PDA

View Full Version : Another Fellow Claiming to Have Found Evidence of Life



Tuckerfan
2004-Apr-20, 03:09 AM
I've only skimmed his site, but he doesn't seem to be too wild eyed about it. (http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/marsfoss.htm) He does provide links to the images on NASA's site, and isn't just using cropped versions of them.

Squink
2004-Apr-20, 03:53 AM
I've only skimmed his site, but he doesn't seem to be too wild eyed about it. (http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/marsfoss.htm)
Simply put, the "spherules" that have been found on Mars are clearly fossils of a primitive urchin-like echinoderm.
My God, It's full of Starfish!

freddo
2004-Apr-20, 03:53 AM
I can't view this site in full (I'm at work) but it's better than a woo-woo page that's for sure.

From what I saw the claims and evidence aren't anything new - but his process is far more thorough.

Eye-Zee
2004-Apr-20, 12:07 PM
I can't view this site in full (I'm at work) but it's better than a woo-woo page that's for sure.

From what I saw the claims and evidence aren't anything new - but his process is far more thorough.

Except that he is still using compression errors and pixellation as "data".

It will never stop.

Gmann
2004-Apr-20, 01:04 PM
This one is interesting indeed. C2C had a guest this past weekend, Sir Charles Shults, who made similar claims about seeing Sand dollar and Sea Urchin type life forms in NASA pictures. This guy also came off as not being a woo-woo. His site and photos are linked on C2C's site and bring up interesting questions. Are they "proof"? The jury is still out, but he makes a compelling case. Time will tell.

TinFoilHat
2004-Apr-20, 01:34 PM
Unless I'm mistake, at least one of the mars rovers has used its RAT to cut an in situ nodule in half, revealing it to have no discernable internal structure whatsoever. This would seem to rule out it being a fossil.

This page looks like a lot of seeing faces in clouds to me.

Irishman
2004-Apr-20, 03:53 PM
Anybody go through all the pages?

First, credit where credit is due. He starts off with the right attitude. His tone is fairly scholarly, and he is not screaming. He also doesn't begin with accusations of a huge NASA conspiracy to wipe out the fossils and cover it up. He gets points. Plus, it is a fairly ordered presentation - not like the jumble of Enterprise Mission at all.

He also gets points for linking to the original images. And he employs a technique for image enhancement that seems valid to me. This is not staring at a CRT with a magnifying lens.

However, by the end of the pages, his tone has taken on a strident tone, a certainty far above the meager evidence offered. His justification boils down to identifying what seem like repeated patterns over multiple blueberries, and details in suface features. However, when I look at his images and descriptions of the patterns, they greatly exceed my ability to identify the same patterns. He starts drawing lines on the images to enhance them, but I still don't see the features. I think he is overextending and imagining detail. But I could be wrong.

Daffy
2004-Apr-20, 11:29 PM
Toward the end he kind of lost me with the "crab-like" organism. But before that, the duplication of the markings on various rocks was very, very interesting. Is there a non-biological explanation for such duplication?

I sure would like a closer look...

Tuckerfan
2004-Apr-21, 02:12 AM
Unless I'm mistake, at least one of the mars rovers has used its RAT to cut an in situ nodule in half, revealing it to have no discernable internal structure whatsoever. This would seem to rule out it being a fossil.

This page looks like a lot of seeing faces in clouds to me.Yeah, but is the RAT designed to slice open the nodule in such a manner as to preserve the kind of internal structure which one might find in a fossil? (BTW, it's pretty rare for paleoentologists to hack apart fossils.) If the RAT wasn't specifically designed to do that, then it might very well erase some of the traces.

Wingnut Ninja
2004-Apr-21, 05:01 AM
I've only skimmed his site, but he doesn't seem to be too wild eyed about it. (http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/marsfoss.htm)
Simply put, the "spherules" that have been found on Mars are clearly fossils of a primitive urchin-like echinoderm.
My God, It's full of Starfish!

