Slashdot Mirror
"Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars
eldavojohn writes "Further reinforcing the theory of a wet Mars, NewScientist is reporting on what appear to be water puddles in newly taken images from the Mars rover. While these results are controversial, the assumption that these blue 'puddles' are water still has to be tested by engineers. They'll try to measure the uniform smoothness of the puddle surfaces. Analysis will also examine their apparent 'opaqueness', where in some areas observers claim to see pebbles underneath the surface of the blue areas. From the article: 'No signs of liquid water have been observed directly from cameras on the surface before. Reports last year pointed to the existence of gullies on crater walls where water appears to have flowed in the last few years, as shown in images taken from orbit, but those are short-lived flows, which are thought to have frozen over almost immediately.'"
Direct link to image: http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/d n12026/dn12026-2_250.jpg
Gotta say, can't think of what it could be besides water. On the other hand, aren't the images artificially colored?
You're making Dan Quayle look good!
We have puddles of water right here.
Is there some kind of delay in processing the images?
Why didn't they just stop and turn on the spectrometer?
... the water system in Mars' Endurance Crater was polluted today by a leak in the rover Opportunity's RAT tool hydraulic system today. NASA scientists were quoted as saying "D'oh! Better luck next time". In other news, the inanimate carbon rod was promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel today ...
Even the Mars rovers are starting to see mirages after 3 years on a desert planet.
-- my sig got
Isn't the Mars Rover in an area where there couldn't be free flowing water? Last I checked the temperature and pressure were far from the conditions needed for liquid water to flow freely on a surface.
And as someone mentioned earlier the images are artificially colored. It's probably just a mineral deposit or something.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Why did the image in the article have an enlarge feature? They made it about a whole 2% larger. I feel ripped off by shit like that on the web.
In any case, this is an interesting find.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Consarn it! Enough of the bloody "Water on Mars?" stories already! Unless someone at NASA actually drinks some of that water to make sure it's real, I don't want to hear about it!
Come on you scientist nerds. Keep examining photographs until you find a face -- no, water. That's it, we must find images that match our preconcieved notion of what it'll take to get a bigger budget, more subordinates, etc.
Levin is the son of the Levin loonie who has been insisting since the 70's that the Viking landers found life. NOT an objective person. And the photos are obvious bull.
It seems that the colored composite picture shown in newscientist's article was derived from these two original left-right pictures from Opportunity's navigation cameras on day 285. There are many more similar pictures around day 285, with these flat paths around the flat stones. In the 'Burns Cliff' Color Panorama (high res), the newscientist's image is just a fraction of the cliff: it's in its very center, where you can see a V and the steepness of where it is located.
1) The surface just seems a bit too steep to me to accumulate any liquid water in such amounts for a pond, since it's facing up the border of the crater in the original pictures. The rover was taking the picture from the bottom up, so also the material wasn't in the lowest part of the terrain.
2) In the original JPL's pictures, you can see the same 'watery' material all way up to the border of the crater: it's distinctly darker. In the panorama, it's interesting to note that it doesn't go all the way down to the bottom of the crater, where you can see a brighter dust covering everything.
Does this darkness means humidity? I fail to see streaming water, maybe flat thin ice sheets from a humid surface but this seems to be explicitely discarded when the author says that "If they were ice or some other material, they'd show wear and tear over the surface, there would be rubble or sand or something." (btw, sand on this steep cliff?) A very thin dark powdery sand looks more likely, but someone needs to go there and poke it to be sure. Any ideas about this? I'm unable to find the original paper to have a look at it.
Can anyone explain how they came up with the bluish hue in the composite picture, since the original pictures do not seem to have any filter information? (the 25th character in their names is 0 instead of some specific filter frequency)
I'm sure there have been over 100 front-page articles on Slashdot claiming that water has been found on another planet. Yet somehow...water has still not ever been found on any other planet. Editors-- please note that no one likes the bullshit headlines, and they don't make us want to read /.
If an article deserves to be front-paged, it will stand on its own merit, without needing to sensationalize and LIE.
