Mars Exploration Rovers Update - February 13, 2004

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
February 25, 2004

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote:

I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating the
data.

Feel free to share those methods with US on the usenet.

These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Besides, Jonathan has already clearly identified the spherules as the gemmules
of a microbial sponge colony : 'porifera jonathanii'.


Has a ring to it~

If this pic doesn't show imprints of skeletal spicules, I don't know what else can!

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML



Jonathan

s





Nice try, though. Keep up the good work!

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

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote in message
m...
I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating the
data. These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Cheers!

Chip Shults



Anything you say, Mr. Sluts.

Cheers.

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote in message
m...
I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating the
data. These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Cheers!

Chip Shults

Maybe they are baby crawfish, it is crawfish season, you know.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
February 25, 2004

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote:

I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to
tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper
in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating
the
data.

Feel free to share those methods with US on the usenet.

These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Besides, Jonathan has already clearly identified the spherules as the
gemmules
of a microbial sponge colony : 'porifera jonathanii'.


Has a ring to it~

If this pic doesn't show imprints of skeletal spicules, I don't know what
else can!


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML



Jonathan


You are absolutely correct, Jonathan. You don't know! In fact, you don't
have a clue.

However, I do, and that is not it. This is:



http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates...ctinellida.htm

http://www.lakeneosho.org/Miss31.html

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...98/spiccy.html

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/...porifera4.html

http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ran...s/porifera.htm

Oh, by the way, Jonathan? You're a dork.

"CAP" wrote in message
...

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote in message
m...
I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to
tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating
the
data. These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Cheers!

Chip Shults

Maybe they are baby crawfish, it is crawfish season, you know.


Notice what planet he's from!

February 26, 2004

"jonathan" wrote in message :

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Besides, Jonathan has already clearly identified the spherules as the gemmules of a microbial sponge colony : 'porifera jonathanii'.

Has a ring to it~

If this pic doesn't show imprints of skeletal spicules, I don't know what else can!

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

Jonathan, if you want an entire phyla named after you, then you have
to do a little more research. Sponges may be soft and spicule free,
and although they can get quite large, what you are seeing do not
appear to be spicules. Start here :

http://www.cox-internet.com/coop/porifera.html

http://darter.ocps.net/classroom/klenk/Sponge.htm

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Porifera&contgroup=Animals

Organisms have to work with what they have, and there is little
evidence for a lot of free carbon and silicon. What they do have is a
lot of sulfur and iron and salts, and a limited amount of phosphorus
and nitrogen which would have been grabbed up by the biosphere. If
these were indeed porifera, they would most likely be soft tissue
colonies of evolved extremophiles and cyanobacteria, basically feeding
on themselves and exploiting biomineralization for reproduction.

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

" George" wrote in message
.. .

"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote in message
m...
I now have proof that these spherules are fossils very similar to
tiny
crustaceans, similar to tadpole shrimp or trilobites. I have a paper in
submission for publication documenting the method I used for locating
the
data. These are absolutely fossils, no doubt about it.

Cheers!

Chip Shults



Anything you say, Mr. Sluts.

Cheers.

??

Chip Shults

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
om...
February 26, 2004

"jonathan" wrote in message :

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Besides, Jonathan has already clearly identified the spherules as the
gemmules of a microbial sponge colony : 'porifera jonathanii'.

Has a ring to it~

If this pic doesn't show imprints of skeletal spicules, I don't know what else
can!

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

Jonathan, if you want an entire phyla named after you, then you have
to do a little more research. Sponges may be soft and spicule free,
and although they can get quite large, what you are seeing do not
appear to be spicules. Start here :



According the reading I've been doing, spicules are unique to
each species. If you look at the original photo that shows
gemmules quite like the spheres, you'll see the skeletal
spicules are long and curved and tend to hook at the
end. Look at the one just above the word gemmule
in the left photo below. There are numerous long
spicules in the soft tissue.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

Then compare that long spicule with the earlier photo
of the thread below imaged earlier.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML

If the soft tissue has dried up I would expect the long
curved siliceous spicules to leave marks just as
imaged in the first link above. In that pic, you can
see two large brown patches in the upper left
corner. Just below them is a small brown spot, just
to the left of the small spot you can see a very
small thread sticking out and casting a shadow.