That's it, you win the internet. =D>

Irishman
2004-Apr-21, 02:43 PM
If they are fossils, they are rock-replacement. That is, the original material has been replaced by minerals - petrification. Thus the RAT grinding away should not destroy all signs of internal structure. Rather like slicing up a rock like a geode, that has crystals inside. Cutting the thing in half does not destroy the crystals all along the inner wall, only where the blade hits. Grind off part of the rock, the remaining interior surface should still be intact and show any layering from the formation.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-07, 07:56 PM
Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you. :D

Doodler
2004-Jun-07, 09:29 PM
I'd agree, faces in the clouds is what he's got.

twinstead
2004-Jun-07, 10:26 PM
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if 50 years from now or so, jewelery made from those 'blueberries' that will be collected from mars will be all the rage.

Tuckerfan
2004-Jun-07, 11:51 PM
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if 50 years from now or so, jewelery made from those 'blueberries' that will be collected from mars will be all the rage.I hope it's a lot sooner than 50 years from now!

01101001
2004-Jun-08, 12:21 AM
Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.
Yeah? Like the broken one marked up on Chip Shults' "fossil" site (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk100c.htm)? That one's hilarious.

Plautus
2004-Jun-10, 04:51 PM
Yeah? Like the broken one marked up on Chip Shults' "fossil" site (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk100c.htm)? That one's hilarious.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/Mk100c3.jpg (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/Mk100c3.jpg)

? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14097&sid=0b6d860433e49e72e172a6f0 cfff0893)

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-10, 04:55 PM
That is NOT the picture I was referring to, TRY AGAIN

beskeptical
2004-Jun-11, 09:55 PM
I dunno, NASA doesn't think so. And I think they would have checked it out.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/opportunity_spheres_040211.html

01101001
2004-Jun-25, 06:00 PM
Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.
You had better notify NASA of your stunning discovery.

Steve Squyres, in the June 25 press conference, in a question about RAT'ing through Meridiani blueberries, remarked that they've seen no internal structure when they've examined the insides of the spherules -- just as one would expect of concretions.

By the way, there's something about your theory that's been bothering me. Can you really conceive of a 3D shape whose intersection by a plane at an arbitrary angle, always yields a shape with 5-fold symmetry in 2D?

Excelsior
2004-Jun-26, 12:11 PM
For this absurd claims to be true the entire surface of Mars has to be littered in fossils. We dont have anywhere near this kind of fossil densities here on Earth. So common sense tells us it is all ridiculas.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-27, 09:24 AM
I'm sorry you got the wrong idea, I did not mean to suggest that the stars were all revealed at the same angle, they are not all perfectly symmetrical, the angles are arbitrary, but the stars are apparent, I promise to get you the picture in question ASAP, so the controversy can be settled, Fair Enough ?

2004-Jun-27, 10:02 AM
I do find it hard to belive that "Martians" could possibly belong to any Earth phylum.

As a skeptic, I would never rule out the possibility of uniquely Martian phyla. But - Earth phyla on Mars sounds highly improbable! :o :o

Of course - I could have the "wrong end of the stick"? 8-[ 8-[ #-o

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-27, 07:39 PM
A sea, is a sea, is a sea, & form must follow function in a Martian sea as on Earth. I would expect Sea Life on any water world to be very similar, regardless of perhaps very different DNA coding alphabets. Only after the life has moved onto land, where the varieties of Preditor/prey relationships, Climate & other enviromental factors that drive evolution in various directions have come into play, would I expect the life to evolve very differently from on Earth.

TriangleMan
2004-Jun-27, 08:23 PM
A sea, is a sea, is a sea, & form must follow function in a Martian sea as on Earth. I would expect Sea Life on any water world to be very similar, regardless of perhaps very different DNA coding alphabets.
Personally I would not expect there to be many similarities at all - decreased gravity (certain gases that can't escape Earth would escape Mars), different salt & mineral concentrations, different weather systems, less solar energy, plus lack of tides would make for a very different ocean. It is feasible for such an ocean to be unable to support life (say if it had little calcium and instead lots of copper and iron) and if it did have life it would certainly be unlike life on Earth.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-28, 12:50 AM
Elements that dissolve in water in Earth, or sink to the bottom on Earth, or float to the top on Earth.......... Will behave the very same in a water sea regardless of gravity........ are you thinking this thru ? We are not talking about the atmosphere at all, which in any case WAS much more Earthlike when these critters evolved . I see nothing on this site which is even remotely unlikely. The best volume to surface area ratio is the sphere, no matter what planet you are on, Spherical echinoderms ( Urchins ) are not surprising. that they would be in competion which each other, as on Earth, is not surprising, sea buscuits & sand dollars in a alien sea, is thus, not surprising, recall that the creatures of this era are considered part of the Cambrian EXPOLSION. If it happened on Earth overnight on the stellar or geologic timescale, there is utterly no reason why it couldn't have happened on Mars as well. This site barely streches the well versed imagination, Carl Sagan would have been a strong supporter of all these conclusions .