MarsRoverBlog.com is discussing it, this isn't a flat area, but on a 20-30 degree slope. It is part of Burns Cliff in Endurance Crater.There is plenty of evidence for water on Mars, just not in these images. There is evidence of something other than dust, probably water seepage from underground, at Meridiani and Gusev. Orbital images have shown water in the polar caps and probably a frozen sea in Elysium. There are what appear to be ponds and flowing rivers in some images, especially the first Mars Express image released a while ago.
i nds-puddles-on-the-planets-surface.html
http://www.marsroverblog.com/discuss-mars-rover-f
This "puddle" however, doesn't stand the test.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Lakes and oceans look blue on earth mostly because they reflect our blue sky. On Mars the sky is black and/or dusty.
I have a hard time imagining where the blueness on this picture comes from if it's not digitally added.
The burden of truth typically lies with the person asserting the positive. However, in this case it would be interesting and useful to hear other explanations for this photo, because it *does* appear to reveal something of interest.
The article states "Levin and other researchers... have published calculations showing the possibility of 'micro-environments' where water could linger, but the idea remains controversial". Has anyone ever produced such a 'micro-environment' in a lab, and then tried to store water in it?
What the heck is a micro-environment, anyway? Am I being too cynical in thinking that it's an environment, just with a sexed-up name?
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=536615119& size=o
Opacity. HTH.
The picture of the puddle is similar to something Ive seen on Richard Hoaglands site, some time ago... I just cant find it at the moment.. But Ive seen the blue puddle well over a year ago...
2 004_Methane_on_Mars/Laney-Magic%20Carpet.jpg
This definitely looks like mud... http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-
And on the flows from the walls of craters... this was seen years ago:
"Reports last year pointed to the existence of gullies on crater walls..."
Try reports from 07/19/2000:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-water.html
Sure Hoagland claims the end of the world every so often..... Take the good with the bad. He was so right about current water on mars, long before NASA would publicly state anything like him.
Does anybody else find it odd that they can't tell whether or not this is water? I mean, were they so positive that they wouldn't find water on Mars that they didn't include any way of testing for it?
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Drinking Martian water is not something to be done without careful consideration... Martians place a very high value on the sharing of water. If you're going to do it, you mustn't do it without understanding the full implications of doing so - the cultural significance and the implicit promises that accompany water ritual.
May you never thirst...
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Am I really the only one here who actually played in the dirt as a kid?
... let's assume you don't have first hand experience with how liquid-like dry silt can be. Just today I read an article on Nasa's site that got me thinking about this topic. It's about how one of the rovers has again had its solar panels cleaned off by wind. If Martian winds can pull that trick off, clearly wind erosion must be ongoing on Mars, and has been going on for what, BILLIONS of years? Now...
...but with that wind erosion, what would be the lowest limit for particle size on the Martian surface?
... it's nice to dream and all, but what we're dealing with here -- again, at least on the surface -- is one very dry surface that has a heck of a lot of ultra-fine silt lying around in a low gravity environment.
Originally an outwash plain during the final ablation phase of a glacier, the 5+ wild acres I grew up on as a kid had a variety of clay, soil, and silt types. This "OMG, there's water on Mars!" reaction has come up at least once before here on Slashdot, after someone posted a link to a photograph that showed dark plumes spilling down a small incline. Some of the reactions here depressed me back then too. Have so many people really become so disconnected from the earth that they can't recognize ultra-fine silt when they see it?
Ok, so fine
without any liquid water...
without any biological activity...
without any volcanic activity...
Let me put this another way: there has been an erosional force running on that planet for a billion plus years, to this day, and no force (at least on the surface) is present to conglomerate or cement those particles back together. This, to me, means that all surface particles must be being eroded down to some lower limit in silt particle size. I bet there's all kinds of weird and wonderful physics going on down at that level, but I'm digressing.
Folks, as apparently the only person here on Slashdot who's ever played with dry silt, I have some sad news for you: I would be shocked if there weren't patches around that didn't look a heck of a lot like liquid.
Here's another story to contemplate: do you remember when one of the Mars rover's got stuck? The NASA engineers went off to the hardware store to recreate the soil conditions, and picked up things like dry cement powder and diatomaceous earth. And you have to remember that Mars' gravity is what, 1/3 that of Earths? Come on kids
Mars: where a dry surface flows like water.
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
ok, i'm no trained profesional in hydrophysics, but where i'm from, water obeys the laws of gravity. if you look closely at that picture, you see what is claimed to be "water" in a configuration that it could not hold, and/or would not end up in on any surface. especialy a sloped one. (short runs both up and down the "slope" and runs in oposite direction of what apears to be "primary flow" it looks like extermely fine blown sand to me. blown sand on rock.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
It's cold on Mars. Ergo, the puddles are full of FOSTY PISS!
alien piss
Why are they still arguing about the existense of water on Mars?
Definitive proof was found long ago!
Life is wet, then you dry.
add re-plumbing to colonization cost
My red baseball cap looks black in the dark. Does that mean it's not really red? No, of course not. It just means there's not enough light for the color to be seen.
Likewise on overcast days there is not enough light for the blue of the ocean to reveal itself. If you were correct and the ocean was just reflecting the gray of the clouds, it would appear white on many overcast days (when the clouds are white), but it does not.
If you look at the colored pic next to the original black and white, it looks like someone was just bored in Gimp and did some coloring. The whole side-hill in the blacknwhite pic must be water if the colored pic is true.
j 5.jpg
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/6572/39317433n
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Well, sadly, war is often useful, but anyway...
How about landers on Venus, Mercury, or any of the dozen interesting moons around Jupiter and Saturn? How about trying the Mars Polar Lander again, getting it right this time, so that we can study the frost?
We might learn quite a bit if we did any of that. But no. We go back to the SAME DAMN PLACE. It's familiar and easy.
Really, we don't get good science payback from YET ANOTHER toy driving around on the warmer/flatter part of Mars. Exploring is about going to NEW places. Going back to the same place, when there are reachable unexplored places remaining, is only excusable after a couple decades of technology advancement.
...a democrat were in office, we would already have people up there anyway, it's only because of Mr. Stupid there and all the money we're spending on his war that we don't have money for more important things for humanity
God dammit, what a load of populist crap that site is. They should not be allowed to use the word scientist in their name. Their content is far from science. I guess someone at slashdot is getting paid well for the proliferation of links to that site.
They're canals!
We've known about the Martian canals for decades!
This is news?
In one place it says, "...the Mars atmosphere is essentially a vacuum..." In another place it says, "The problem is, there are winds on Mars..." If it is essentially a vacuum, what is the composition of the wind?
Whoever keeps marking people as troll is indeed a troll themself.
looks like American beer. Wet cold and flat.
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
If its not on Space.com then its not real space news. This false color photograph is showing something but its not water.
Actually, this water does ... Pluto's pissed about being kicked out of the family of planets, and he's marking territory.
Kevin Smith on Prince
What are all those round green balls everywhere, attached to the the stones, evenly spread out? Reminds me of some earth based life forms that attatch themselves to stones. Strange but I supposed there is a reasonable explaination for them?
Looks like ice to me. The lighter strip along the edge of the left "fork" looks similar to the microfracturing that happens when ice on the surface of a puddle expands and pushes against a steep edge. And in the middle of the photo (the right "fork"), the angular darker lines look like stress lines, also caused by ice expanding as it freezes.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
but do they have any oil?
My quick count shows 7 surviving probes on the surface. They got pictures (see wikipedia), a soil probe, gas measurements, temperature measurements, pressure measurements, and spectrometer measurements.
It's been 26 years since the last landing, and a few more since the technology was chosen. Don't you think technology has gotten better in the past 30 years?
At the very minimum, we could set down landers with modern cameras in a few diverse areas.