But of course these images are open to interpretation, I'm
not going to claim I'm correct about everything I say
when it comes to non mathematical subjects.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML


I never claimed to be an 'ologist' of any sort. Yet I suggested the dunes
need to be reconsidered as possible water features, and finally Nasa
is beginniing to take another look at them.


Nasa is today calling them geologic ripples instead. They seem to think they're
wind blown, but a little common sense is needed here. Wind blown ripples
are from gentler winds, yet the ripples are almost exclusively made up of the
larger 'pebbles'...spheres. I can only conclude their science team is made up
of only geologists that are determined to find non-living explanations
for everything. I'm not at all surprised they're still scratching their
heads over the spheres and dunes. They're going to contrive wind
patterns to explain them both it seems. Good luck!


"This false-color image from the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's panoramic camera
shows peak-like formations on the martian terrain at Gusev Crater. Scientists have
been analyzing these formations, which have coarse particles accumulating on their
tops, or crests. This characteristic classifies them as ripples instead of dunes,
which
have a more uniform distribution of particle sizes. Scientists are looking further
into
such formations, which can give insight to the wind direction and velocity on
Mars, as well as the material that is being moved by the wind. This image was
taken on the 40th martian day, or sol, of Spirit's mission."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-6.html



I can't wait until Spirit makes it to the crater. Not knowing a thing
about that crater I will offer some wild speculation. The bottom
of that crater will look like the Opportunity crater. Lots of spheres
and more dark clumpy soil, wanna bet? If the crater is big enough
there should be 'ripples' too.

Funny how the wind blown 'ripples' are at the bottom of these Gusev
craters, I guess there's some odd wind patterns there too. I'm beginning
to lose respect for the Nasa science team.

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landing...-00012_05.html



Jonathan

s





http://www.cox-internet.com/coop/porifera.html

http://darter.ocps.net/classroom/klenk/Sponge.htm

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Porifera&contgroup=Animals

Organisms have to work with what they have, and there is little
evidence for a lot of free carbon and silicon. What they do have is a
lot of sulfur and iron and salts, and a limited amount of phosphorus
and nitrogen which would have been grabbed up by the biosphere. If
these were indeed porifera, they would most likely be soft tissue
colonies of evolved extremophiles and cyanobacteria, basically feeding
on themselves and exploiting biomineralization for reproduction.

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

"jonathan" wrote in message
news

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
om...
February 26, 2004

"jonathan" wrote in message :

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative.

Besides, Jonathan has already clearly identified the spherules as
the
gemmules of a microbial sponge colony : 'porifera jonathanii'.

Has a ring to it~

If this pic doesn't show imprints of skeletal spicules, I don't know
what else
can!


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

Jonathan, if you want an entire phyla named after you, then you have
to do a little more research. Sponges may be soft and spicule free,
and although they can get quite large, what you are seeing do not
appear to be spicules. Start here :



According the reading I've been doing, spicules are unique to
each species. If you look at the original photo that shows
gemmules quite like the spheres, you'll see the skeletal
spicules are long and curved and tend to hook at the
end. Look at the one just above the word gemmule
in the left photo below. There are numerous long
spicules in the soft tissue.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

Then compare that long spicule with the earlier photo
of the thread below imaged earlier.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science

Linda How is a baffoon. NASA has stated that the landing released a lot of
debris from the lander, and are embarrassed by it because they tried to take
as many precautions as possible pr prevent it.


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML

If the soft tissue has dried up I would expect the long
curved siliceous spicules to leave marks just as
imaged in the first link above. In that pic, you can
see two large brown patches in the upper left
corner. Just below them is a small brown spot, just
to the left of the small spot you can see a very
small thread sticking out and casting a shadow.

You are imagining things. Stick to math.

But of course these images are open to interpretation, I'm
not going to claim I'm correct about everything I say
when it comes to non mathematical subjects.