skeptED56
2004-Jun-28, 01:04 AM
Uh, I think Triange is saying that some gasses that would stay on Earth during formation would not stay on Mars. I.E. Earth lost most of its hydrogen and helium to space during its formation, because Mars has less gravity it would have lost even heavier gasses.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-28, 01:17 AM
I reiterate, we are talking about a sea here, & not about the atmosphere, which , in order for there to be the sea that NASA concurs with, the atmosphere would have had more O2 & CO2 in those days than it has today. such gasses dissolved in the sea would not have been lost by solar winds, at least not until the Volcanoes died, the air pressure lessened, & the seas began to evaporate. Biological forces act far far faster than geologic forces, if not, life would have been unable to evolve even on Earth. these samples would not have been buried, petrified, & later uncovered by erosion after the Mars Atmoshpere was lost, In fact, if they WERE hematite, they would not have been uncovered at all, esspecially in such HUGE numbers. No, they must have been biological in origin, exposed by the evaporating seas, & left to freeze dry in the thin Martian air, The only erosion process left would have been dust driven by the thin but swift winds. I'm betting if you tried to pick one of these hollow limestone shells up, it would crumble in your fingers. Life is the simplest explanation that covers all the bases here. I'm convinced.

2004-Jun-28, 08:20 AM
Are you talking "convergent evolution" here Darwin? If so - then, to a point, I agree.

But, that said, a dolphin and a fish are fundamentally different - any similarity being no more than skin-deep? Even the oceans contain many different body-plans. Why would life on Mars have chosen any one of these in particular? They are not necessary for life.

All I'm saying, is that I see no reason at all why life on another planet should conform to our Earth-bound body-plans. Of course - if it turns out that it does, then I'll be the first to accept it. I'm certainly not implying that it is impossible.

At the moment though - the "jury is out"! :D :D

Eye-Zee
2004-Jun-28, 12:57 PM
In fact, if they WERE hematite, they would not have been uncovered at all, esspecially in such HUGE numbers.

This is an unfounded assertion. Abiogenic concretions can be formed and and are buried and unearthed on Earth in a variety of ways. Life is certainly not the only answer, and almost certainly not the best answer, for Mars.

jt-3d
2004-Jun-28, 01:19 PM
Life is the simplest explanation that covers all the bases here. I'm convinced.

Life is not the simplest answer because to create life is not simple at all. Think about what it takes to make life at random, from nothing. No, that's not a simple explanation. I don't think there was ever life on Mars and I'm not convinced about water either.

I think most of what we're seeing is the result of the Martian sandstorms (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011017.html) which sweep the planet for months at a time. Planet wide sandstorms never happen here and as a result, I don't think anybody includes them in the options but they do occur on Mars. What a cool planet though.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-28, 06:10 PM
Pete, it's more like parallel evolution than convergent, Higher Earth forms like dolphins are a poor example, they evolved from the same shrew like crittiers that eventually gave rise to humans. There may well be many organisms unknown to Earth but common on Mars..... How would we recognize THOSE ???...........Eye Zee, no one is denying that Earth Erosion processes can uncover huge numbers of concretions, but Martian winds are very thin, any rain must be very fine mists , the idea that such could do the same on Earth is highly unlikely..........Bad Apprentice, as I said, the Martian winds are very thin, less than 1% Earth air pressure, you're over estimating thier ability to erode & uncover anything. Life is not a random process, it is an ordered process, thus it can work very quickly to create complex identicle forms all at the same strata. The Amino acids that formed into DNA on Earth are common in Nebulea , Sedna is reported to be covered in rich red THOLIN, the same stuff. A little of this stuff falls in the right place, & life organizes virtually overnight on a geologic timescale. There is nothing remotely exotic about the idea of sea life on Mars. I admit this is controversial, but only because it contradicts much of what we have been told to believe, or much of what we have previously assumed about Mars. Time to shrug off that intellectual inertia. Pete made the wisest statement, "the jury is still out" & I personally think this debate may last as long as the evolution debate itself......... This IS the grand adventure, gentlemen !!! I'm enjoying it !!!

