RESPONSE TO "Overwhelmed Crowd Pleasers!" By Eddie:
Eddie, Arthur C. Clarke.. is a sci-fi writer.. not a scientist per se. He has no background in geology nor Geomorphology and, i suggest, that he is so advanced in age that he might be unable to evaluate the imagery with attention to detail given eyesight etc... if he ever could. Arthur C. Clarke's one claim to fame is his books and accolades for his writing (a knighthood) and his access to public eye, the media and prominent NASA officials therefrom.
Clarke's public question addressed to/at NASA regarding these images, The "Tubes", shows his own inability to DEAL with the facts of the image:
"I'm still waiting for an explanation of that extraordinary glass worm on ... [Mars].. Wh..It's one of the most incredible images that's ever come from space and there have been no [official] comments on it whatsoever!"
Clarke's expression of these Tubular structures as "glass worm" only shows his FAILURE to deal with the *FACTS* and details of these Tubes themselves.
You AND Arthur C Clarke wanted to get a definative statement from NASA ... and in the past week you HAVE! NASA is going WELL out of their way to make sure these tubular features are dismissed and not a public focus. NASA officials, shown in these emails at below link, try to claim that the viewing of these features as convex TUBES is a "trick of the light" and interpretation of shadow and,NASA CLAIMS, that these tube features are actually concave valleys and that the "arches/ridges" are actually wind driven dunes.
"Realize one critical fact--these are not "tubes"...the positive relief is an ILLUSION--the area is crossed by concave valleys. The transverse dune trains are emplaced on the valley floors--this is not new, either or Mars or the Earth."
(The arthur above, Dr Pieri, offers NO evidence of is claim that identical features to what is on Mars can be found on earth -- and I submit to he does not do so because there are none.)
NASA's Response: emails by Dr. Bernard Haisch and Dr. David C. Pieri are approx 1/3 down the posting.
These Cannot Be DUNES
The "Tubes" on Mars cannot be natural for MANY reasons among them are:
1) The "Riges" in the tubes which I refer to as "arches" and NASA has called "dunes" cannot be dunes because they preceed up the three arms of the rift/valley radiating from a center. These "dunes" are equally defined in each arm and would THEREFORE imply the wind is consistant in each direction. This is not likely nor even possible. The ONLY such Aeolian dunes ON MARS occur, in fact in narrow valleys where the valley mouth has funneled the winds and increased their speeds through the valley canyon. This is true because the atmosphere on Mars is only 1% of that of earth.. and gravity is also less, 1/3.. so that sands do not percolate, or cause other grains to bounce and become airborn as readily (they have less mass). The end result is that is that even gale force winds on Mars are only felt as mild breezes.
In point of fact, these Tubes are not anywhere, in any of the imagery, on the typical surface topography but are generally shielded from winds.. even subsurface, underground at times with only portions of them exposed.
These "arches" cannot be mere dunes also because their albedo, or white light reflectance particual in black & white imagery, is wholly DIFFERENT than that of *ANY* of the surrounding topography. Were these grains of wind blown sand, they would have to be of similar constituent to the local topography, however it is quite clear by their albedo that they DO NOT RESEMBLE ANY OF THE LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY--- AT ALL!
2) MASA argues that tubes are concave valleys.. and not tubular, convex forms. It is not possible that these are concave valleys for so many reasons, among them lighting and shadow evident throughout the main anomaly image, and other imagery with the same feature.
For starters, the greatest CLEAR evidence of lighting and shadow in the image comes from the raised lip of a large, prominent "impact crater" in the image north of the Tubes, central more or less, to the entire image. The tight line of this shadow on the crater's eastern rim shows the sun to be slightly to the west. but more or less high in the sky and not at a low angle. This argument will not even broach the overwhelming evidenc that this and other "imapact craters" accociated with the Tubes are not impact craters at all, but are actually vents connected to those same impact craters and in some areas can be clearly to be seen to be vitreos and hollow and the interconnection between vent and tube is unobstructed by stratigraphic cover.
The reflectance on the tubes AGREES with this lighting as does the high vitreous (glassy) sheen seen on the ovular area i refer to as the "node". ALSO, the tubes themselves DO cast a shadow in agreement with this same lighting indicator; concave valleys would, in fact, cast no shadow.
Furthermore, the vitreos glassy albedo of these tubes, what NASA would have you believe to be "valleys" indicates that they themselves are *NOT* at all similar to the surrounding topography. Logically, if these were indeed valleys with wind driven grain transport uccuring up their length, they would like contain such grains throughout their length, even grains cascading down INTO them from above, and would not be blasted to a shiny reflective sheen by any force.
ALSO these tubes can EASILY and readily seen to seperate from the topography itself and *PLUNGE* vertically downward into the center of the tri-radiate valley. .hanging.. in MID AIR! NO concave "valley" would be able to do such a thing as it is presumed that these "valleys" are voids in the topography and not concave forms seperate unto themselves from the topography -- and were such a feature to be concave and seperate from topgraphy it would violate the very precept that these are "normal" features.
Counter-argument to NASA's claim that these are "Dunes" by Entprise Mission's consulting geologist, Ron Nicks, can be seen at the end of this posting:
Further refutation of these being "Dunes":
NASA's claim that this evidence of the Tube image is unrealistic and can be show to be either deliberate dishonesty or incompetence, after validation of not ONE image, but numerous images. These numerous images show the tubes to be, in fact complex CONVEX forms.. and NASA's claim of one image being an "ILLUSION" of light and shadow becomes hard to swallow given the unlikely chance that such an illusion would be repeated in these numerous images.
Eddie, i am not at all surprised you yourself are not .. "overwhelmed". In fact i would have to say I myself am UNDERWHELMED by your grasp of the detail of these things and even your ability to rely on simple logic and reason and what is REASONABLE. Analysis of these images REQUIRES an attention to detail and not the flippant quick overview of a lazy-boy armchair critic. The Devil is in the Detail.
Eddie, you say that the program's own conclusion as to the "EVIDENCE" was that there "was no conclusion". Actually, given the detail and evidence which you HAVE been presented, there is only ONE conclusion -- A conclusion that is supported by a growing mass of overwhelming evidentiary imagery which has detail corroborating primary evidence, evidence form our ancient past and the bible itself, and evidence even on our own moon.
YOU may wish to think it "REASONABLE" that our prestegious space institution, NASA, the ONE whose endeavors into space LED TO the development of the pocket calulator and such current levels of advanced computers that we ourselves are not yet privy to, would be UNABLE to deal with the mere "units mixup" of not converting between metric and english units of measure that they claim led to the crash and failure of a Mars probe. However, SOFTWARE and hardware employed by NASA would INVARIABLY go through extensive modeling and testing using engineering tolerances... employing the SAME computer technology that they themselves resulted in. The MERE ACCEPTANCE of any surficial explanation that *ANY* space vehicle would have a catastrophic failure because if an oversight in converting "units of measure" constitutes -- utter and abject credibility and naivete.
While I agree with you, Eddie, that Clarke's request for answers regarding the "Mars worm" is .... "mumbo jumbo" and represents his failure to *grasp* the evidenciary facts of the imagery, I would have to say....
The answers are *THERE* and the *PROOF* is IN:
...WE ARE NOT ALONE!