"Avoiding the 'F word' on Mars -- F*SSIL" -- Oberg

msnbc.com (Oberg): "Avoiding the 'F word' on Mars -- F*SSIL"
NASA won't speculate about possibility of fossils, but that doesn't mean
others aren't
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/

photo: This artist's illustration shows a whimsical vision of a future Mars
astronaut with a startling exo-paleontological discovery. Credit: NASA and
Patrick Rawlings For more space illustrations, go to
http://www.patrawlings.com.

COMMENTARY // By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst // Special to MSNBC

People have imagined Mars as an abode of life for so long — centuries at
least, probably much longer — that NASA’s recent self-styled “significant”
announcement of strong evidence for liquid water long ago was, let’s face
it, pretty ho-hum to both space enthusiasts and the general public.

So where did the breathless Internet rumors come from? Where was the
evidence for current water, such as brine springs? Are those microscopic
threads really just debris from the airbags, and if so, why do they seem to
keep appearing even as Spirit moves farther away from the landing site? And
aside from the junk that the two rovers brought with them and strewed across
the landscape (didn’t the NASA science team expect to be confused by some of
that?), are there any other shapes seen in the images that look, well,
organic?

Sure, intellectually, it really is “significant” that the evidence is now in
that there’s a location somewhere off Earth where “life as we know it” could
once have survived if it had developed at all. It’s the first, but by no
means the last, such location that our explorations will encounter.

But a habitat that’s only “potential” is empty, and leaves an emptiness
inside us too. There is a seductive urge to fill that emptiness with
imaginations in the suggestive shapes that the rovers have been seeing.

The one that intrigues me most — so far — was referred to by "New Scientist"
magazine’s veteran space writer David Chandler with the delicate, neutral
phrase, “resembling a piece of curly macaroni.” It’s also been called “the
rotini pasta,” and similar gastronomic analogies.

There’s a word for what it might be. Everybody knows it, but it’s too risky
to use it lest you get bundled up with the crackpot Martian visions of bunny
rabbits, ski jumps, ribbed sandworms, capital letters, and stone faces that
have been flooding the Net.

The word is “fossil”. But using it seems to be generally thought of as some
sort of Howard Stern impersonation that could get a careless scientist
ostracized for life.

snip

JimO wrote:

msnbc.com (Oberg): "Avoiding the 'F word' on Mars -- F*SSIL"
NASA won't speculate about possibility of fossils, but that doesn't mean
others aren't
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/


Now that I've had a chance to look at the Ottawa, Ontario website (I
think you overloaded his server with your article!) and having been an
amateur paleontologist for around 30 years, I think he may well have a
point here in regards to some of these things being real fossils; I
thought it was very strange that most of the "Blueberries" seemed to be
approximately the same size, and his close-up of this one in particular:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar..._pop_p_037.jpg does seem to
show that they are attached to some sort of a root or stem structure,
with a connection point, as shown on these pictures:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...mple_m_039.jpg
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...alls_m_025.jpg
But the one that really tipped the scales in my opinion is this one:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...tica_m_034.jpg
If I had found this while rockhounding, I would have had no doubt that I
was looking at a fossil, due to the equal sizes of the segments that
make up the object.
Regarding the voids that appear in the rocks (vugs) they may well be due
to dissolved crystals that were in the rocks at their formation... but I
have had excellent luck when fossil hunting by breaking open rocks that
have such voids, as they are often caused by dissolved shells of
mollusks and brachiopods that are exposed to weathering on the rock's
exterior, intact fossilized examples of which will be found inside of
the rock in question. Looking for rocks with "dents" on the outside is
my favored method of identifying ones worthy of further examination
when many rocks are present.

Pat

P.S. For amateur rockhounds- always look at the _bottom_ of any rock
before tossing it aside; I came within a second or two of tossing away a
rock that had a bit of coral on top, only to find out it had a beautiful
crystal-covered snail shell set into a cavity in the bottom.

P.P.S. On the other hand, limit this suggestion to smaller sized rocks-
the thin flat limestone ones over say three feet wide sometimes will
have a large wasp nest under them, and they are very persistent in their
pursuit of the person who tips their house upside down.