Eye-Zee
2004-Jun-28, 08:45 PM
Eye Zee, no one is denying that Earth Erosion processes can uncover huge numbers of concretions, but Martian winds are very thin, any rain must be very fine mists , the idea that such could do the same on Earth is highly unlikely...

Time is all you need, and we have plenty of it. Terrestrial erosion takes place on the scales of hours to hundreds of millions of years. Even assuming you're starting from scratch with concretions in sediment or sedimentary rock, a few hundred million to a couple billion years ago, and no running water, and a pre-thinned atmosphere, even the current atmosphere of Mars can sandblast and ablate enough to flay off cm to meters of surface material and expose more resistant materials. It's just not an impossibility. Nor is it highly unlikely.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 12:20 AM
OK, we can agree to disagree on the erosion problems. That leaves the radial patterning, the vast numbers of identical forms, the beak/anus features, the rows of pimples, the sorting of smaller spheres to lower areas ( which is the exact opposite of the case with Mouqui Marbles on Earth) & the overall uncanny resemblence to Earthly sea urchins for YOU to explain useing pure geologic formation methods. Take your time, You're gonna NEED it :lol:

Eye-Zee
2004-Jun-29, 12:08 PM
OK, we can agree to disagree on the erosion problems. That leaves the radial patterning, the vast numbers of identical forms, the beak/anus features, the rows of pimples, the sorting of smaller spheres to lower areas ( which is the exact opposite of the case with Mouqui Marbles on Earth) & the overall uncanny resemblence to Earthly sea urchins for YOU to explain useing pure geologic formation methods. Take your time, You're gonna NEED it :lol:

If any of your morphological interpretations were at all convincing, I might need time. Frankly, after looking at quite a few of them, they are not.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 12:19 PM
Obstinate denial is not a counter argument. You have thus folded like a bad poker hand. you failed to explain a geologic process to account for the numerous beak/anus features, failed to account for the rows of dimples, failed to account for the radial patterning, failed to account for the vast number of identical forms, FAILED in short, to make a valid case for concretion concept. It was a pleasure revealing you as an obstinate fool. :D .............................. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!

ToSeek
2004-Jun-29, 01:14 PM
Obstinate denial is not a counter argument.

And obstinate insistence is no argument.

Eye-Zee
2004-Jun-29, 01:17 PM
Obstinate denial is not a counter argument. You have thus folded like a bad poker hand. you failed to explain a geologic process to account for the numerous beak/anus features, failed to account for the rows of dimples, failed to account for the radial patterning, failed to account for the vast number of identical forms, FAILED in short, to make a valid case for concretion concept. It was a pleasure revealing you as an obstinate fool. :D .............................. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!

Ah, my first ad hominem. How sweet. Watch the FAQ, Darwin.

The formation of concretions is not a fundamentally strange process, and the fact that they are both imperfect (with dimples and bulges), and different from terrestrial examples comes as no surprise. The sheer number of them is interesting, and I'm curious as to the processes that make and reveal them on a large spatial scale.

Your site is an amusing fantasy Darwin, but I'm afraid that's all it is. It is also clear that no forward motion is possible on this thread. I'm done.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 01:30 PM
It is NOT 'my site' but I at least have taken the time to read it all, to verify what Mr Shults says does not violate any established reasoning, to consider the matter with an open mind, & to search for valid counter arguments. (there are none) If you love the dead weight of intellectual inertia, you are free to do so, & thus join the ranks of those who held to the "Earth centered system", "Creationism", & the "Flat Earth on the back of a Turtle" concepts. I gave you an opportunity to offer a counter argument,( That is HARDLY obstinacy on my part ), you failed to offer any. You Lose............. I don't blame you for running away at this point.... But a balanced mind would admit to being logically & intuitively defeated .

