Spherules found at the Spirit site.

" George" wrote in message
.. .

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2943M2M1.JPG


Incredible!

The spheres at the Spirit site appear as dunes, but there
are several pics showing sizable rocks on top of the
these dunes.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2532R1M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389R2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389L5M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P1635R0M1.HTML


And what the 'ell is this?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389R2M1.HTML


And does this pic show the spheres are eroding away and uncovering
a basalt rock?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2599L2M1.JPG


It looks to me the spheres at the Spirit site are different, they seem less uniformly
spherical and the broken pieces seem to be missing. They appear more like the
spheres eroding out of the sedimentary rock at the Opportunity site.
So I would speculate the Spirit spheres are the fossilized version being
uncovered by erosion.

And in this pic the shapes appear to be determined by contact
with each other, especially in the upper left. Where a couple
are u-shaped around another.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2943M2M1.JPG

I think this puts a big damper on the idea they formed in
the atmosphere as fallout, but more likely underwater.
The dunes at the Spirit site might be from ancient
wave action, not wind.

These are life forms, I'm more convinced every day.


Jonathan

s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
.. .


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2943M2M1.JPG


Incredible!

The spheres at the Spirit site appear as dunes, but there
are several pics showing sizable rocks on top of the
these dunes.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2532R1M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389R2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389L5M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P1635R0M1.HTML


And what the 'ell is this?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2389R2M1.HTML


And does this pic show the spheres are eroding away and uncovering
a basalt rock?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2599L2M1.JPG


It looks to me the spheres at the Spirit site are different, they seem
less uniformly
spherical and the broken pieces seem to be missing. They appear more like
the
spheres eroding out of the sedimentary rock at the Opportunity site.
So I would speculate the Spirit spheres are the fossilized version being
uncovered by erosion.

And in this pic the shapes appear to be determined by contact
with each other, especially in the upper left. Where a couple
are u-shaped around another.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...6P2943M2M1.JPG

I think this puts a big damper on the idea they formed in
the atmosphere as fallout, but more likely underwater.
The dunes at the Spirit site might be from ancient
wave action, not wind.

These are life forms, I'm more convinced every day.


Jonathan


Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?

" George" wrote in message
.. .


Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?


Perhaps I should be asking you.
The dunes made of spheres at the Spirit
site are clearly ancient, else they wouldn't
have rocks on top. So the spheres must
have cemented them in place.

Nasa picked this site due to the evidence
it was an ancient lake. Have you even
looked at the pics?


Jonathan

s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
.. .


Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?


Perhaps I should be asking you.
The dunes made of spheres at the Spirit
site are clearly ancient, else they wouldn't
have rocks on top.

The presence of rocks on top of anything has nothing to do with how old they
are. However, I will agree with you that they are very old, but for
entirely different reasons.

So the spheres must
have cemented them in place.

How so?

Nasa picked this site due to the evidence
it was an ancient lake. Have you even
looked at the pics?


Well yeah, since I posted the link to them.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
.. .


Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?


Perhaps I should be asking you.
The dunes made of spheres at the Spirit
site are clearly ancient, else they wouldn't
have rocks on top.

None of the rocks in the images you presented
are necessarily sitting on top of the dunes.

So the spheres must
have cemented them in place.

It remains to be seen if the dunes are
cemented in place or that they cement
anything else in place.


Nasa picked this site due to the evidence
it was an ancient lake. Have you even
looked at the pics?


Jonathan

s

February 15, 2004

George wrote:

These are life forms, I'm more convinced every day.

Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?

It isn't all that far fetched.

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/cura...rchForLife.htm

Look at the structure of the globules. While they are smaller by an order of magnitude,
and flattened, as a result of their formation in very narrow fractures and fissures,
they have the basic structure, an inner precipitate, and an iron rich outer coating.
Perhaps the spherules are just the final result of a process where the biogenic
precipitation process is allowed to complete its cycle.

Certainly there is evidence now for a biogenic origin of terrestrial banded iron
formations.

Whether or not the spherules rain out of a water vapor and mineral rich sky, or out of
a water and mineral rich surface, is almost irrelevant. Precipitation is required for
mineral rich ice sheet formation, and this is what I see here. Regardless, this
indicates a very wet Mars in the distant past, and a very icy Mars in the present.

Jonathon obviously has the details wrong, but the idea is worthy of examination.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
February 15, 2004

George wrote:

These are life forms, I'm more convinced every day.

Nuts. How old are you, Johnathan?

It isn't all that far fetched.


http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/cura...rchForLife.htm

Look at the structure of the globules. While they are smaller by an order
of magnitude,
and flattened, as a result of their formation in very narrow fractures and
fissures,
they have the basic structure, an inner precipitate, and an iron rich
outer coating.
Perhaps the spherules are just the final result of a process where the
biogenic
precipitation process is allowed to complete its cycle.

You could certainly try to make that case, although based on what evidence
that the ROVER has collected, I have no idea. Based on the evidence that
the rover has thus far collected, it is far more likely that the spherules
are simply volcanic/impact related. In fact, I think it is far more likely
that this is the case.

Certainly there is evidence now for a biogenic origin of terrestrial
banded iron
formations.

No doubt. But that is not what we are talking about here.

Whether or not the spherules rain out of a water vapor and mineral rich
sky, or out of
a water and mineral rich surface, is almost irrelevant. Precipitation is
required for
mineral rich ice sheet formation, and this is what I see here. Regardless,
this
indicates a very wet Mars in the distant past, and a very icy Mars in the
present.

So where's the ICE?

