The Empire Strikes Back As we fully expected, the response from NASA/JPL to our posting of Sir Arthur C. Clarke's comments on the "Glass Worms of Mars" was swift and merciless. Clearly, the Empire is determined to keep the lid on this as much as possible. It seems important to them to control the degree to which (and the swiftness with which) revelations are made about Mars. Clarke's end run around the normal channels of information release have clearly upset someone inside the Empire's high command, for they have acted quickly to squash not only the investigation of the data itself, but to prevent any other potential defectors from breaking ranks with the company line. In order to accomplish this, they have launched a three pronged attack against the "Glass Worms/Tubes" data and anybody asking about it. The major thrusts of this offensive are presented in two e-mails being circulated around the internet from Dr. Bernard Haisch and Dr. David C. Pieri. They are as follows:
Other critics have sprung up in the last few days arguing that the "tubes" cannot be artificial because of "their nonuniform appearance: some appear shallow, others deep; the spacing and uniformity of the "arches" differs noticeably--not traits expected of an intelligently designed tunnel system." For starters, we are not saying that it is a tunnel system necessarily, that is just the best of many explanations at the moment. Second, criticisms such as these reveal a significant ignorance of engineering techniques. This non-uniformity of depth could simply be a consequence of the state of "disrepair" they might be in. Some are more filled in than others because more silt or dust has settled into the trenches, or the once coherent tube structure has collapsed. As to spacing and uniformity, the spacing would be different to accommodate differing topography, different characteristics of the surrounding soil, and various other design considerations like potential stresses on the structure. As a for instance, the denser the soil (or the deeper the "tunnel"), the closer the arches would be together to provide more strength. Assuming the arches would all be of uniform spacing and size is like assuming that all the fasteners (about 1 million of them) on a 747 are the same size, type, material, diameter, length and spacing. Let's say 3/16 diameter half inch long aluminum rivets. If aerospace engineers actually had to design with such constraints, we flatly couldn't make airplanes. The same rules apply to architecture. To assume that such a characteristic some how "disqualifies" something as artificial is silly and ignorant. As you will see below, Enterprise consulting geologist Ron Nicks has prepared a reasoned geological response to some of these criticisms -- specifically, the easily-rebutted claim that these "ribbed patterns" are nothing more than "sand dunes." But we cannot be diverted too far into academic discussions of various abstract geological processes. The argument here is political, not scientific -- as demonstrated by the specific attacks on Clarke and Enterprise. That will continue to be the case. We will not allow ourselves to be pulled off message. The argument now is over which view of Mars that the public will hold -- that of the previous generation (a dead, cold Mars) -- or that of what the data is showing us (a living, breathing Mars). Both sides are now entrenched in their battlements and the war will be determined by great undecided masses in the middle -- who are the obvious target audience of these attacks. To them we have only this to say -- trust not what the establishment tells you -- but what you can know for yourself by examining all the data. We are confident of what you will see ... when your eyes (and minds) are truly open. Below are the two e-mails from Dr. Bernard Haisch and Dr. David C. Pieri along with Ron Nicks response.
ADDENDUM As is common in the milieu of honest scientific inquiry, I find myself in a position of expressing a dept of gratitude to a colleague who obviously disagrees with some, if not all, of my previous interpretations regarding "the worm-like feature" discussed in the body of my earlier article: "Opening a Can of Martian Worms ..." He graciously has pointed out one very obvious geologic mechanism that he believes to be solely responsible for this evocative image, a mechanism that I freely admit I simply failed to address in my original article. So, out of respect for dissenting opinions, and borne of a genuine desire to understand, I offer the following brief further discussion regarding the emphatic assertion he has made -- that the subject MGS image shows little more than "sand dunes along a valley floor": known also in the trade as "a dune train." Many of the recent MGS images from Mars do indeed show what appear to be "unusual" areas of windblown deposition. Unusual in the sense that, the various dune patterns represented seem to be generally pervasive on the planet Mars; whereas, one can find similar patterns on Earth, they are generally not quite of the same magnitude or scale. This isn't too difficult to understand, given the extent and violence of known "dust storms" that have been tracked by telescope on Mars for well over a century, culminating with insitu observations by spacecraft overhead and on the surface. Nevertheless, let's look again at the subject MGS image (MO4-00291), and postulate that the bright "ribs," as I called them, are indeed nothing more than "dunes along the floor of a relatively narrow valley." This is for certain a totally reasonable postulation-after all, in my original article, I even passingly considered a biologic mechanism (which to me, is a lot more bizarre than an assessment of mere "sand dunes"). It is true that, in my previous written analysis, I did not address the potential for the "worm feature" representing a simple Martian dune train; it is also true that prior to committing my thoughts to print, I simply dismissed the idea as obviously geologically untenable. That is exactly the sort of "unscientific" approach that is so frustrating in much of the literature today, and I feel a bit embarrassed that I myself fell prey to the same arrogance. So, let's look a bit more closely and see if perhaps the feature is not a "Dune" worm after all … but rather, a simple Martian dune train. Consider where this feature is located: near the bottom of (and embedded in the side of) a relatively narrow, precipitous incision (canyon) in the otherwise reasonably level surrounding Martian surface. The canyon also appears to have several "overhangs," locally. Now, ask yourself: "which direction did the wind have to