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 01:49 PM
Wow, you certaintly make a lot of assumptions, Darwin. The assumption that you know more than everyone else for example. Keep that up, it's certaintly convincing me.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 02:04 PM
Uh, not for nothing.......... But just when did YOU assume I made such a statement that I know more than anyone else ????? I simply stated more in favor of Mr Shults's conclusions that anyone can state against his conclusions. Again, I offer YOU the chance to explain the evidense by purely gelogical means. If you AGAIN fail to do so, that does not reflect poorly on ME ! What kinda child's game are you playing here ? The kind where you find yourself in checkmate, & so you flip over the board , rather than admit you've lost ?

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 02:21 PM
Sorry, lost what exactly? You say you agree with some site (which you don't seemed to have linked us to as yet), I and other say we don't. What exactly have you won and why do you want us to talk you out of believing the site? If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

Here's a question for you. I assume this is what you are going on about even though you say it's not the image you are talking about. Here's (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/100/1M137060845EFF2002P2956M2M1.JPG) a NASA image. Here's (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk100c.htm) a page with that image you are not talking about. Note that the rock you fellers are all excited about having fronds or something in it. Now why does the guy with the web page use a blurry version of that rock when the rock in the NASA shot is the same size? Is this some sort of 'enhancement' to get us to see those trees that grow in rocks or what? Why choose blurry over sharp? Odd, no?

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 02:33 PM
You obviously haven't been paying attention. So scroll up right now & read the posts where I have given all skeptics THREE opportunities to offer valid counterarguments to Mr Schults's conclusions. If you have such counterarguments, make them. If you have no counterarguments, pick up a book or two on geology & try to FIND some. LOL ......If you can't find any valid counterarguments, then either admit Mr Shults is correct, or fall silent. Mr Shults maintained for months that many of the Martian rocks were sedimentary.......... Finally, NASA scientists admitted this WAS the case. .......Mr Shults maintained for months that liquid water was present on Mars............... Finally, just a few days ago, NASA admitted that this too, was indeed the case . I guess the guys at NASA are serious scientists, Like Mr Shults is a serious scientist........ Whereas you are NOT to be taken seriously....... Because you do not practice the scientific method. What are you doing here ?

ToSeek
2004-Jun-29, 02:35 PM
Uh, not for nothing.......... But just when did YOU assume I made such a statement that I know more than anyone else ????? I simply stated more in favor of Mr Shults's conclusions that anyone can state against his conclusions. Again, I offer YOU the chance to explain the evidense by purely gelogical means. If you AGAIN fail to do so, that does not reflect poorly on ME ! What kinda child's game are you playing here ? The kind where you find yourself in checkmate, & so you flip over the board , rather than admit you've lost ?

You seem to misunderstand how science works. You need to come up with an explanation that is sufficiently convincing to persuade us. That we cannot immediately provide an alternate explanation is not conclusive evidence that you are correct.

I have perused the website and do not see any "smoking gun" evidence for life. However, nor did I see what you previously claimed:


4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.

I would be very interested in being pointed to these examples rather than having to search through a not terribly well organized website.

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 02:49 PM
Wow, I looked at some more stuff. I have to ask, can you really look at this page (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk100b.htm) and tell me you see what our boy says?
This is very clearly a common type of sea urchin. Again, the original (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/100/1M137060845EFF2002P2956M2M1.JPG) clearly shows a rock.

If you prefer to believe this guy over us fine with me but I sure don't see any sea urchin. Wow, just wow.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 02:52 PM
Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 02:56 PM
Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

Thanks for that eloquent prose. Mr. Shults has show me blurry rocks and drew lines on said blurry rocks. I'd hardly call that 'light'. Oh well, I guess I'm just a dullard. Thanks for trying to save me from ignorance.

