Spherules found at the Spirit site.

They are Blue at spirit site too !

Color is irrelevant to proving that the spherules are alive!!!

http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L7.jpg.html

More colors here http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/mer/

Enjoy, ERic

I never wrote that color was a clue BUT I found few "true color" images of the spherules, it uses 3 images with L4 L5 and L6 filters and the corrections looks almost perfect
(the calibration seems to be almost perfect with L4 L5 and L6 filters
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg)

The terrain in true colors (from opportunity day 11) is really interesting
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg

1. The just emerging ones are *ALL* white.
2. Spherules of all size are white and blue.
3. Broken ones are *ALL* blue.
4. *ALL* the small debris are blue.

The "minerals" ) spherules are turning from white to blue (and from spheres to debris) when they fade, Oooops could minerals grow and die ?

Not yet an evidence but quite interesting, isn't it George ? ))

Eric

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.

"Eric Pouhier" wrote in message
...

They are Blue at spirit site too !

Color is irrelevant to proving that the spherules are alive!!!


http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L7.jpg.html

More colors here http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/mer/

Enjoy, ERic

I never wrote that color was a clue BUT I found few "true color" images of
the spherules, it uses 3 images with L4 L5 and L6 filters and the
corrections looks almost perfect
(the calibration seems to be almost perfect with L4 L5 and L6 filters
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg)

The terrain in true colors (from opportunity day 11) is really interesting
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg

1. The just emerging ones are *ALL* white.
2. Spherules of all size are white and blue.
3. Broken ones are *ALL* blue.
4. *ALL* the small debris are blue.

The "minerals" ) spherules are turning from white to blue (and from
spheres to debris) when they fade, Oooops could minerals grow and die ?

Not yet an evidence but quite interesting, isn't it George ? ))

Eric

If you look at the Apollo data, spherules of all sorts were found at several
of the sites. They were interpreted as having come from more than one
impact location. Given the number of impact sites in the region where
Opportunity is working, I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that
not all of these spherules have come from the outcrop at the site. Given
that the spherules in the outcrop appear to be all the same color, I think
that makes a stronger case that an explanation for the different colors
reflect different impact origins. I think that may be made clearer if they
find additional outcrops once they proceed to the large impact crater. Of
course, this is all speculation anyway, and we won't know a whole lot more
until additional results are published.

Here is what, in my opinion, we may know so far (correct me if I leave
anything out):

1) The Opportunity site appears to be littered with spherules of apparently
multiple colors;
2) The bedrock at the Opportunity site is light-colored, fine-grained,
thinly bedded, weathered by wind abrasion, (apparently cross-bedded in
places, which may be a primary structural feature of the rock), contains
abundent sulfur, is low in hematite, and contains fine-grained spherules of
aparently similar color that are obviously harder than the matrix in which
they are embedded;
3) It has yet to be determined the exact composition of any of the
spherules, although NASA is currently working on the issue.
4) It has yet to be determined what is the source of the hematite
identified at the site - whether it will be found in a topmost thin soil
layer, or whether the hematite is found in the spherules. My feeling at
this time is that the spherules that have their origin at the site (embedded
in the outcrop, or weathered from it) are not the source of the hematite,
based on the analysis of the rock outcrop, which contained embedded
spherules. There is a possibility that there exists more than one type of
spherule located at the site, and that spherules originating from another
source (an impact from somewhere else, or from an event other than the event
which formed the outcrop) may be present at the site. It is possible that
these spherules may be the sourse of the hematite.
5) The soil is fine-grained sandy material, for the most part, and much of
anything that was finer has been mostly blown away by the wind. Soil below
the layer disturbed by the airbags and the rover wheels appear to be
hematite-poor, yet olivine-rich.
6) To date, no water/water-ice has been detected at either site.
7) To date, no olivine alteration products have been identified.
8) To date, no carbon or hydrocarbons have been identified at the site,
although to be frank, I don't know if the rover instrumentation could even
identify hydrocarbons.
9) No spherules or groups of spherules have stood up and walked away. :-))

Here is one definite prediction I can make:

10) Findings from these rover missions will present more questions than
answers: The results may take many years to complete.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...


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

snip stuff about spherules

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

I think you could make a better case for life based
on the above photograph of a centipede seen crossing
the drift of spherules :-o

George

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:O3OXb.69796$F15.44008@fed1read06...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
.. .



