These 'fossils' are oft discussed across the web. They're nodules, they are naturally forming artifacts from rocks, there is nothing that concretely puts them as being fossils, and its known that they can form 'non-biologically'.

Originally posted by Arkaleus
If you check the link I gave you, there is a very eerie fossile of a squid too. Or at least it looks like one. You can even see the suckers. When you combine the suckers with the rest of the shape, it's a dead ringer.

Ark

I did not saw that picture because in was not on the page you gave, but now I have seen it and it looks less a fossil than the supposed sea urchins.

If you know how fossils are created then you can see that those things, probably, are not fossils.

Also, I repeat that if tere where so many fossils of one species, then there should have been many fossils of other species in the same region.

It just occured to me that perhaps the simplest way to determine if life existed on Mars is to drill for oil. If Mars's oceans had anything like shrimp and seaweed, then certainly there would be oil beneath the surface of the planet.

So, who here works for Halliburton and can take a gander at the Martian surface and say "that looks like a good place to dig?"

Zip

I think that oil is beleived to be present on one of jupiter's moons, apparently there is a non -biological way to get certain types of oils. Otherwise, thats a darn good idea. If there were oceans, and they had plankton, diatoms, forams, etc, then there should be oil in some locations.

This site has no evidence of anything. It's author does not know the least bit about Mineralogy, nor does anyone posting here, except for me. The author is presenting the viewer with Hematite, microscopic to near-microscopic crystals of Hematite. These are not fossiles, they are generally (though not always) minerals formed in aqueous solutions. They are principally Iron. They do not have "6-fold" symmetry in the pictures he claims they do. I'm not sure this author even knows what 6-fold symmetry even is and I'm certain none of you do. And at the least, you would not know what rotoinversion axes are so the case is moot. The site is garbage, you might as well entertain yourselves with the television.

Originally posted by AmerKiller
This site has no evidence of anything. It's author does not know the least bit about Mineralogy, nor does anyone posting here, except for me. The author is presenting the viewer with Hematite, microscopic to near-microscopic crystals of Hematite. These are not fossiles, they are generally (though not always) minerals formed in aqueous solutions. They are principally Iron. They do not have "6-fold" symmetry in the pictures he claims they do. I'm not sure this author even knows what 6-fold symmetry even is and I'm certain none of you do. And at the least, you would not know what rotoinversion axes are so the case is moot. The site is garbage, you might as well entertain yourselves with the television.

Hi! You are quite probably right in all that you say!

Nobody knows everything about everything, but one of the main reasons people come to ATS is to slowly learn a little bit more about some interesting subjects.

These threads always go a lot smoother if those taking part are willing to help this education process without resorting to overbearing arrogance....

Just a thought.

Originally posted by AmerKiller
This site has no evidence of anything. It's author does not know the least bit about Mineralogy, nor does anyone posting here, except for me. The author is presenting the viewer with Hematite, microscopic to near-microscopic crystals of Hematite. These are not fossiles, they are generally (though not always) minerals formed in aqueous solutions. They are principally Iron. They do not have "6-fold" symmetry in the pictures he claims they do. I'm not sure this author even knows what 6-fold symmetry even is and I'm certain none of you do. And at the least, you would not know what rotoinversion axes are so the case is moot. The site is garbage, you might as well entertain yourselves with the television.

Well I guess I'll just take your word for it!

They are obviously microscopic and do not appear to be fossils to me at all. Thanks, though, for the detailed and in-depth analysis. You really schooled us.

Me stupid, me go watch TV now.

Zipdot

"This is not a microscopic image of hematite crystals. None of these are. The martian blueberries are not microscopic. They are visible in hand sample, and probably some would require work with a hand lense. They are not looking at the crystals of haematite, they are looking at concretions of it."

That's not true, the blueberries are just a great sample of hematite, but there are near-microscopic samples as well, and these pictures are obviously of samples less than a tenth of a millimeter, the matrix grain-sizes alludes to that.

I may be presumptuous to say it's hematite, but I've seen it before as hematite so there's no reason to suspect something else. The author doesn't give any sources either, nor context...if I present you a small bump, it can be anything from a zit to a large hill...need that context.

"inversion axes have no relevance to these structures anyway."

Well they have relevance, but not in the case where you have infinite rotational axes...which is the case here, the fact the author brought-up rotational axes is just evidence the guy doesn't really know much. Like you said individual minerals aren't being examined.

We really don't know that...these could be samples of a crystal of mineral, there's not enough context to rule out possibilities.

"concretions of it."
I beleive I may have been mistaken here, I am not sure that the blueberries are necessarily concretions actually.

amerikiller
the matrix grain-sizes alludes to that.

Without scale or reference you can not estimate grain size. The blueberries are not microscopic.

You mention the import of context, I agree, but I have seen these things in context in other NASA photos. They were causing a huge stir over at sci.geo.* and there was much discussion about them. The consensus was something like the two of us have been saying, but in hand sample size. Not sure what the general range of that was tho. And, like in the 'mars fossils' page, there were numerous people, most not having any geological or biological background, claiming they were fossils, the most populare being 'sponge gemmules and component spicules".

no reason to suspect something else.

Nasa and most geologists seem to be agreeing with you, that they are made up of haematite formed non biologically.

I probably seem arrogant, but I've read these forums for a bit now in the space exploration and the constant assumptions that your observation skills of a low-resolution image surpasses numerous amounts of experimental methods both employed by the rover's equipment and analytical methods of the data you observe simply by sight has just gotten too far under my skin.