Darwin442002
2004-Jun-29, 03:03 PM
As a serious scientist myself, (Robotocist) sharing enlightenment is what I do. Sorry it went over your head. No hard feelings little guy ? :roll:

Musashi
2004-Jun-29, 03:29 PM
Wow, I looked at some more stuff. I have to ask, can you really look at this page (http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk100b.htm) and tell me you see what our boy says?
This is very clearly a common type of sea urchin. Again, the original (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/100/1M137060845EFF2002P2956M2M1.JPG) clearly shows a rock.

If you prefer to believe this guy over us fine with me but I sure don't see any sea urchin. Wow, just wow.

:lol: A sea urchin? Darwin, care to explain that?

ToSeek
2004-Jun-29, 03:35 PM
Mr Shults has shown you the light. I have reflected that light. you have refused to see the light. Perhaps you new a new or bigger monitor to see the evidense, or perhaps you need glasses. I will give you one thing.......... When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

Why don't you just say, "Is so! Is so! Is so!" and save lots of extraneous (and bannable) verbage?

Musashi
2004-Jun-29, 03:37 PM
Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

Daffy
2004-Jun-29, 04:37 PM
Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

Hi, all,

An an outsider looking in, I am a bit confused. Reading through this thread, there seems to be no convincing geological (areological?) explanation for these "patterns." Right? So why is it so completely out of the question that they could be fossils?

I am not saying that's what they are...I just don't get why it is so impossible.

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 04:53 PM
For myself, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that blurring pictures and then drawing lines on them is not any kind of proof.

I'm no geologist but look at the original (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/100/1M137060845EFF2002P2956M2M1.JPG) image. See that rock, down and right of center. It's still intact but you can see signs of some kind of internal structuring on the outside. The rocks (it's just easier to call them that) appear to have different densities throughout so when one gets cracked open, you get a kind of pattern.

What causes that, I don't know. It almost looks like impact damage. It does not look like a fossil to me.

-edit- fixed my link.

Daffy
2004-Jun-29, 04:59 PM
For myself, I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that blurring pictures and then drawing lines on them is not any kind of proof.

I'm no geologist but look at the original (http://www.intellicast.com/Local/USLocalWide.asp?loc=ksat&seg=LocalWeather&prodgrp= RadarImagery&product=RadarLoop&prodnav=none) image. See that rock, down and right of center. It's still intact but you can see signs of some kind of internal structuring on the outside. The rocks (it's just easier to call them that) appear to have different densities throughout so when one gets cracked open, you get a kind of pattern.

What causes that, I don't know. It almost looks like impact damage. It does not look like a fossil to me.

What interests me a bit is that the pattern seems to be repeated in more than one rock. I am not saying it is convincing evidence for life...merely suggestive. And that I can't think of a convincing explanantion for the pattern being repeated; but then I am not a geologist.

ToSeek
2004-Jun-29, 05:03 PM
Because ToSeek, how else could he prove to himself that he is so superior to all of us?

Hi, all,

An an outsider looking in, I am a bit confused. Reading through this thread, there seems to be no convincing geological (areological?) explanation for these "patterns." Right? So why is it so completely out of the question that they could be fossils?

I am not saying that's what they are...I just don't get why it is so impossible.

It's not impossible, but the arguments being expressed are hardly convincing, particularly for what has to be considered an "extraordinary claim."

jt-3d
2004-Jun-29, 05:04 PM
All I know is if I could get me a probe up there a scoop up a ton or so of those things and bring them back, I could make a fortune selling them. Maybe I'm part Ferengi.

Daffy
2004-Jun-29, 05:11 PM
All I know is if I could get me a probe up there a scoop up a ton or so of those things and bring them back, I could make a fortune selling them. Maybe I'm part Ferengi.

LOL! :lol:

Squink
2004-Jun-29, 05:58 PM
I'm no geologist but look at the original (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/100/1M137060845EFF2002P2956M2M1.JPG) image. See that rock, down and right of center.

-edit- fixed my link.

There are NO ROCKS in that San Antonio RADAR loop.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Jun-29, 07:28 PM
When you flib over the board in a viloent childish trirade..... It is cetainly A Voilent TIRADE !!!!!!! I have no more time to waste by casting such pearls before such swine .

I was going to give a warning for the "fools" comment on Page 2, but now I see no need.

Banned. And, like all the other pareidolia threads with nothing but tissue-thin evidence, locked.