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0506P2943M2
M1.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.

I will admit that the first time I saw that image I was shocked
that there appeared to be spherules at both sites.
And in greater quantities at the Spirit site.
However, The "spheres" at the Spirit site are anything but.
Only a few are remotely as spherical as the spherules
seen at the Opportunity site. These appear to be pebbles
which have been tumbled in a fluid and then deposited
there. They may not even be the same materials.

I agree that they may not be the same materials. I don't agree that they
have "tumbled in a fluid". I don't think there is enough information on
those particles to make such a conclusion. That conclusion is speculative,
at best.



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0514P2532R1
M1.HTML


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EDN0400P2389R2
M1.HTML


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EDN0400P2389L5
M1.HTML


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0400P1635R0
M1.HTML


And what the 'ell is this?


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EDN0400P2389R2
M1.HTML


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


It more likely shows that the dunes flowed in around pre-existing basaltic
rocks.



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0506P2599L2
M1.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.

Different from what?

They appear more like the
spheres eroding out of the sedimentary rock at the Opportunity site.

That's why I asked - different from what? Where else on Mars have
you seen spheres - other than the Opportunity site?

So I would speculate the Spirit spheres are the fossilized version being
uncovered by erosion.

Fossilized what?

Speculate all you want. The dunes came in after the rocks.
What appear to be rocks sitting on the dunes could just as
easily be embedded rocks. Appearences can be deceiving.

Exposed by wind action. I concur.


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.

Which makes them even less likely to be the same as
the spherules at the Oppoutunity site.



http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...EFF0506P2943M2
M1.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.

Possible, perhaps even likely, but not necessary.
They could have formed under water elsewhere
and have been deposited in that location another way.

If that were the case, where are the current ripple marks. where is the
fine silt and/or clay that would form in a liquid environment?


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

Nonetheless, they are more likely to turn out to be
tumbled basaltic pebbles at the Spirit site.


Perhaps he could ask the JPL team to beam up a messege asking the
spherulites to take us to their leader! :-o

February 15, 2005

George wrote:

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?

I just said it was underground. Gusev is much lower in elevation, therefore, most, if not
all, of the ice sheets that were there, are now gone.

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.

On Earth they are weather and climate related, on Mars the weather and climate is driven by
volcanism and impacts, orbital variation, etc.

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

So you claim the martian spherules are chondrules. Very astute.

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?

No, but I see structures and processes which appear to be precursors of banded iron
formation processes, and the hematite demonstrably exists.

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!

I wasn't aware the imagery was ground penetrating. It's in the morphology, crackpot.

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.

It's in the crater morphology and incidence, crackpot.

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.

Only to a crackpot like you.

Even NASA has
backtracked on the findings.

No they haven't.

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.

Lack of inference ability noticed. It must be a glial cell problem.

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.

Proof is mathematical, science is demonstrative, and speculation is allowed, indeed,
encouraged in hypothesis formation. The fact that you imply that I claim 'proof' clearly
indicates you do not fully understand or appreciate scientific methods.

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.

Dismissal without evidence is evidence of a crackpot.

Conclusion : you are a crackpot.

You may attempt to refute me.

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

February 15, 2004

George wrote:

Perhaps he could ask the JPL team to beam up a messege asking the
spherulites to take us to their leader! :-o

Ridicule is clear evidence of a crackpot.

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

" George" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:O3OXb.69796$F15.44008@fed1read06...

I will admit that the first time I saw that image I was shocked
that there appeared to be spherules at both sites.
And in greater quantities at the Spirit site.
However, The "spheres" at the Spirit site are anything but.
Only a few are remotely as spherical as the spherules
seen at the Opportunity site. These appear to be pebbles
which have been tumbled in a fluid and then deposited
there. They may not even be the same materials.

I agree that they may not be the same materials. I don't agree that they
have "tumbled in a fluid". I don't think there is enough information on
those particles to make such a conclusion. That conclusion is
speculative,
at best.

Quite true. The fact that they appear as if they could have
been tumbled in a fluid does not rule out any of several other
hypotheses as to their origin. I was not intending to
be conclusive here.

-snip-

They could have formed under water elsewhere
and have been deposited in that location another way.

If that were the case, where are the current ripple marks.
Where is the fine silt and/or clay that would form in a
liquid environment?