In some ways, Venus is easy. The atmosphere is so thick that you can skip the parachute and air bags; the USSR just picked a non-aerodynamic shape and put shock absorbers on the bottom.
something like metamorphic rock like Obsidian, which looks watery with its conchoidal fractures and shiny black surface...wouldn't be surprised if it isn't molten rock flow exposed.
P.
Good God, I like New Scientist because they have an attitude, but couldn't they have asked an actual MER scientist about the image? That's a false-color image. For what it's worth, the Pancam true-color page is here: Pancam True color and the full-size true-color panorama of Endurance crater is here: Endurance Pan. Try looking at this, instead of the false color single frame, and just try convincing yourself that you're seeing water on the sloped sides of the crater.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/594/1n153135181 eff37ljp1950ho2.jpg
u ssion_page/41
from
http://www.marsroverblog.com/dyn/entry/54280/disc
The surface just seems a bit too steep to me to accumulate any liquid water in such amounts for a pond, since it's facing up the border of the crater in the original pictures.
Indeed. That image is looking right up the crater rim into the sky. The rover itself was tilted at something like 22 degrees IIRC, just near the slippage threashold. Liguid would flow downward and empty out at that angle. I remember looking at similar images when oppy was in Endurance, and some such places did indeed look like water. However, fine powdery dust seems like a better explanation to me. If the powder is consistent in composition and small-grained, stereo triangulation would not be possible. Also, those images look compressed such that some of the detail may be washed out. Oppy had to compress lots of images in order to transmit them in a timely matter. There were notable transmission bottlenecks around the time Oppy was near Burns Cliff, I remember reading. Rover managers were afraid that the probe was wasting time waiting for images to upload and orbiters to pass overhead.
Table-ized A.I.
What color is Lexan....
There are a number of things wrong with that article.
1) The images are false colour. All images taken by the rovers (or any probe for that matter) are never true colour. They generally take images through various infra red and green and ultraviolet filters. When combined, they create unnatural coloured images. So that blue soil you see wouldn't really be blue if it were to be seen with the naked eye.
2) The specific image shown were taken on the rim of Endurance crater, not at the floor of it. Water can't exactly pool on a slope.
3) Although the summery on slashdot here says "newly taken images...". This is also incorrect. They were taken in 2004.
I don't doubt that there is water on Mars, but I don't think it can pool on the surface (due to the low atmospheric pressure), nor do I think this photo contains any evidence of pooling water either. It may contain evidence of past water how ever.
The blue sky has more to do with scattering than absorption. Shorter wavelengths scatter more efficiently. Sunsets don't have the blue filtered out so much as scattered out. If the air were blue and did not scatter, sunsets would turn more and more blue and the sky would be dark. Flying over Greenland in the summer I saw some of the prettest clear blue water lakes that formed on top of glaciers. My cousins glass top coffee table could totally block her red laser pointer through the edge. The edge appeared green. Lexan, hmm I've notice a number of transparent plastic sheets with edges of various colors. Some orangish, some bluish. Water is blue, the deeper the bluer. Underwater photography makes this very obvious. Of course there are zillions of things floating around in it to scatter light as well. Underwater visibility can vary tremendously. The more the scattering the less a nearby light tends to fade to blue and the more redish it looks.
Why do they keep sending such crappy cameras to mars? If I took a picture of a puddle of water with my 1 megapixel cellphone camera I could tell it's a puddle of water. Why is it so hard for them to take good pictures?!
Why can't it be crude oil?
Wouldn't it evaporate more slowly than water?
Camping on quad since 1996.
Since there's no definitive evidence that these are puddles of water, saying that puddles of water have been found on mars is jumping the gun... The title of the story should be something along the lines of "Puddle-like object found on Mars". Then again, the people at NASA need more funding after all of those budget cuts... so it might be good for them to overhype stories and give them exaggerated titles to get the public/congress/president/etc. to get excited and cough up some more money for them.
Come on kids ... it's nice to dream and all, but what we're dealing with here -- again, at least on the surface -- is one very dry surface that has a heck of a lot of ultra-fine silt lying around in a low gravity environment.
