Originally posted by ka119
I just find it interesting that they jumped to conclusions the first time, 'confirming' that the shiny object was part of the rover, now they are back tracking and saying, "well, perhaps this IS NOT part of the rover.."
It's not backtracking. It's just new information leading to a new working hypothesis. That is the de facto standard for dealing with new information.
You might blame them for dismissing it as something man made the first time, but you really shouldn't be blaming them for reevaluating it now. That just wouldn't be fair.