If I presented you an image, but you didn't know what it was, you could not tell me anything truthful about it at all. You might guess right but chances are you wouldn't even do that. An example might be walker lake, I could present you two images of different filters showing a different environment completely, without any information of what filters or that it is even a lake, you wouldn't really be able to do anything but assume that it's a lake and that one filter is blue the other is infrared.

This thread, among many others, employes this layman's method far too much. I'd have no real problems with any poster here if they realized their methods were crap at best. The last poster, apparently got mad and swore at me or something, says these images are not "microscopic" (which I had clarified that they are at least near microscopic) which they indeed are. These are not images of objects more than a millimeter across, but still that is a guess. But it is a far more educated guess, especially with the lack of scale present, it suggests it is fairly minute.

What is for certain, is there is nothing out of the ordinary here. Minerals are not some all perfect creation that have no variations. They have structural differences even within the same crystal for a number of reasons.

Let us assume that these are fine grains (say clay-sized) of Hematite. The author said that one had a feature resembling a "shell" around a center. Well ok, all that means is as the Hematite precipitated from solution, it did it once, then the process ended for any number of reasons, then resumed at a different time. There's no reason to assume that "shell" is evidence of life. In fact, it is moronic considering the CONTEXT of Mars.

Nygdan, what I mean by "the matrix grain-size" is that you can make out a grain-size to the matrix, with Martian rocks that's typically rare because most on the surface are volcanic and Mars having extremely low temperatures and pressures (compared to the earth) cause rapid crystalization. So you'll have really aphanetic matrices. It's a general assumption but it works for now (it's all speculative considering we have no context of what took the pictures, of where they were taken and when and all that).

But anyway, I've not seen such good examples of matrices grain-size except in pictures that were of only a millimeter or so across. Maybe a centimeter. So the orb has to be pretty small, far smaller than the grains of pollen he is showing.

I know blueberries are not microscopic, but minerals opperate on the principle of fractals, in fact they are the epitome of fractals, and so if you have a round blueberry-like Hematite mineral that is a centimeter across, you can expect a grain to also look the same but be a millimeter across, and a micrometer and so on.

And we're probably looking at such samples...smaller versions of those really nice examples of Hematite that we nick-named blueberries.

Well. What an arrogant jerk.

Usually I get along great with scientists, but to be dismissed like some kind of street punk is rather uncalled for.

Did I mention the author of the page is a Nobel Prizewinner? Look at these shapes. Did you see the "trilobite?" Ever see rock erode in such a fashion? Regular undulating edges along a central spine, in the same form as a trilobite? On a ocean world at the time trilobites were common on earth? What else can this be?

I always get a great laugh out of self-wise men who deny things out of hand, and then are shown to be fools in a single generation.

Arkaleus

Originally posted by AmerKiller
The last poster, apparently got mad and swore at me or something,

If yer thinking of me, I got mad allright. You were acting like a complete 'arsehole' as the britishers say. I can sympathize with frustration with certain types of posters, but acting like that is unnecessary, and people. rightly, will insult you for it.

says these images are not "microscopic" (which I had clarified that they are at least near microscopic) which they indeed are.

Near microscopic means 'explicitly not micoscopic'. Again, the martian blueberries ar not microscopic.

Minerals are not some all perfect creation that have no variations. They have structural differences even within the same crystal for a number of reasons.

This is the sort of thing that the 'mars fossils page' would discuss if it were qualified to make the statements its been making.

Let us assume that these are fine grains (say clay-sized) of Hematite.

That would really be an incorrect assumption. I really need to stress that the spheres being presened are not individual grains. I'm not trying to nit pick or anything.

In fact, it is moronic considering the CONTEXT of Mars.

I agree with you completely. I can understand people who are not familiar with these sorts of things trying to figure out what they are as best they can. But what I can't understand are the people who say that nasa is hiding something, and that every geologist who agrees with nasa is hiding something too, or just as bad, the people who think that their 'opinion' is just as likely to be correct as the well informed conclusions of a geologist.

most on the surface are volcanic [re:matrix-grain sizes]

But the blueberries are not thought to be volcanic. If the matrix is aphanitic then it doesn't seem like you can get an estimate of grains that are suspended in it. YOu know that they aren't micrscopic, but not much else. Perhaps this is used in a way I am not used to tho, especially in relation to martian rocks?

arkaleus
Did I mention the author of the page is a Nobel Prizewinner?

Er? Who is the author? What is his nobel prize in?

Originally posted by Arkaleus
Did I mention the author of the page is a Nobel Prizewinner?

If I remember well, you did not mention it.
If he is a Nobel Prize winner, could you say what prize was he awarded and when, because I could not find his name in the list of Nobel Prize winners.

First off, I'm not sure you all understand what I was saying about the hematite, I did not say this was a picture of a "blueberry" which is a GREAT example of hematite, but that this simply looks to be like other examples of near-microscopic grains of hematite. It does not need to be hematite, of course. There is simply no context to tell even size.

As for nobel prizes, chemistry, physics and math ... no Geology on there.

And yes, rocks can look like "trilobytes", a rock can look like almost anything under a given situation.

Staurolite, I guarentee you, if a staurolite were found on Mars, you'd think Jesus himself put it there, because it looks like a man-made cross.

Not impressed. Like someone said you can see any number of different shapes in those rocks if you want to waste and hour or two. To me they look like rocks nothing more nothing less. Any besides comparing these pics to live creatures in assinine. One look nothing like the other. I could outside right now and dig up 5 rocks that could bear resemblence to a fossil. Its not that tough to do.