the purpose of receiving grant
money. Once the point is reached where virtually everyone agrees with
everyone else, further competition for grants will take the form of a
hysterical antagonism directed toward any scientist who persists in seeing
with his own eyes and thinking with his own brain, and will manifest itself
in the sorts of scurrilous personal attacks and maintenance of "crank
lists"
that pollute the discourse in all the sci groups at the present time. The
implication is straightforward: scientific orthodoxy, in a world where
science subsists by means of government grants, simply cannot be trusted.

That very sort of mindless groupthink is at work in space research.
Virtually
everyone involved is fixated on fitting in with whatever the established
consensus happens to be in his area, so he can remain on the federal gravy
train. Result: space scientists are absurdly cautious about endorsing, or
even examining, hypotheses that deviate from established views, and they
exhibit strong antagonism toward those who persistently advocate such
hypotheses, even in cases like the present one, where the evidence is
simply
overwhelming.

What do I mean by "strong antagonism"? I mean simply that you cannot have a
conversation with such people about substance, if what you are advocating
is
unorthodox. No matter how hard you try to focus the conversation on the
evidence, and on the implications of the evidence, they will try just as
strongly to turn the discussion into an exchange of insults. Your
conclusion,
they will insist, is due to ignorance, or to stupidity, or to
psychopathology, or to some sort of moral flaw, and they will begin to
persistently introduce such notions into the conversation long before you
have had a chance to argue your case on its merits. And that is no
accident:
they see that you are attempting to lead them into unorthodoxy--which
means:
into a position that will result in loss of funding--and they do not want
to
hear what you have to say. If you are correct, they do not want to know
that
you are correct, because they see unorthodoxy as a sure path to a failed
career. Result: there is no way to get through to them. They will not
budge,
and any power which they may have will be used to maintain the status quo,
right or wrong.

You are correct to suggest that such people are "brain dead," and that it
would be nice if we could "somehow work around" the obstacle which they
represent.

But how are we to do that?

Well, it happens that 99% of all mankind is the way you just described. Very
conservative, or orthodox to use the same words. The general paradigm of the
common folk is very small. If one thing is the way the majority of the
population think it is, then it must be the right way to see it and even
research things into that path... but it turns out that this is generaly
true. Expectacular events are very rare to happen and to change the way
people see the world everyday would be nonsense. One cannot say people are
just brain dead because they state they are right and we are not...

saw a person being stuburn with itself)

We don't have grants to make research in some areas (Europe)

still take the way a few invented things in the first place (think
software/hardware).

Sometimes something big comes trough... Sadly enough for some... not
everyday... but it's the way we are and the way the world works!!

You would have to fight the world!! :)