Scoured away by millions of years of
dust devils? What is left cemented
beneath the current surface?
Speculation, indeed.

There are simply too many variables here
and nowhere near enough data yet to sort
it all out.

I'm not really ruling very much out yet.
I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility
of this occurring in a non-aqueous environment.
Nor of the outside possibility of it being
life-related. It was just one option among many.
Time and the evidence will tell.
Hopefully.

" George" a écrit dans le message news: ...

"Eric Pouhier" wrote in message
...

They are Blue at spirit site too !

Color is irrelevant to proving that the spherules are alive!!!


http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...4L5L7.jpg.html

More colors here http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/mer/

Enjoy, ERic

I never wrote that color was a clue BUT I found few "true color" images of
the spherules, it uses 3 images with L4 L5 and L6 filters and the
corrections looks almost perfect
(the calibration seems to be almost perfect with L4 L5 and L6 filters
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg)

The terrain in true colors (from opportunity day 11) is really interesting
http://mars.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/me...5M1_L4L5L6.jpg

1. The just emerging ones are *ALL* white.
2. Spherules of all size are white and blue.
3. Broken ones are *ALL* blue.
4. *ALL* the small debris are blue.

The "minerals" ) spherules are turning from white to blue (and from
spheres to debris) when they fade, Oooops could minerals grow and die ?

Not yet an evidence but quite interesting, isn't it George ? ))

Eric

If you look at the Apollo data, spherules of all sorts were found at several
of the sites. They were interpreted as having come from more than one
impact location. Given the number of impact sites in the region where
Opportunity is working, I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that
not all of these spherules have come from the outcrop at the site. Given
that the spherules in the outcrop appear to be all the same color, I think
that makes a stronger case that an explanation for the different colors
reflect different impact origins. I think that may be made clearer if they
find additional outcrops once they proceed to the large impact crater. Of
course, this is all speculation anyway, and we won't know a whole lot more
until additional results are published.

Here is what, in my opinion, we may know so far (correct me if I leave
anything out):

1) The Opportunity site appears to be littered with spherules of apparently
multiple colors;

Yes 2 colors. (white and blue)

2) The bedrock at the Opportunity site is light-colored, fine-grained,
thinly bedded, weathered by wind abrasion, (apparently cross-bedded in
places, which may be a primary structural feature of the rock), contains
abundent sulfur, is low in hematite, and contains fine-grained spherules of
aparently similar color that are obviously harder than the matrix in which
they are embedded;

YEs

3) It has yet to be determined the exact composition of any of the
spherules, although NASA is currently working on the issue.

Of course and we are all waiting for the composition.

4) It has yet to be determined what is the source of the hematite
identified at the site - whether it will be found in a topmost thin soil
layer, or whether the hematite is found in the spherules. My feeling at
this time is that the spherules that have their origin at the site (embedded
in the outcrop, or weathered from it) are not the source of the hematite,
based on the analysis of the rock outcrop, which contained embedded
spherules. There is a possibility that there exists more than one type of
spherule located at the site, and that spherules originating from another
source (an impact from somewhere else, or from an event other than the event
which formed the outcrop) may be present at the site. It is possible that
these spherules may be the sourse of the hematite.

Possible yes indeed !
spherules hematite from earth
http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/cemp/at...o/j-matzka.htm

5) The soil is fine-grained sandy material, for the most part, and much of
anything that was finer has been mostly blown away by the wind. Soil below
the layer disturbed by the airbags and the rover wheels appear to be
hematite-poor, yet olivine-rich.

Absolutly !

6) To date, no water/water-ice has been detected at either site.

No !


7) To date, no olivine alteration products have been identified.

Well maybe !

8) To date, no carbon or hydrocarbons have been identified at the site,
although to be frank, I don't know if the rover instrumentation could even
identify hydrocarbons.

)))

9) No spherules or groups of spherules have stood up and walked away. :-))

NO BUT a new microsopic images from opportunity shows several hairs on 2 spherules (upper left corner of the image):

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...2P2959M2M1.JPG
On that one some traces appear on the "sand" too +++ more surprising features ! Very Exciting !!!

An other picture already shows one hair:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...8P2953M2M1.JPG

Here is one definite prediction I can make:

10) Findings from these rover missions will present more questions than
answers: The results may take many years to complete.

Let's be optimistic !
ERic