"blueberry" fossils found on Mars

[American]

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm

Sir Charles W. Shults III is studying data sent by the Mars robots we sent there couple a months ago. He has found and will soon announce small fossil-like formations, that can only be described as mineralized organic sea creatures. So far he has found sandollars, sponges, and sea urchins.

In particular, the "blueberries" are the fossil remains of a type of sea urchin, similar to fossils found on Earth. Examination of the rock and material around the crater (nicknamed the "blueberry bowl" by NASA and JPL scientists) shows other, far more advanced life forms as well, including trilobites, squids, eurypterids, crinoids, and other ancient species.

Part of the proof is that the fossils have 5-sided symetry (both sides), and there are no natural 5-sided crystals in nature. Also, some of the markings on these organisms like starfish are proportional to their size, which suggest they grow with them as the creature grows. (A baby is the same shape as a grown man or woman.)

If confirmed, this has profound implications and will change our entire life's view back here on earth.

[Silicon]

"rabbit", "man's face" found carved in Moon.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
If confirmed, this has profound implications and will change our entire life's view back here on earth.
It certainly would, but the chances of it being confirmed are miniscule. If there had been oceans on Mars, there would be a whole lot more evidence than odd shaped rocks. There would be layered sedimentary rocks and most probably salt deposits, but nothing of the sort has been found.

Also, those pictures so no sort of recognizable symmetrical features. They are merely round, which is rather a common shape in the universe.

Nor do I see on the site any mention of the author's scientific credentials. I find it difficult to believe that he is that much smarter than all the legitimate scientists studying these images. In fact, everything about that site screams "kook".

Perhaps the disklike objects are actually wheels of green cheese. ;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tricky

It certainly would, but the chances of it being confirmed are miniscule. If there had been oceans on Mars, there would be a whole lot more evidence than odd shaped rocks. There would be layered sedimentary rocks and most probably salt deposits, but nothing of the sort has been found.

Also, those pictures so no sort of recognizable symmetrical features. They are merely round, which is rather a common shape in the universe.

Nor do I see on the site any mention of the author's scientific credentials. I find it difficult to believe that he is that much smarter than all the legitimate scientists studying these images. In fact, everything about that site screams "kook".

Perhaps the disklike objects are actually wheels of green cheese. ;)

REO Speedwagon wheels?

[clk]

Statue of Elton John copying REO Speedwagon found on Mars!!!! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32963)

[clk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


REO Speedwagon wheels?

Damn, you beat me to it!

Oh well, atleast my post contained a link so that people could see what I was referring to :p

[American]

He's a doctor.

[Silicon]

Come on, he isn't even a knight.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


REO Speedwagon wheels?
Only if they Keep on Roll'in, Keep on Roll'in.

[pupdog]

Are the "blueberries" the same as the spherules reported on last month, that appear to be concretions? They're pretty interesting, in that, together with other evidence, they suggest the presence of water on Mars.

[clk]

Originally posted by American
He's a doctor.

He must be a Doctor of Stupidity, like you.

[American]

Originally posted by pupdog
Are the "blueberries" the same as the spherules reported on last month, that appear to be concretions? They're pretty interesting, in that, together with other evidence, they suggest the presence of water on Mars.


Ah good question. Like Dr. Sir Shults 3, I think they probly aren't, because NASA would have announced it by now. This is new stuff that ain't been done yet.

Hey- if we're wrong, we're wrong. No big deal.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by American
He's a doctor.
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!"
Just thought I'd throw that in. :D

[Silicon]

And by "we" do you mean you and the fake Knight?



You do know that Sir Elton John is a real Knight, right?

[Nigel]

Okay, seriously, I have a question - is it possible for terrestrial squids to fossilize? This guy even says, "Close examination will show a double row of suckers on some tentacle pads..."
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/mk065a.htm

Since tentacle pads, and I presume, the entire squid body, is soft tissue, is it even possible for this to happen? It seems pretty outlandish to me to expect soft tissue like that to be preserved. (Although imprints of dinosaur skin have fossilized, it's true, and bird feathers [archaeopteryx, for instance], as well, it's still exceedingly rare.)

edit to add: I've answered my own question - I googled "fossil squid" and found this link:

http://www.bhigr.com/pages/info/info_sqid.htm
Fossil squids are the only cephalopods whose preserved soft body parts have been discovered with the exception of one fossil octopus specimen found in Lebanon in the late 1800?s.

So that answers thatquestion. But I'm still not convinced that the rock(s) in question on Mars are fossil anything. Other than rocks, of course.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Maybe they can change their name from 'Xenotech Research' to 'Xenotech Obfuscation'.

I await news on where he got his paleontology degree. He does have a paleontology degree, right?;)

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Maybe they can change their name from 'Xenotech Research' to 'Xenotech Obfuscation'.

I await news on where he got his paleontology degree. He does have a paleontology degree, right?;)

I just glanced at the site so I could have missed it, but I don't think he gave any credentials, did he? Much less something as specific as where he earned a paleontology degree.

[American]

Originally posted by Nigel
Okay, seriously, I have a question - is it possible for terrestrial squids to fossilize? This guy even says, "Close examination will show a double row of suckers on some tentacle pads..."

You forgot- this is Mars.

Since tentacle pads, and I presume, the entire squid body, is soft tissue, is it even possible for this to happen?

On Mars? Maybe.

edit to add: I've answered my own question - I googled "fossil squid" and found this link:

http://www.bhigr.com/pages/info/info_sqid.htm
Fossil squids are the only cephalopods whose preserved soft body parts have been discovered with the exception of one fossil octopus specimen found in Lebanon in the late 1800?s.

So that answers thatquestion. But I'm still not convinced that the rock(s) in question on Mars are fossil anything. Other than rocks, of course.

That's on Earth. This is Mars we are talking about.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by American

You forgot- this is Mars.


On Mars? Maybe.


That's on Earth. This is Mars we are talking about.


American, the process would still be the same in identifying fossils, whether it be Mars or Earth, it doesn't really matter. You aren't using any critically thinking on this one in the first place. That, and you are already resorting to arguments of authority, a logical fallacy.


[Constructive Criticism}

It is bouts like this, and your lack of critical thinking that gets you into these thread messes in the first place.

That, and you have shown obvious cultural bias. If you really want to critically think, you most eliminate all cultural and political biases before doing so.


[/Constructive Criticism]



In other words:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32963 (Elton John Totally Copied REO Speedwagon)

[fishbob]

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
OK, I have master's degree in Science.

I took a look at some of the photos at this site. Scale was not shown on any photo, no magnifications were noted. Many of the images are blurry. The sharp images don't get identified as fossils, the blurry shots have all the fossils. The photo noted as showing 5-sided symmetry does not show 5-sided symmetry.

Dr. Shults was identifying earthly fossils, on Mars, from fuzzy internet photos, therefore Dr. Shults smokes crack. QED.

3. Why does the "mud" look so rounded and smooth?

Because Mars had almost no atmosphere when these were made- the mud was "vacuum boiling" in the very low atmospheric pressure. Look at the broken off areas and you can see very fine bubbles all over in the mud.
The subjects in some of these photos look similar to rocks in arid earthly regions that have a 'desert varnish' polish - resulting from wind abrasion over many years.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American


That's on Earth. This is Mars we are talking about.
Yes it is, but the "Doctor" is trying to draw analogies to terrestrial marine species. If he thinks these are evidence of former oceans on mars, then one must ask why we do not see any of the other signs of previous oceans on Mars, which would be very obvious to even the beginning student in geology.

So what does this "doctor" have his degree in? In what way is he qualified to evaluate geology or paleontology or comparitive anatomy or any scientific dicipline. For all the information we have, he might be a doctor of divinity.

Since nothing on his site even hints of anything more than a picture-book knowledge of science, I'd have to take everything he says with an enormous grain of salt.

As I said earlier, it is possible he is correct, but that possibility is vanishingly small. Do not be surprised if his "discoveries" do not change our entire life's view one iota.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
OK, I have master's degree in Science.

I took a look at some of the photos at this site. Scale was not shown on any photo, no magnifications were noted. Many of the images are blurry. The sharp images don't get identified as fossils, the blurry shots have all the fossils. The photo noted as showing 5-sided symmetry does not show 5-sided symmetry. Thank you, I hate to defer to authority but, damn it, I just lack the education and ability to make such a statement. I thought the very same thing but I just didn't have the confidence or experience to back it up.

When I watch the discovery channel and some paleontologist digs up a bone and right away figures out what it is I am simply amazed. Now I know these guys are not perfect but damn they are good.

Here is my toast to scientists. And yes, I realize that it doesn't require a degree in Science to make such observations with the same degree of confidence. I think it very possible that Randi or others could make such a pronouncement.

RandFan

P.S. Would fossil evidence prove Jedi Knights theory that humans came from mars? :D

[scribble]

I for one welcome our new mighty Sea Urchin masters!

[CFLarsen]

Aren't fossils the remains of animals and plants, preserved usually only as impressions - similar to plaster casts?

Why would a fossil be found on grainy sand, and not, as usually is the case here on Earth, deeply embedded in rocks?

Fossils on Earth are much softer than the rocks that embed them, so why would the wind/sand erode the hard rocks, but leave the soft fossil?

If, on the other hand, you think of rocks, sanded down - in this case, literally, what shape would you get?

Yup: Nice, round, but not necessarily perfectly round.

Incidentally, Manganese nodules..... (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Earthscience/Oceanography/OceanSediments/Manganesenodules/Manganesenodules.htm)

[fishbob]

Aren't fossils the remains of animals and plants, preserved usually only as impressions - similar to plaster casts?

Why would a fossil be found on grainy sand, and not, as usually is the case here on Earth, deeply embedded in rocks?

Fossils on Earth are much softer than the rocks that embed them, so why would the wind/sand erode the hard rocks, but leave the soft fossil?

1 - Sometimes, but more commonly, replacement of organic material by minerals.

2 - Even on Earth, the rock matrix can erode away and leave fossils. Sometimes.

3 - Nope, fossils are most often the same hardness as the embedding rocks. Can be harder (phosphatized or silicified fossils), very seldom softer.

[Nigel]

When I just read American's response to my post - "You forgot- this is Mars", I was going to respond, then I read others who not only could put it better than I, but did. Thank you.

I was going to say that if Mars had a liquid (water) ocean, and similar life (squid, sand dollars, etc.), is there a reason the fossilizing process would be different? One thing I've learned is parallel problems, parallel solutions. Or am I missing something?

But since I don't have a degree, I defer to fishbob's authority in this case - and he certainly makes a good argument, in that the "fossils" are distinguished only (and if not only, then mostly) in the fuzzy photos. When I looked at the "squid" fossil, I saw nothing until I looked at the outline. I was immediately reminded of backmasking tapes, where you hear gibberish until you're told what to listen for. Then you say, "Holy cow! That's right! How did I miss it before?"

[richardm]

Originally posted by Nigel
When I looked at the "squid" fossil, I saw nothing until I looked at the outline. I was immediately reminded of backmasking tapes, where you hear gibberish until you're told what to listen for. Then you say, "Holy cow! That's right! How did I miss it before?"

Hmm.

I looked at the "unenhanced" photo and thought the squid looked quite clear.

Then I looked at the "enhanced" version with the outlines, and realised that I was looking in completely the wrong place, and at completely the wrong markings.

I wonder where Icantakepicturesofdemons would stand on this issue? :D

[Hutch]

Just a suggestion, the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (www.badastronomy.com) has a section devoted to "Martian Chronicles", with threads and pictures regarding the blueberries and other things supposedly sited in the NASA pictures. Very informative, IMHO.

End of plug.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by fishbob
1 - Sometimes, but more commonly, replacement of organic material by minerals.

Well, that's what I meant! You just said it better. :)

Originally posted by fishbob
2 - Even on Earth, the rock matrix can erode away and leave fossils. Sometimes.

Really? Never heard of that.

"The Rock Matrix"....sounds like Keanu Reeves made of stone. Wait. He is!

Originally posted by fishbob
3 - Nope, fossils are most often the same hardness as the embedding rocks. Can be harder (phosphatized or silicified fossils), very seldom softer.

Hm. I stand corrected.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by richardm


Hmm.

I looked at the "unenhanced" photo and thought the squid looked quite clear.

Then I looked at the "enhanced" version with the outlines, and realised that I was looking in completely the wrong place, and at completely the wrong markings.

I wonder where Icantakepicturesofdemons would stand on this issue? :D

[smartaleck remark]I think I can say, without a doubt, unequivocally, that someone, somewhere, is wrong. [/smartaleck remark]:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Silicon


You do know that Sir Elton John is a real Knight, right?

With a real sword, and everything?

Do real Knights name their swords like ' Excalibur ' or ' Hrunting ' ?

Do you have any idea what Elton may have named his sword?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you have any idea what Elton may have named his sword?
Pardon me, but do you have a license to carry a loaded question?? :D

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you have any idea what Elton may have named his sword?
Pardon me, but do you have a license to carry a loaded question??

[Nigel]

I apologize for the double post. Technical glitch (on whose part, I won't say.) :)

[Fidelio]

<--------The (soon to be) famous Mars Opossum.

From here. (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040408a/Sol89A_P2373_L5-A094R1_br2.jpg)

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Fidelio
<--------The (soon to be) famous Mars Opossum.

From here. (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040408a/Sol89A_P2373_L5-A094R1_br2.jpg)
I don't know, looks more like a chipmunk, or maybe a hamster to me.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you have any idea what Elton may have named his sword?

Captain Fantastic?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Diogenes


With a real sword, and everything?

Do real Knights name their swords like ' Excalibur ' or ' Hrunting ' ?

Do you have any idea what Elton may have named his sword?

He named his sword Jesus, because he likes the na-ame...

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Silicon


Captain Fantastic?
Not the Brown Dirt Cowboy?

[Frostbite]

Holy crap I love this thread.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nigel

I don't know, looks more like a chipmunk, or maybe a hamster to me.

Definitely a hedgehog..

[Correa Neto]

Besides the obvious poor evidence presented and the questionable interpretation, I would like to point the following-

Life appeared on Earth some 3.8 or 3.5 Ga ago, and the oldest well-preserved multicellular fauna dates from ~600 ma. OK, that's the only example we have. This may be above, below or average, but its our best estimate. So, it takes ~2 Ga for life to evolve from eukaryote to multicellular organisms (jellyfishes, worms and possibly arthropods). Mollusks came a bit later (~545ma).

Now, Mars had water bodies for all this time? If it had, had they the right conditions for life to evolve? And, even the answers to the above are yes, what are the chances of martian lifeforms having followed evolutionary paths that would generate something that would look exactly as a terran squid?

So, the guy is doctor... So am I and certainly other people around here are also. If I speak BS, it will still be BS even if I am a doctor...

[American]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Now, Mars had water bodies for all this time? If it had, had they the right conditions for life to evolve? And, even the answers to the above are yes, what are the chances of martian lifeforms having followed evolutionary paths that would generate something that would look exactly as a terran squid?

Yes, yes, and 90%.

So, the guy is doctor... So am I and certainly other people around here are also. If I speak BS, it will still be BS even if I am a doctor...

He's a Sir too. I don't trust doctors either- you and me both. (Most of them are pretty dim, if you ask my opinion.) But a Knight is a Knight. That counts for something.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by American
But a Knight is a Knight. That counts for something.

Unless you use your Knighthood for evil purposes, like Totally Copying REO Speedwagon!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by American


Yes, yes, and 90%.



He's a Sir too. I don't trust doctors either- you and me both. (Most of them are pretty dim, if you ask my opinion.) But a Knight is a Knight. That counts for something.
Are you sure it's 90%?
And what exactly does a Knight count for? Two pawns and a rook?

Oh, and by the way, please stop copying REO Speedwagon. You make my dog very nervous.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by American
He's a Sir too. I don't trust doctors either- you and me both. (Most of them are pretty dim, if you ask my opinion.) But a Knight is a Knight. That counts for something.

:rolleyes:

Again, you are making an idiotic argument of authority.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Silicon


Unless you use your Knighthood for evil purposes, like Totally Copying REO Speedwagon!

Duh! You forgot the link to Elton John totally copied REO Speedwagon (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32963)

Silly boy! :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Correa Neto


Now, Mars had water bodies for all this time? If it had, had they the right conditions for life to evolve? And, even the answers to the above are yes, what are the chances of martian lifeforms having followed evolutionary paths that would generate something that would look exactly as a terran squid?


Originally posted by American


Yes, yes, and 90%.




As far as I know, we have evidence that there was water on Mars, but not for how long. Images show erosional and sedimentary features of a watery origin, and even possible karst terrain. Again, using Earth as a comparsion in terms of geological processes, water bodies that lasted for 500 ma would be enough to generate all the observed features. Actually, 100 ma or even less could be enough. And note that at the final stages, when these water bodies were shrinking, they must have had pretty high salinity, creating some problems for the poor creatures that might have lived there. Complex creatures such as squids would have a hard time, if they managed to evolve in this small time frame. Remember, it took 2 billion years on Earth for mollusks evolve.

And I bet Stephen Jay Gould would probably say that chances for evolution at another planet create a squid-looking animal are well under 90%. Animals from Ediacara and Burgess shale faunas (first two well-preserved multicellular animal assemblages) were quite diferent from those living today. If conditions were a bit different, other groups of lifeforms (those we consider "weird") would have survived and evolved. And those who would eventually evolve to generate mollusks, the current arthropod groups and the vertebrates, would have been extinct long ago and nowdays be considered "weird", if intelligent life ever managed to evolve in this planet from the surviving stock of genus and species.

Other points- geological procees on Earth and Mars were quite similar. The images show that. The same forms were generated (volcanoes, rift valleys, dunes, cross-beds, ripple marks, etc.). So, fossilization processes must have been quite similar. Fossil remains most likely will be from the most abundand lifeforms in that particular environment that have anatomic features more likely to be preserved (hard shells, for example). What are the chances of finding a squid (the sort of creature that is not exactly easy to find as a fossil here on Earth)?

I would say that if one is looking for fossil remains of any kind on Mars, with the currently avaliable instruments, one should look after stromatolites (assuming algae-like lifeforms managed to evolve on Mars). Should be quite easy to notice on images. Links below.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
http://geologyindy.byu.edu/faculty/rah/slides/Rock%20Canyon/Precambrian%20Glaciers/Stromatolite.htm

Originally posted by American


He's a Sir too. I don't trust doctors either- you and me both. (Most of them are pretty dim, if you ask my opinion.) But a Knight is a Knight. That counts for something.


Regarding a knight being a knight, what about the Knights Who Say NI! Do they count for something?

Hey, I'm a doctor and I trust myself! err... umm... Do I really? And I don't consider myself dim. hmmm... Do I?

BTW, ain't this thread on the wrong place?

edited for typos- just those I managed to find

[American]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
As far as I know, we have evidence that there was water on Mars, but not for how long. Images show erosional and sedimentary features of a watery origin, and even possible karst terrain. Again, using Earth as a comparsion in terms of geological processes, water bodies that lasted for 500 ma would be enough to generate all the observed features. Actually, 100 ma or even less could be enough. And note that at the final stages, when these water bodies were shrinking, they must have had pretty high salinity, creating some problems for the poor creatures that might have lived there. Complex creatures such as squids would have a hard time, if they managed to evolve in this small time frame. Remember, it took 2 billion years on Earth for mollusks evolve.

And I bet Stephen Jay Gould would probably say that chances for evolution at another planet create a squid-looking animal are well under 90%. Animals from Ediacara and Burgess shale faunas (first two well-preserved multicellular animal assemblages) were quite diferent from those living today. If conditions were a bit different, other groups of lifeforms (those we consider "weird") would have survived and evolved. And those who would eventually evolve to generate mollusks, the current arthropod groups and the vertebrates, would have been extinct long ago and nowdays be considered "weird", if intelligent life ever managed to evolve in this planet from the surviving stock of genus and species.

Other points- geological procees on Earth and Mars were quite similar. The images show that. The same forms were generated (volcanoes, rift valleys, dunes, cross-beds, ripple marks, etc.). So, fossilization processes must have been quite similar. Fossil remains most likely will be from the most abundand lifeforms in that particular environment that have anatomic features more likely to be preserved (hard shells, for example). What are the chances of finding a squid (the sort of creature that is not exactly easy to find as a fossil here on Earth)?

I would say that if one is looking for fossil remains of any kind on Mars, with the currently avaliable instruments, one should look after stromatolites (assuming algae-like lifeforms managed to evolve on Mars). Should be quite easy to notice on images. Links below.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
http://geologyindy.byu.edu/faculty/rah/slides/Rock%20Canyon/Precambrian%20Glaciers/Stromatolite.htm


That's basically what I was thinking. You saved me a lot of trouble by writing it all out for me. Thanks.

Hey, I'm a doctor and I trust myself! err... umm... Do I really? And I don't consider myself dim. hmmm... Do I?

No, you do not.

BTW, ain't this thread on the wrong place?
edited for typos- just those I managed to find [/B]

WOW. You really are smart!

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by American


That's basically what I was thinking. You saved me a lot of trouble by writing it all out for me. Thanks.

You are wellcome. Maybe my post also helped you to change your mind, since when you began the thread, you were supporting the alien fossil squid claim. Excuse me if I got it wrong.

Its also nice to see that you backed up on the claim that there were 90% chances that life on Mars would evolve in such a way to generate squid-like creatures.


Originally posted by American

WOW. You really are smart!

Thanks. The Knights Who Say NI! also say so.

[clk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


It is bouts like this, and your lack of critical thinking that gets you into these thread messes in the first place.

That, and you have shown obvious cultural bias. If you really want to critically think, you most eliminate all cultural and political biases before doing so.


This coming from someone who once said:
Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I have been thinking deeply of this recently. HITLER is similar to George W. Bush in more ways than one.

Examples:

Conquering smaller nations (Iraq)

Free Speech Rights Restricted (Patriot Act)

More Bills on the way to make more rights restricted

A Full Sweep of people in the same party in the Executive and Legislative Branches!

Extreme Nationalism, Patriotism, and Millitarism shown by what seems to be a majority of the USA.

Religious Inspirings/Teachings (aka Right Wing Christianity)

Racism is becoming more prevalent

Church and State are starting to unify



Lets face it, at this rate, our country is going to turn into a totalitarian state.



:id: :id: :id:

Well, there goes a few of my irony meters...talk about pot calling the kettle black!

If American has plagiarized his post, I bet you wouldn't have criticized him.

:roll:

[NightG1]

I think maybe I have found the true nature of these so-called Martian Blueberries
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/nightg1/reo.jpg

[Nigel]

That's beautiful! It brings a tear to my eye. :D

[American]

Originally posted by NightG1
I think maybe I have found the true nature of these so-called Martian Blueberries
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/nightg1/reo.jpg


Uh oh. This could quickly get out of hand.


Don't make me famous. Not for this, please.

[American]

"Net weight 64 lbs"?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by American


Don't make me famous. Not for this, please.

Too late.