be blowing, to create these dune-like features in this canyon?" Some investigators seem to be focusing on light angles, while totally ignoring the crucial wind direction -- when it's the wind that would create such deposition they are postulating … not "the light." (And while it is true that light angles can sometimes give the illusion of "inverted topography", it's also true that it only takes a minimum of field and photo interpretive experience to recognize this possibility and readily adjust for the phenomenon). The wind either had to be blowing "up" the canyon (toward the north-roughly toward the top of the image here), or "down" the canyon (toward the south). The "dune" forms themselves (if that's what they are) rule out a wind direction at any significant angle to the canyon axis - which is almost due north/south. If the wind was blowing "upstream," then the dunes would be arched in such a manner as their tips -- or the concave part of the "dunes" -- would be pointing, or facing "upstream." That is obviously not the case: in fact, just the opposite is true. The wind had to be blowing generally "downstream" (from north to south) to create the shapes displayed in MGS image MO4-00291. Indeed, the shapes are quite consistent with all their concave sides pointing downstream. And that's fine. Now, what happens when the wind encounters another entrant into the main canyon -- a '"Y" in the canyon, or the proverbial "fork in the road?" This happens in two places in this canyon system -- one to the north of the bright "highlight" I have ascribed to some kind of object trapped inside the "tube," and one to the south (below). Well, on encountering such a land surface configuration, one might expect considerable disruption of the previously coherent wind patterns. One might even expect to see considerable disruption in the dune chain itself, with a sudden shift to "chaotic" deposition -- as the eddy currents and wildly varying wind velocities at the intersection result in a truly random (as opposed to previously highly ordered) dumping of the airborne sediment load. One might even expect that, as the wind blew over the precipice at the mouth of the entrant canyon (the 'Y'), heading south (remember) -- a "plucking effect" would tend to pick up additional sediments and then dump them unceremoniously "in a heap" at the toe of the intruding precipice! There is indeed some evidence of this, but from this image alone it is difficult to precisely determine it's extent -- because the mouth of the entrant canyon (coming in from the upper right - northeast), although partly shadowed, appears to be a very steep slope … if not an actual vertical precipice. However, if what can be seen at the mouth of that entrant is indeed chaotic dumping of sediments, then (because they are significantly dark) they must be of different composition than the "dune-deposited sediments" of high reflectance - which, remember, is being postulated as a more mundane explanation for the mile-plus long repetitive pattern … in direct opposition to the structural "tube ribbing model" we have favored. This seemingly insignificant observation -- a dark deposit at this crucial juncture of the "main" and "entrant" canyon -- flies directly in the face of the "opposition's" model: that the airborne materials making up the "dunes" in the main canyon all derive from some other area -- which visibly contains sorted sediments of significantly higher reflectance than the possible deposits at the base of this overhanging northern cliff. So in reality, what do we see? Especially at the southern "fork," we see a striking continuation of the "regular dune pattern" (on the other side of the main valley) southwest, right on past this crucial intersection. Furthermore, you can discern the same pattern spacing (the one extending up this second entrant canyon and ending at the canyon wall) at the toe of the precipice (albeit in shadow) -- with only a slight variation from the regularity of the established "depositional" pattern seen in the main valley. How is that possible? I've run out of aerodynamic answers at this point. Not only does the continuing regularity of the striking pattern at the "worm forks" pose a serious, non-trivial problem for the "dune advocates," so does the fact that if our assumption of the wind direction -- "downstream" -- is correct (and that is the only wind direction that makes any sense, given the curving geometry of the subject features themselves -- if they are dunes), then we are also beginning to get into serious trouble with that part of their model as well; because, in the entrant canyons (remember, entering from the upper right), the "ribs" or "dunes" are, in areas, approaching an orientation of nearly ninety degrees to those same features in the main canyon. So, we now have this same wind, simultaneously blowing at almost right angles to itself - while blithely continuing to deposit the same, highly predictable "dune" pattern in two radically different directions! I don't think so. In closing, you might think hard about what you are being asked to accept from JPL and NASA as an "explanation" for this totally fascinating feature -- if you take for granted that these regular, curving "rib-like features" are in fact just simple "Martian sand dunes." You are being asked to "understand" that what you think you see is an "illusion," and that there is a wind on Mars (as opposed to all our experience on Earth) that picks up a small amount of material (in comparison to the size of the canyon itself) from an area of sediments with visibly higher reflectance than that at the canyon site, and transports that material alone-no mixing with any other stuff -- to the subject canyon, and then proceeds to deposit its unique sediment-load down the entire canyon length, and then down the tributaries (that are high-angle entrants to that canyon) … without so much as a significant "hiccup." If you're willing to believe that, it should not be too great an additional "leap of faith" (for that is what this is) to believe that this same "magic Martian wind" actually has deposited these dunes locally in such a fashion that they appear to be crossing one another, yet each retaining its separate, integral shape (look carefully in the area of the bright "highlight" and "bulge"). Now do you understand why I never seriously considered "sand dunes" as any kind of scientific explanation for this remarkable tube-like feature - with its equally remarkable "supporting rings?" One mystery still remains: do these investigators, with far more impressive academic credentials, actually believe in their "magic Martian winds?" |