It's quite clear that soil surfaces on Mars must regularly be exposed to liquid water. Why? Because we've already pretty much seen it: the Viking lander saw ground frost in its images, and at temperatures and pressures on Mars, that frost can turn liquid.
(Incidentally, silt was, by definition, created in running water.)
So, while I agree that these pictures don't show liquid water and that we haven't seen any puddles of water on Mars yet, an ultra-dry explanation of Mars doesn't work, and liquid water or salt solutions on the surface of Mars are not just possible, but likely.
For all the fun we poke at them for mixing imperial and metric units, they've done a fantastic job with the Rover, still working so long after its "due date". Congratulations to all people involved.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
haha
And - said polar caps are too warm to be dry ice. Voilà H20! Duuh ...
This has to be some sort of psychological test or
time-wasting run-around to see just how ignorant
and gullible the general populace is, or can be.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/02 13_030213_marspoles.html
martian puddle source :-)
Water flows like dry silt.
you had me at #!
and one GIANT PUDDLE
The Pancam is probably the best calibrated science camera ever built by humans, and definitely the best calibrated camera ever built weighing less than a few hundred grams. Does your cell phone take radiometrically calibrated 12-bit images in 13 spectral bands? And, more important, can it send images back from Mars? Look at publications with pancam specifications at the Pancam instrument page.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The article didn't have a larger image because then you'd see that the puddles aren't on the crater floor, but actually on a
huge slope
Read more in this forum
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
It started like this. GoogleSearch recommended that I read Fark, but I looked-up Slashdot for some information instead. I had a dream that I was groking and greping through all the back-scene rejected articles of Slashdot, with a terminal of Google beside me and AskJeeves ready to explain what I was seeing. I continued walking along the rim of a large gaping hole, and misplaced my foor. I slipped down to a horrible site. AskJeeves yelled out to me that I was sliding deeper into a Goatse chasm and that I should grip the sides. After 10 seconds of sliding and lots of *Ahhnold-Austrian-Accent* Bleahhh,nyaaa,naaahhhhh Bleahhh,nyaaa,naaahhhhh */Ahhnold-Austrian-Accent*, I fell face-first on this horrible article submit by Roland Piquepaile and it literally shattered my glasses. The first sentences of it began to lobotomize my skull to the point I pulled my own eyes out of their sockets.
I should've accepted that date with that big blond woman, and went with her on that Saturn memory trip...but I'm not Cowboy Neal anymore. I'm Harry...Harry Knowles.
*Ahhnold-Knowles-Accent*
Bleahhh,nyaaa,naaahhhhh
I must get these people their Ain't It Cool News!
Turn the servers on! They need movie reviews!
Bleahhhh, yaaohahoohoaaa
*/Ahhnold-Knowles-Accent*
OK, I learned something there. Thank you!
Still, some of the blue color has to come from sky reflection. I mean, the sky clearly is blue, and water clearly does reflect some light. Some percentage of the blueness you see in photos of earth from space has to come from either source. Sadly we can't check what it looks like under clouds in those photos.
Does anyone know how much is from each factor?
If the public was a hurd of Elephants, then NASA would report about the possibility of finding apples, grasses, and shady trees on mars. If the public was a team of handymen, then NASA would report about the possibility of unkempt housing on Mars with free buckets of nails and wood-putty.
Instead, they're picking religion to fight their war; they're picking the children of the Book, that can barely equate their tragic heritage they don't live to the ability that water can be found on a planet described as a desert. Water on a desert is the desire of a whole nation of former desert-inhabiting people (with a fantastic whirlwind-ride of passage and battles, ending in a search to Quench their thirst).
I think they should look for car-batteries on mars, seeing how their Probes and Rovers are hungry for electrons and protons all the time. Think of the Probes and Rovers! They've traveled so far away to an uncertain outcome.
As I wrote a few years ago in A Failure of Vision the filtering that NASA has been doing to accurately recreate the actual colors of Mars's surface actually makes it harder to tell what you're looking at. If you were living and working on Mars, before long your eyes and brain would adapt and you wouldn't see the red planet as particularly red.
