Mars - Victoria Crater Revisted - Spirit Rover Anomolies

qmantoo
Me too, but I get all the 'rocks' comments just like this poster. :-)

I suppose that would stop if you stopped posting photos of rocks.

I notice ArMap you have not commented on the vegetation thread I started Could this show a simple plant leaf like a moss?, so I would like to hear your theory on that please.

OK, I will post my opinion on that thread.

Blueberries, I feel may be vegitative life as I posted Possible new classification opportunity for concretion spherules (blueberries) on Mars and there is what looks like a stalk too.

I will look into that too.

I have also noticed some of what looks like tampering to the images, (In the past, I made a mistake showing valid shadows as tampering in case anyone points it out) but unless we get the images from the PDS (Planetry Data System) and show the same area from the best available image, our tampering argument will not have a leg to stand on.

As I always say, anyone making the tampering (unless they are complete idiots and incompetent) would do it in a way nobody would noticed, it's easy.

If you have the sol number for any of the images, there are many search sites including my MER thumbnail search which will allow you to see all the images for a sol, camera, site, in time order, so there are ways to get at any available different angles.

I usually use the Analyst's Notebook.

If the 'young enthusiastic engineers' want their work to be appreciated and acknowledged, then they should make an effort to get the truth out about ET life from behind those closed doors.

Maybe there's no other truth to get out.

The huge "elephant" which no-one has mentioned is the arch-like hole/cave in the front of the rock in the image which ArMap has posted. That is unusual to say the least...

reply to post by ArMaP

I suppose that would stop if you stopped posting photos of rocks

Are you 100% every single object is a "rock"... I mean 100% certain ArMap?

Maybe there's no other truth to get out

There's always more than meets the eye when it comes to this subject matter, you should know that by now!?

reply to post by qmantoo


"Elephant"... huh?

You could post a photo, I doubt there is anything resembling an elephant though :-?

reply to post by qmantoo

Blueberries, I feel may be vegitative life as I posted Possible new classification opportunity for concretion spherules (blueberries) on Mars and there is what looks like a stalk too

There is no doubt by now one of the three rovers on Mars would have sampled the matter. Especially Curiosity, it is equipped with more gadgets than the Ghost Busters..

Seriously though, my thoughts on the blueberries are some type of fossilised organic matter.. maybe. What stands out to me is the vast amount of them that litter the surface in many places. Another thing that seems odd is that when the rover runs over them they appear to completely disintergrate.

Below: (Spirit on the edge of Victoria Crater)

Havick007
Are you 100% every single object is a "rock"... I mean 100% certain ArMap?

Obviously not, I am not even 100% certain that I am writing this.

There's always more than meets the eye when it comes to this subject matter, you should know that by now!?

Are you 100% certain?

Havick007
There is no doubt by now one of the three rovers on Mars would have sampled the matter. Especially Curiosity, it is equipped with more gadgets than the Ghost Busters..

I don't think that there are blueberries where Curiosity landed.

Another thing that seems odd is that when the rover runs over them they appear to completely disintergrate.

I have noticed that in almost all rocks on Mars, they look less compact than the ones we are used to on Earth and easily breakable.

Another thing that seems odd is that when the rover runs over them they appear to completely disintergrate.

Thats a good point because if they had been hard, then the tracks would look 'blue' in the photo, or at least have some 'blue'. I put the colour in quotes because on the MERs there is no colour camera, so we have to have interpreted colour.

This number of blueberries would either have to be washed there (I dont see any bunching) or have been eroded from the rock in which they had been encased all these millions of years.

Alternatively of course, they could be just growing there, which in my opinion is more likely - but what do I know, I am not a scientist. ;-)

reply to post by ArMaP


So then you admit that's you also make assumptions about surface features by only looking images of that surface area?

I mean the "easily breakable rocks" (paraphrashing).

You could never make a 100% certain judgement though, correct?

reply to post by qmantoo


They could be very fine or thin filmed material, possibly even fossilised and when broken down, they turn almost to dust. The tracks left by the Rover are lighter in color. It may be a mixture or the breakdown plus the "bottom soil" so to speak

They do seem quite evenly distributed in area and size in many cases

Originally posted by qmantoo

Another thing that seems odd is that when the rover runs over them they appear to completely disintergrate.

Thats a good point because if they had been hard, then the tracks would look 'blue' in the photo, or at least have some 'blue'. I put the colour in quotes because on the MERs there is no colour camera, so we have to have interpreted colour.

This number of blueberries would either have to be washed there (I dont see any bunching) or have been eroded from the rock in which they had been encased all these millions of years.

Alternatively of course, they could be just growing there, which in my opinion is more likely - but what do I know, I am not a scientist. ;-)

Havick007
So then you admit that's you also make assumptions about surface features by only looking images of that surface area?

Sure, I never went to Mars (as far as I know).

I mean the "easily breakable rocks" (paraphrashing).

Yes, I am assuming, based on how the rocks look, on how rocks looking like those were broken by the rovers and in my experience with Earth rocks.

You could never make a 100% certain judgement though, correct?

Correct, I can never make a 100% certain judgement about any thing, much less about things that I never saw in front of me.

I think that's the right attitude.