On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:39 PM, OrionWorks wrote:
From Horace,
Yes. Consider just the very center of the 2nd two photos, 29361
and 29376
above (the first photo, 29352 is pretty far out of focus). There
is a bunch
of stuff that moves to the left and also rotates. This is *not*
due to a
change of focus, because background stuff gets exposed and and
some covered
up by the motion. Following are two snippets that can be played as a
slideshow to get a feel for the motion and what the object looks
like:
Thanks for taking the time to consolidate the two images. I wish all
these images were bigger however. Speaking cautiously here, It's very
easy to read things into imagery that may not necessarily actually be
there, especially when the imagery is fuzzy, sparse, or just plain
small. The danger here is that such imagery is ripe for different
interpretations.
I am very well aware of this, and have some experience in this area.
I own a stereo microscope, an ordinary monocular microscope, and a
medical quality binocular scope with digital camera.
Presently I don't know what to make of the visual changes.
Insufficient data, IMHO. Personally, I do not feel a desire to
attribute it to the possibility of there being some kind of active
life forming nearby the space craft.
Actually I didn't do that. I'm only inclined to do so if I see
clearly identifiable life form structures associated with growth.
I've seen plenty of stuff that looks like it may have been living
though.
For me personally, the first
thing that comes to mind would be to explain it as logically and as
prosaically as I can. Therefore, my first impression would be to
speculate that the visual changes are likely due to the result of
different angles of the sun when the photos were taken causing changes
to shadow lengths as they are cast on the surfaces of the martian
granules.
The Phoenix microscope has its own light sources. These LED light
sources come from slightly differing azimuth angles and an overhead
angle. For this reason I made sure all three photos were the same
illumination color, namely green.
The effects changes in shadows can create on various landscape
structures should not be underestimated.
Yes.
FWIW, I recall the great debate that revolved around the "Face of
Mars", that famous mountain in the Cydonia region that Hogland made
famous back in the 90s. Back then, I followed this issue (and others
including anomalies discovered on the Moon) closely and with great
personal interest. When higher resolution photos finally arrived from
more advanced satellites orbiting Mars I made it a point to make a
hard copy print from the new data. I placed the higher resolution
imagery alongside the prior less focused (but more romantically
perceived) imagery of the martian "face". It was a good lesson for me
to learn in how a romantic myth can take form and take on a life of
its own, running rampant - as long as the imagery remained
sufficiently fuzzy, just enough to keep the subject material open to
different interpretations.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
I don't think that kind of explanation applies here. Also, it
certainly is true that motion on a microscope stage is the weakest
indication of life I've seen. OTOH, those areas that move deserve
some following, simply because most all the other areas don't move
like that. Also, the fuzzy stuff adhering to the side surfaces is
worth following for growth. Here is an example:
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=29567&cID=274
The thing I still find most strange is the fact 100 Sols have gone by
without the publication of any meaningful FEM data.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