If you go and adjust the ground to the rusty red in NASA's usual photos with this new photograph the water doesn't look nearly so watery any more. But when I lined up the peaks in the red, green, and blue channels to try and get an approximation of the original image (only an approximation, of course... but this has produced realistic looking images for me in the past... reddish, yes, but a red like you might see in Arizona) I got this picture of what appears to be normal-looking (not food-coloring-blue) water.
So my question is... what else have people missed, because they're seeing Mars through Earth-filtered images?
Maybe if a few folks out there tried this trick on other NASA imagery we'd find out.
Not sure what filters that image used, but this version looks more like NASA's "true color" images
A D37MIP2273L257C1.JPG
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/pds/257/1P153927090R
Suddenly doesn't look much like water any more does it...
(Cheers to unmannedspaceflight.com for that pic)
I don't ask this implying that it must be water, but rather I ask for more speculations. I wonder, maybe these are massive collections of opalite.
So much is known about mars: but this of course means that so little is known as well. The planet is harsher, and yet less harsh, than anywhere on earth. There is little atmosphere, so the whole breathing situation is much harsher, yet because of this fact 100km winds would fail to move a tent.
I think it's important to guess and wonder about things.
Personally, I hope it is water and that inside is a vast civilization of nano-sized intelligent beings. I hope one day they look up at the sky and witness a gargantuan machine staring down at them.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Curious why I hadn't thought of this question before, but what could the density of air be on mars which has a large effect on wind power, if it's approximately vacuum?
I don't use PhotoShop, myself. The Gimp is good enuff.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Overrated: For when your ego can't handle the chance of someone metamodding your Troll.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I love "Enlarge Photo" buttons that open up the photo in the exact same dimensions and resolution as the one in the article. Anyone find a higher quality image?
Also I was under the impression that water is blue on Earth because it reflects our blue atmosphere. Why would water on Mars be blue? Or is that a false-color image?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Why was I modded troll?!? Water DOES indeed have a slight blue tint to it. Oceans are blue even on cloudy days because the sky has little to do with the fact that water is already blue. For those who still hold to the misconception: fix your brain.
Water has a slight blue tint to it. You don't notice it in a glass, but it's obvious in a lake on a cloudy day, or in a deep indoor pool. Since I was modded troll by imbeciles, I'll post this fact again: WATER IS BLUE.
You were taught wrong, as, apparently, most people here were. Water has a slight blue tint; that's why it looks clear in a small glass, but in a deep indoor pool, lake (on a cloudy day) or underwater in the ocean, it's dark blue. Because: WATER IS BLUE.
Much more conclusive photographic evidence can be found here
The pancam actually takes quite nice pictures. If you go to the Mars rovers site, you can see quite a few of them in their press release images.
However, that is not an ordinary jpeg straight from a color CCD. It's a false-color composite of images taken in several different colors ranging from infrared to near ultraviolet. NASA does it this way to preserve some of the very precise light data that is lost otherwise, and to enable much more than the 3 color channels a consumer camera has without sacrificing resolution.
The two guys purporting this is water used a false-color combination of the raw images which made the flat portions appear blue. Whether they genuinely believe this is water or are just trying to make headlines, I don't know, but selecting an image with the regions of interest deliberately colored in a way the general public could easily associate with water is rather sneaky either way.
Since it is on ESA, does not seems to be fake http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808 BE_0.html
This is rather old news
If this is a fake please let me know.
...your response to point #2, that's what's wrong.
Stop looking at that bogus, photoshopped, false-color crap. LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL IMAGE. The area is part of Burns CLIFF. What you've been scammed with (and you have most definitely been scammed) is a highly modified, context-free crop pulled from a panoramic photograph of the wall of a crater. Would it have killed you to verify what you wanted to write before posting?
On the Planetary Society blog page, Emily Lakdawalla has completely demolished this assertion, showing the "nearly-true color" version of the image (the one shown is highly colorized), and the context image showing where on the sloped wall of the crater this "pooling water" is supposed to be.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com