Apparently you are not very good at math either.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news....tegory=Science

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2953M2M1.HTML


I never claimed to be an 'ologist' of any sort. Yet I suggested the dunes
need to be reconsidered as possible water features, and finally Nasa
is beginniing to take another look at them.

Not at all. There is plenty of evidence that pyroclastic flows can form
dunes just like what we are seeing on Mars.


Nasa is today calling them geologic ripples instead. They seem to think
they're
wind blown, but a little common sense is needed here. Wind blown ripples
are from gentler winds, yet the ripples are almost exclusively made up of
the
larger 'pebbles'...spheres. I can only conclude their science team is made
up
of only geologists that are determined to find non-living explanations
for everything. I'm not at all surprised they're still scratching their
heads over the spheres and dunes. They're going to contrive wind
patterns to explain them both it seems. Good luck!

Since you are not a geologist, I'm not surprised that you would think so.


"This false-color image from the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's panoramic
camera
shows peak-like formations on the martian terrain at Gusev Crater.
Scientists have
been analyzing these formations, which have coarse particles accumulating
on their
tops, or crests. This characteristic classifies them as ripples instead of
dunes,
which
have a more uniform distribution of particle sizes. Scientists are looking
further
into
such formations, which can give insight to the wind direction and velocity
on
Mars, as well as the material that is being moved by the wind. This image
was
taken on the 40th martian day, or sol, of Spirit's mission."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-6.html



I can't wait until Spirit makes it to the crater. Not knowing a thing
about that crater I will offer some wild speculation. The bottom
of that crater will look like the Opportunity crater.

And you'd no doubt be wrong.

Lots of spheres
and more dark clumpy soil, wanna bet? If the crater is big enough
there should be 'ripples' too.

Funny how the wind blown 'ripples' are at the bottom of these Gusev
craters,

Since the only crater Spirit has been in to date is Sutev, I find this not a
little amusing.

I guess there's some odd wind patterns there too. I'm beginning
to lose respect for the Nasa science team.


http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landing...-00012_05.html

Since no one has any respect for your opinions, you opinion of NASA is
irrelevant. Oh and stop crossposting, dork.

February 26, 2004

jonathan wrote:

I never claimed to be an 'ologist' of any sort. Yet I suggested the dunes
need to be reconsidered as possible water features, and finally Nasa
is beginniing to take another look at them.

That is something I have always thought myself. In the Bahamas we call them 'sand waves'.
Wherever you find these on Mars, in the bottoms of craters and canyons, they seem to be
indicative of the dust and dirt left over from melting ice and standing water, and the wind
blowing over the standing water will leave the standing wave dunes as the water evaporates or
subsides into the ground. The effects of wind erosion on Mars are grossly 'overblown'. Water
is the key player. In many of the very large basins you have huge dunes of very fine
sub-micron material which is clearly windblown, probably bacterial remains.

Nasa is today calling them geologic ripples instead. They seem to think they're
wind blown, but a little common sense is needed here. Wind blown ripples
are from gentler winds, yet the ripples are almost exclusively made up of the
larger 'pebbles'...spheres. I can only conclude their science team is made up
of only geologists that are determined to find non-living explanations
for everything. I'm not at all surprised they're still scratching their
heads over the spheres and dunes. They're going to contrive wind
patterns to explain them both it seems. Good luck!

I agree with that sentiment.

I can't wait until Spirit makes it to the crater. Not knowing a thing
about that crater I will offer some wild speculation. The bottom
of that crater will look like the Opportunity crater. Lots of spheres
and more dark clumpy soil, wanna bet? If the crater is big enough
there should be 'ripples' too.

You can clearly see them in the bottom of the nearby larger Opportunity crater. It should be
possible to see the effects of seepage from the walls of the crater. Some minor seepage
effects are visible even in the small Opportunity crater, and clearly the mud flats at the
Spririt site are seepage and standing water remnants.

Funny how the wind blown 'ripples' are at the bottom of these Gusev
craters, I guess there's some odd wind patterns there too. I'm beginning
to lose respect for the Nasa science team.

I have completely lost respect for NASA, although clearly I have a lot of respect for the
engineers who put these vehicles on Mars. Today's news conference was embarrassing.

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