I found the pictures and analysis on that website very, very interesting as
well. I would vehemently hope that in some far-future day a real,
honest-to-goodness human geology/xenopaleontology crew is sent to Mars and
that it sets down in that same area and seriously examines some of these
things up close and great detail.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Now that I've had a chance to look at the Ottawa, Ontario website (I
think you overloaded his server with your article!) and having been an
amateur paleontologist for around 30 years, I think he may well have a
point here in regards to some of these things being real fossils; I
thought it was very strange that most of the "Blueberries" seemed to be
approximately the same size, and his close-up of this one in particular:

Eh, approximately same size could be a factor of the geologic process.

For example the floating "stones" you can find in caves tend to average the
same size since the formation is of water with minerals hitting the surface
of a still body of water. The minerals continue to collect forming a flat
"platter" on the surface of the water until weight overcomes surface tension
and it sinks. Since the mineral mix is fairly constant, this happens when
they reach the same approximate size each time.

So, who knows.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

thought it was very strange that most of the "Blueberries" seemed to be
approximately the same size, and his close-up of this one in particular:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar..._pop_p_037.jpg does seem to
show that they are attached to some sort of a root or stem structure,

dude, that's the Virgin Mary doing the Lebowski-flying-bowling-ball thing,
that's all it is ;0

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Now that I've had a chance to look at the Ottawa, Ontario website (I
think you overloaded his server with your article!) and having been an
amateur paleontologist for around 30 years, I think he may well have a
point here in regards to some of these things being real fossils; I
thought it was very strange that most of the "Blueberries" seemed to be
approximately the same size, and his close-up of this one in particular:



Eh, approximately same size could be a factor of the geologic process.

For example the floating "stones" you can find in caves tend to average the
same size since the formation is of water with minerals hitting the surface
of a still body of water. The minerals continue to collect forming a flat
"platter" on the surface of the water until weight overcomes surface tension
and it sinks. Since the mineral mix is fairly constant, this happens when
they reach the same approximate size each time.

So, who knows.


Yes, it could be the end result of geology, and I have seen something
like these in regards to caves as you state; they are called "Cave
Pearls": http://www.goodearthgraphics.com/vir...ls/pearls.html
but cave pearls don't have stalks on them, and in both the earlier
picture of the one sticking out on the end of the eroded rock, and these
two: http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...pop2_p_037.jpg
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...ross_m_034.jpg
Some seem to have a stalk-like structure on them.
They are odd, but not as odd as the other structure I linked to:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mar...tica_m_034.jpg
That is either a fossil, or a very convincing and coincidental
pseudofossil. About the only other things that would have that much
symmetry would be crystalline in nature, and the symmetry of it is all
wrong for a crystal (like stacked cups), it also appears to be forked at
the top, in much the way that coral or some plants branch out.

Pat

Terrell Miller wrote:

dude, that's the Virgin Mary doing the Lebowski-flying-bowling-ball thing,
that's all it is ;0


To tell you the truth, I am having a hard time buying that they are
fossils myself, but they certainly _look_ like fossils; now, on the
other hand if the rover sends back a photo that looks like this:
http://www.cropart.com/dcathyca.dir/gxfossil.gif; then I'll be more
convinced... particularly considering that _this_ fossil consists of
poppy seed, lentils, acorn caps, honey locust, black locust, catalpa,
yucca pods and seeds, chestnut hulls, elm bark, hawthorn thorns, rose
thorns, daylilly pods, plant detritus:
http://www.cropart.com/dcathyca.dir/caxcat16.htm

Pat

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Terrell Miller wrote:

: dude, that's the Virgin Mary doing the Lebowski-flying-bowling-ball thing,
: that's all it is ;0
:

: To tell you the truth, I am having a hard time buying that they are
: fossils myself, but they certainly _look_ like fossils; now, on the
: other hand if the rover sends back a photo that looks like this:
: http://www.cropart.com/dcathyca.dir/gxfossil.gif; then I'll be more
: convinced... particularly considering that _this_ fossil consists of
: poppy seed, lentils, acorn caps, honey locust, black locust, catalpa,
: yucca pods and seeds, chestnut hulls, elm bark, hawthorn thorns, rose
: thorns, daylilly pods, plant detritus:
: http://www.cropart.com/dcathyca.dir/caxcat16.htm

How about one that looks like this?
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2wsvr...ck2_detail.jpg

Eric

: Pat

How about this:
Opportunity, SOL 15, Microscope, upper right,
I see definite segmentation, somewhat similar
to the ALH meteorite, but in this case must be
grown-ups (I checked out the scale, much larger....
this image=3x3cm square).
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML
Has this already been explained,
or am I the only one who sees this?
Can we get it to go back there for some
more pics before they're done? JD in Colorado