Jonathon obviously has the details wrong, but the idea is worthy of
examination.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

I would recommend that you read the following article. It is worthwhile, and
addresses some of the same issues:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...es_040211.html

February 15, 2004

George wrote:

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/cura...rchForLife.htm

Look at the structure of the globules. While they are smaller by an order
of magnitude,
and flattened, as a result of their formation in very narrow fractures and
fissures,
they have the basic structure, an inner precipitate, and an iron rich
outer coating.
Perhaps the spherules are just the final result of a process where the
biogenic
precipitation process is allowed to complete its cycle.

You could certainly try to make that case, although based on what evidence
that the ROVER has collected, I have no idea.

You certainly don't.

Based on the evidence that
the rover has thus far collected, it is far more likely that the spherules
are simply volcanic/impact related.

Mineral laden ice sheets obviously would be volcanic/impact related, as I just pointed out.

In fact, I think it is far more likely
that this is the case.

It's nice that we agree, but the problem remains, the process by which the spherules were
formed.

Certainly there is evidence now for a biogenic origin of terrestrial
banded iron
formations.

No doubt. But that is not what we are talking about here.

We certainly are - hematite.

Whether or not the spherules rain out of a water vapor and mineral rich
sky, or out of
a water and mineral rich surface, is almost irrelevant. Precipitation is
required for
mineral rich ice sheet formation, and this is what I see here. Regardless,
this
indicates a very wet Mars in the distant past, and a very icy Mars in the
present.

So where's the ICE?

Under the desiccated regolith. Look at the orbital images. In particular, look at the
larger craters. By simply looking at the rover images you suffer from tunnel vision.

I would recommend that you read the following article. It is worthwhile, and
addresses some of the same issues:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...es_040211.html

Space.com eh?

The article is nonsense, if we are looking at biogenically precipitated spherules, that
underwent subsequent geological transformation, then they may certainly be classified as
'fossils'. Perhaps you can ignore ALH80001, but doing so puts you firmly into the
'crackpot' category. As far as I know, however, speculation is allowed in the scientific
method, whereas outright dismissal is not.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
February 15, 2004

George wrote:


http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/cura...rchForLife.htm

Look at the structure of the globules. While they are smaller by an
order
of magnitude,
and flattened, as a result of their formation in very narrow fractures
and
fissures,
they have the basic structure, an inner precipitate, and an iron rich
outer coating.
Perhaps the spherules are just the final result of a process where the
biogenic
precipitation process is allowed to complete its cycle.

You could certainly try to make that case, although based on what
evidence
that the ROVER has collected, I have no idea.

You certainly don't.

Based on the evidence that
the rover has thus far collected, it is far more likely that the
spherules
are simply volcanic/impact related.

Mineral laden ice sheets obviously would be volcanic/impact related, as I
just pointed out.

Really? Based on what? Where is the ice at the opportnuity or the spirit
site?

Mineral laden ice sheets occur all the time on earth, and few, if any are
related in any way to volcanics or impacts. They are called glaciers.

In fact, I think it is far more likely
that this is the case.

It's nice that we agree, but the problem remains, the process by which the
spherules were
formed.

http://ads.harvard.edu/books/chto/toc.html

Certainly there is evidence now for a biogenic origin of terrestrial
banded iron
formations.

No doubt. But that is not what we are talking about here.

We certainly are - hematite.

Have you seen banded hematite at the Opportunity site?


Whether or not the spherules rain out of a water vapor and mineral
rich
sky, or out of
a water and mineral rich surface, is almost irrelevant. Precipitation
is
required for
mineral rich ice sheet formation, and this is what I see here.
Regardless,
this
indicates a very wet Mars in the distant past, and a very icy Mars in
the
present.

So where's the ICE?

Under the desiccated regolith. Look at the orbital images.

The orbiter images for the opportunity site do not indicate the presence of
ice!

In particular, look at the
larger craters. By simply looking at the rover images you suffer from
tunnel vision.

I have. There is no ice exposed in the craters at the opportunity site.

I would recommend that you read the following article. It is worthwhile,
and
addresses some of the same issues:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...es_040211.html

Space.com eh?

The article is nonsense, if we are looking at biogenically precipitated
spherules, that
underwent subsequent geological transformation, then they may certainly be
classified as
'fossils'.

And where is the evidence for this?

Perhaps you can ignore ALH80001,

Dude, the data from that meteorite is very controversial. Even NASA has
backtracked on the findings. Secondly, the "biota" allegegly found in that
rock were observed with an electron microscope, a piece of equipment which
is obviously not a part of the rover instrucmentation package.

but doing so puts you firmly into the
'crackpot' category.

If you feel obliged to call me a crackpot, go right ahead. Just remember, I
am not the one claiming that mineral spherules are proof of biological
activity on Mars.

As far as I know, however, speculation is allowed in the scientific
method, whereas outright dismissal is not.

Things are dismissed all the time, especially when it comes to making
profound statements based on dubious interpretations of data.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:


The article is nonsense, if we are looking at biogenically precipitated spherules, that
underwent subsequent geological transformation, then they may certainly be classified as
'fossils'. Perhaps you can ignore ALH80001, but doing so puts you firmly into the
'crackpot' category. As far as I know, however, speculation is allowed in the scientific
method, whereas outright dismissal is not.


While it seems obvious that carbonaceous chondrites are all of a
'type'-- I still don't see why they are necessarily, and without a
doubt, from Mars.

Citations of their origin proof, please, and not just ad hominem
arguments that "so and so" says so.

jo