Mars - Gemmule on a Stick

March 2, 2003

These features have been noticed by many people.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2536L7M1.JPG

Airfall theories are out, by the way, and wind doesn't seem to be a
major player, as we have good evidence of static decomposition and
erosion in situ. You can google jarosite, etc. Remember, these are
presumably very desperate microbes attempting to intelligently decode
their geochemical and physical environment, in their pathetic quest to
understand the answers to the fundamental questions of life, the
universe and everything.

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

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
March 2, 2003

These features have been noticed by many people.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...4P2536L7M1.JPG

Airfall theories are out, by the way, and wind doesn't seem to be a
major player, as we have good evidence of static decomposition and
erosion in situ. You can google jarosite, etc. Remember, these are
presumably very desperate microbes attempting to intelligently decode
their geochemical and physical environment, in their pathetic quest to
understand the answers to the fundamental questions of life, the
universe and everything.


It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very
last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious
that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and
asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures
cannot be formed by a single process.

It would require the combination of at least two distinct
processes to explain them. The problem with that
is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of
dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows
the ...same... asymmetry.

This logical contradiction means a non-living solution
is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life
is the /only/ possibility.


Jonathan

s






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

It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very
last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious
that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and
asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures
cannot be formed by a single process.

It would require the combination of at least two distinct
processes to explain them. The problem with that
is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of
dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows
the ...same... asymmetry.

This logical contradiction means a non-living solution
is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life
is the /only/ possibility.

I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

The other reasons were the tendency to split so neatly in half, which
implies another unusual complexity to their formation, and their
tendency to protrude from the bedrock, apparently held by a peculiarly
strong bond. That is, after all, this original subject of this post,
and has been seen less dramatically in earlier pictures.

The bond clearly only occurs at one (or possibly a few specific)
points on the spheres, otherwise they would never have been eroded
around in the first place. They weren't necessarily eroded around at
all, of course, but if not then the explanations only get more
outlandish.

I strongly suspect that NASA's own statements about the spheres being
formed in a wet environment are a conscious way of still being just
about able to say "we were right" when they finally feel able to say
more about HOW they were formed!

Rollo

Rollo wrote:
I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we
know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those
than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to
see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who
isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

March 3, 2004

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Rollo wrote:
I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we
know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those
than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to
see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who
isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror...

Wow, and to think just yesterday the outcrops where ashfall and the
spherules were volcanic or crater tektites.

To show just how far out of touch Crinklaw's reasoning is, there are very
few geologist that would claim that these concretions would *not* involve at
the very least the simple microbiology of extremophiles. It's quite clear
from his rhetoric that Crinklaw has not even made the most superficial
search of the relevant geological terms presented by the investigators. His
credibility is nil.

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

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" skrev i en meddelelse
...
March 3, 2004


To show just how far out of touch Crinklaw's reasoning is, there are very
few geologist that would claim that these concretions would *not* involve
at
the very least the simple microbiology of extremophiles.

Stick to dirty yourself all over

On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:32:32 -0500) it happened "jonathan"
wrote in :

This logical contradiction means a non-living solution
is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life
is the /only/ possibility.


Jonathan
100% agreed.
But was not an important announcement due on thursday?
Maybe too much to hope for perhaps.

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
Rollo wrote:
I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

There are many examples of these mineral accretions on earth. What we
know about these these spherules is far more in accordance with those
than some fanciful life form. You guys are just seeing what you wish to
see, and when others don't see it you cry foul. If you want to see who
isn't seeing clearly on this issue you need only look in the mirror...


Let me ask you a question I don't know the answer to. Do mineral
concretions tend to ...float?

I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution
of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead
views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The
logical conclusion is that the spheres float.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/

If the answer is no, then this is a glaring contradiction from Nasa that
the distribution is from water, yet the spheres are likely concretions.




Jonathan

s





--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

"Rollo" wrote in message
om...
It's interesting to me that the geologists find life to be the very
last possible explanation for the spheres. It should be obvious
that an object with both symmetrical (spherical) and
asymmetrical (aperture, off-center slash) structures
cannot be formed by a single process.

It would require the combination of at least two distinct
processes to explain them. The problem with that
is easy to see. Asymmetrical features are the product of
dynamic or random processes, yet each sphere shows
the ...same... asymmetry.

This logical contradiction means a non-living solution
is excluded from possibility. They fail to see that life
is the /only/ possibility.

I'm with you there, though non-living cannot yet be quite 100%
excluded. Your point about symmetry / asymmetry is one reason I first
came to my own probable-life conclusion some while back. Not
necessarily a life-form itself, of course, but life-related.

The other reasons were the tendency to split so neatly in half, which
implies another unusual complexity to their formation, and their
tendency to protrude from the bedrock, apparently held by a peculiarly
strong bond. That is, after all, this original subject of this post,
and has been seen less dramatically in earlier pictures.


A gemmule would be consistent with all those features.
See page 90 below, a few paragraphs down.
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf

That one page above explains the bubble seen in one, the aperture seen in the other
and why they stick. Also why the surface is grainy.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

This photo below of a gemmule explains the off center slash many have. Also a gemmule
would
show such features, or not show them, depending on its state, whether dormant or
hatching etc.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules

A gemmule is consistent with the announcement yesterday by Nasa that
the random and even distribution of the spheres are due to water. They
would have to float ...after all. I don't know if concretions float, but
it seems unlikely, especially concretions with a ...hole in them~

Overhead views of Meridiani
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/

A gemmule from a sponge explains their delicate location on the surface.
As if they were the last things deposited there. Sponges give off
gemmules when they're dying. Also their resistance to salt, cold etc
are consistent with their condition in that environment.

This begs the question, how many different ways do two objects
need to have in common to become convinced the two are the
same? I would guess three or four combined with a couple
confirming measurements.

I've yet to see a concretion idea put forth that is consistent
with more than two of the properties seen in the photos.

I predict the tes data of the spheres will be inconclusive or
confusing. If they are the product of life, wouldn't the signature
be rather complex?



Jonathan
s











The bond clearly only occurs at one (or possibly a few specific)
points on the spheres, otherwise they would never have been eroded
around in the first place. They weren't necessarily eroded around at
all, of course, but if not then the explanations only get more
outlandish.

I strongly suspect that NASA's own statements about the spheres being
formed in a wet environment are a conscious way of still being just
about able to say "we were right" when they finally feel able to say
more about HOW they were formed!

Rollo

In article ,
jonathan wrote:
I've maintained, and Nasa stated yesterday, that the random distribution
of the spheres showed they were distributed by water. The overhead
views show the dark material drifted from the larger outcrops. The
logical conclusion is that the spheres float...

Uh, no. Lots of things which don't float are distributed by water. Most
of the rocks dotting the Pathfinder landing site are thought to have been
washed down from higher up. And those aren't all small rocks, either.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |