Curious shapes found by Curiosity on Mars

a reply to: Moohide

Hello Moohide, I will be inviting you to a new group that is establishing for Mars Rover Image research.

If you want some good tips:

1. Check out Sol 108 and Sol 107: You will definitely see why, very fast.

2. I believe Sol 1840 is also somewhat interesting.

3. Check near Sol 1130-1140 for some of the best images, during this time period, a large CME from the sun blew away most of the solar radiation that would normally bombard Curiosity. Thus, the images it takes in this time period have low noise ratios.

4. Check between Sol 900 - Sol 1300 for some of the best fossil search areas. This part of Curiosity's trip is along a MAJOR ridge line on Mars, and has a lot of upheaved layered mantle on the surface, from past geological activity. Thus you get to see thousands of years of buried Martian debris in the ridge embedment.

I've been looking through Curiosity Mast, ChemCam, and Mahli images for months. I come up with some interesting search methods, and I am currently of the belief, that Mars DOES currently have a multitude of thriving ecosystems. It's not quite what we think of as life on Earth, but I'm pretty sure that there are biomes of Mars that host happily living life forms. (Non-intelligence based) Likely similar to Earthly Epiphytes, Arthropods, Fungi, Mollusks, Extremophiles, and algae/moss/slime equivalents. You need a good eye, as I believe much of the Martian ecosystem has evolved with camouflage, and in many cases can ALMOST pass as regular rocks.

If you want to see my favorite Martian creature, that I have dubbed "Cotton Ridge Flowers" The Cotton Ridge Flowers on Mars look like this:

A dark tubular cylinder with an opening on the top that generally faces the sun. Around the hole are 6 triangular flaps. They range in height from directly on the ground, up to 1-2 feet tall. They are often seen along ridges on Mars, and appear similar to a flower blooming on Earth, or a Tardigrade's mouth area. Their occurrence is superfluous enough, for me to consider that they are an active species on Mars. When they are younger or in their smaller states, they appear to be like a root vine or bush vine, as it appears many light colored head blooms gathered together, looking almost like a honeycomb. Rarely, larger ones are clustered, but in general, the small ones are packed tightly, the larger ones are dispersed. I think they may be a form of epiphyte that start out as clustered buds, before breaking off and being moved on their own. (Like a plant with a larval stage.)

originally posted by: kloejen
Maybe NASA is reusing old props from the moon-landing?

Cant believe people still post and claim that.

a reply to: Namdru



If they wanted to hide something guess what they just wouldn't show it they don't need to go through the BS quoted by people like you.

a reply to: Archivalist

People think Mars has some strange rocks well we have plenty on Earth.



I wouldn't jump to conclusions until you see what can happen on Earth have a look here Ventifacts in dry valleys with similar conditions to Mars.

a reply to: Moohide

Photoshop? I cant see that either, i'm sure you and others could do a good job with it (care to have a go?) but i dont think NASA would do such a thing for just 5 shapes on a rock that could be put through a program on a PC that would show up as altered or tampered with. Doing that and being found out would discredit NASA completely and everything they have done in the past and into the future.

I agree of course. But over the years I've seen so many strange things in photos from Mars that I can't help but wonder sometimes if they're altering them, perhaps with a very advanced set of techniques, for whatever inscrutable reason. Could be my pareidolia flaring up, though.

a reply to: Archivalist

Had a good look through a lot but not all of the Sols you mention, and yes there is a good variety of rock types and shapes in those Sols. I have also mentioned in the past about 'living rocks' known as Pyura chilensis, found on the coast of Chile and Peru that survive by feeding on microorganisms filtered from sea water, they breed, but never move in their lives.

Any chance you could put up a picture of or a link to the Cotton Ridge Flowers?

Your Mars Rover Image research group sounds very interesting and would love an invite, is it going to be on ATS or another site?

I mainly search the Mastcam and MAHLI images, i dont have as good an eye as say Blue Shift, but i do study Curiositys photos very closely until i am satisfied i havent seen anything of interest.

originally posted by: Moohide
I mainly search the Mastcam and MAHLI images, i dont have as good an eye as say Blue Shift, but i do study Curiositys photos very closely until i am satisfied i havent seen anything of interest.

As much as I've looked, I've never seen anything that would convince me that there has ever been life on the planet. Everything I've found has a possible explanation that doesn't require life.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I am familiar with the phenomenon that occur in Earth geology. (Yosemite, Badlands, and the pink plateaus are good examples.)

I pay attention to outliers that are beyond reasonable geological explanation.

Not a whole lot of geo phenomenon that will just up-shoot a single plant like object, without shooting up others.

I'm not familiar with any geological phenomenon that consistently produces a stalk with the same distinct patter of 6 triangular lips around the opening.

The pattern is the important part, geology in general, does not have the careful scalpel hand of a surgeon. I find it unlikely that such a geological phenomenon is possible. To acknowledge some concerns, I have considered that the 6 triangles could make sense if those tubes had liquid bubbles at the top, and those bubbles popped. (Circles separate into 6 pieces with even degrees for symmetry, all hail Von Neumann and complex number ratios via geometry.)

To me, that explanation seems in the same ballpark of probability as hypothesizing it as a lifeform.

Even if those ARE completely geological, those tubes should be analyzed closely, as it is still beneficial for science.

If they are releasing gas, they may be creating a micro-climate similar to Earth's ocean floor hydrothermal vents.

Mars is very cold, cold means it's harder to obtain energy. Lower margins for energy acquisition means less life. Warmer microclimates on Mars would have higher ecological energy margins, and would allow for more low cost energy acquisition, thus higher odds of life. Those tubes on the surface, may be serving the same purpose on Mars, as they do on the bottom of our ocean, by providing higher energy margins.

(Also, I'm not sure rocks "evolve" to point themselves towards the sun? I can't think of a rock that moves itself to get more sunlight.)

a reply to: Blue Shift

I would like to offer this image as my response to your post.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Top left of image, between the two large rocks. OBVIOUS femur bone.* *(Connecting joint seems to be intact, but area where I would expect the hip bone is partially ambiguous. That fossil may have more intact pieces close by.

In Sol107 there is a very convincing candidate of a triceratops skull.
(I've been speaking with some scientists about this, and it's an important idea to consider. I came up with a theory a couple of years ago, that the Chicxulub impact may have ejected some material that ended up landing ON MARS. I did the math, it is NOT impossible, the math shows that material on the order of tons could have successfully made it there.)

((Expanding on that idea further, triceratops skulls are one of the most dense bones that ever existed. I believe they could potentially survive re-entry nearly intact. Triceratops were around, near the Chicxulub impact time period.
My theory offered that idea as an explanation for those dinosaur fossils we dig up, and they carbon date to only 40-50,000 years old. Our carbon dating is based on normal Earth conditions. An object orbiting in space, would end up with different carbon ratios, than the ones that stayed on Earth. I believe there is currently a few researchers working on determining if that idea holds any water.))

Check bottom middle of image. Stalk like stem with green features on it, standing about 2-3 feet tall from the ground. PS, that one has a shadow, to verify it's height.

Also, nearly all MastCam images from Sol107 to Sol108 have ABUNDANT anomalies that I have not seen in other Mars images, I have probably looked at over 1,000 Sols worth of Curiosity images.

a reply to: Namdru

Pretty much every single image is altered.

The combination of the images taken are recompiled and assembled into the images that you see online.

The colors are added in many cases during that, and images are stringed together.

You will often see vertical glitches caused by that process, that cutoff part of the image sharply, or blur the line between two images.

Curiosity has a few lens defects by this point anyway. One of the known defects is a small black dot that looks like it has a "shadow" probably a result of something collecting on the inside of a multi-lens setup in the mastcam.

There are also likely some lens scratches, Curiosity has gone through some hazardous conditions.

a reply to: Archivalist

But no reply to me. Ok, panspermia is still a theory/hypothesis that microorganisms or chemical precursors can survive space, arrive and create life on a planet.

Triceratops skull? Did the whole animal land or did it go through some kind of rebirth on Mars? I would have to suggest a rebirth of the same creature because of the different gasses and cold conditions on Mars or somehow a baby Triceratops skull survived re-entry on Mars. From the Natural History Museum - With its 3 horns, a parrot-like beak and a large frill that could reach nearly 1 metre (3 feet) across, the Triceratops skull is one of the largest and most striking of any land animal, that is why i suggest a baby Triceratops. I personally do not believe that is a Triceratops skull. I would say its pareidolia as with so many other rocks, eg floating spoons, hamsters, a gorrilla, a crocodile etc etc. Just rocks until we can prove otherwise (by having astronauts visit and test said objects)

I cant see the femur bone you suggest on Sol 107, but we have seen in the past some very convincing cases for bones in the past on other Sols. Just rocks until we can prove otherwise.

If we see something on a photo and thought it was something it, it would have to stand out from the surrounding area, the sand, the rocks, and some things have, like when Nasa went back to relook at the strange finding at the beginning of January - Link to ATS thread

And as for NASA tampering/altering with nearly every image, what would they have to gain from it? Nothing, because if they were caught and it was proven without a shadow of doubt they had done so, no-one would believe any photo or anything scientifically they have done in the past because they would have lost any and all credit they earnt the past 50/60 years. (Forget the moon landing argument, my thread isnt about that).

I know in the past there were supposed to be canals and things, but our equipment is obviously better and we have a scientific robot searching and doing the job for us until we can get there.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: Blue Shift
I would like to offer this image as my response to your post.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
Top left of image, between the two large rocks. OBVIOUS femur bone.

Not seeing it. Guess it all depends on how you look at it. The image is not clear enough to determine which object is in front of / behind another.


Besides, this area of Mars has a lot of stratification and calcium deposits that seeped into cracks. Fairly long, fairly straight chunks of stratified layers break off and are weathered over time and can look like a lot of things.

The only way to know for sure is for the rover to stop and run a spectral analysis of the chemical composition. But it rarely backtracks, so all these shapes will continue to be unknowns until somebody else goes back there and checks them out. Which isn't going to happen.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Thanks, i can see it now, have to agree that that is not a femur bone. Here is a link to the 'femur bone' previously seen in a past photo - Femur bone. A much more clearer convincing shape of a femur.

A quote from underneath the photograph, "Seen by Mars rover Curiosity using its MastCam, this Mars rock may look like a femur thigh bone. Mission science team members think its shape is likely sculpted by erosion, either wind or water.

If life ever existed on Mars, scientists expect that it would be small simple life forms called microbes. Mars likely never had enough oxygen in its atmosphere and elsewhere to support more complex organisms. Thus, large fossils are not likely."

They all have the same addition bit on the left hand side.
They remind me of trilobyte fossils honestly.
Being the same size and oriented the same direction isn't exactly a natural rock formation.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I have to agree with you, being the same size and orientated in the same direction is not natural for rock, but i also dont think 5 life forms would die and leave 5 fossils pointing in the same direction all within a few centimetres, unless all 5 were moving towards a food source, maybe in liquid, that stuck to the rock when the liquid disappeared, and that would then make them fossils.

The only thing i can think of that would leave 5 objects pointing in the same direction would be something metallic pointing towards a pole or magnetic object. It could be erosion of said objects by liquid or wind/sand combination but to me that seems unlikely for these objects in the position they are on the rock. In their position i would imagine any erosion would be unequal unless those 5 are the hard leftovers with the soft being eroded, which may account for the redness on the top one and bottom 2.

Oh, and BTW, when you rotate the image the proper way, you can see that they're not bubbles, but rather gouges, likely made by that crappy wire brush on the rover:

a reply to: Blue Shift

Nice! This thread has had me wondering big time and now not so much... your explanation seems logical!

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yes, i have to agree with you, that is more than likely the brushes leftover markings, i noticed the area had been brushed but it didnt click as i dont remember seeing those marks before on a brushed area. I'm going to go back and see if i can find other markings like these.

Notice to NASA, ditch the wire brush and attach a hoover or blower next time.

I'm a bit gutted really, but thanks Blue Shift for bringing us what is probably the answer.

originally posted by: Moohide
a reply to: Blue Shift
Notice to NASA, ditch the wire brush and attach a hoover or blower next time.

They could at least rotate the images back to normal. There was another thread a few months ago where the same thing happened. "Look at these swirls! Nope. Just brush scratches."

Another thing that might help is to include some kind of water system on the rover (water sucked from the atmosphere or ground) that would allow the rover to "wash" the objects off to get a better look at them. Any decent rock hound out there will tell you that licking rocks to find out what they are is standard operating procedure.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yea, i vaguely remember a swirl thread but can't find it on ATS or google search.

Rock licking, had to google that too as i'd not heard of that, but yes its a geologists way of testing rock for taste or texture.