MARS: Crinoid and Prasopora Fossils Exposed

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

reply to post by Arken
 

Damn! This is my FLOWER! My Martian Flower!

A Martian Flower! Curiosity sol 132



That was my first thought, too ... I remember your thread on that topic! Looks like some parts of the puzzle are slowly coming together and I'm still hoping for some expertise from others on here concerning the comments in the research papers.
edit on 21-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Step by step jeep3r, My friend
Step by step "someone" will nail the dots in N . A . S . A . logo...



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Arken, what do you think of this martian rock lizard I found on a pic on a thread hidden away in a quiet forum?



I said there that it eats rock flies, rock mealy-worms, and rocks.
edit on 21-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

super70
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Unfortunately many people feel this way, waiting for the MSM to tell us something we all know to be true, in order to make it a bona fide fact.

My personal belief is that proof will come first from an amatuer, then the MSm will have no choice but to agree. Just my thoughts.



Not MSM but someone in a field of science.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Here's another definition for "vuggy porosity":

Porosity with high aspect ratio (spherical) commonly caused by the dissolution of calcareous material.

subsurfwiki.org...

"Calcareous" is an adjective meaning mostly or partly composed of calcium. Curiosity has seen plenty of such calcium-based minerals, such as gypsum. These minerals had formed veins, wrinkles, hollows, and other interesting features.

But you folk see the word "fossils" on Wikipedia, and take it as far as suggesting that NASA admits the possibility (or certainty) of life on Mars. That's not how it works, sorry.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


I also have seen them around there but not those you picked .. Amazing and great to share those with us .. I wonder why NASA don't want to share this info with us because you can't tell me that they didn't see it?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Arken

jeep3r

Aleister
reply to post by jeep3r
 

Can you find the photo which the original caption was describing? Of all the rocks on all the worlds you had to walk into wine.


Here goes the image to which the original caption referred, with 'glassy luster' (see lower left arrow) & a small amount of 'vuggy porosity' being evident (upper right arrow):


Link to the original MAHLI image from sol 132:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 21-1-2014 by jeep3r because: text


Damn! This is my FLOWER! My Martian Flower!

A Martian Flower! Curiosity sol 132


I was thinking more along the lines of shiny martian tooth... Maybe the our rovers scared the tooth fairy away?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

wildespace
Here's another definition for "vuggy porosity":

Porosity with high aspect ratio (spherical) commonly caused by the dissolution of calcareous material.

subsurfwiki.org...

"Calcareous" is an adjective meaning mostly or partly composed of calcium. Curiosity has seen plenty of such calcium-based minerals, such as gypsum. These minerals had formed veins, wrinkles, hollows, and other interesting features.

But you folk see the word "fossils" on Wikipedia, and take it as far as suggesting that NASA admits the possibility (or certainty) of life on Mars. That's not how it works, sorry.


The big bad F-word (fossil) is considered 'nasty' when it comes to astrobiology, that's true. Scientists & academia will try to avoid it until there's enough data & evidence that you can't deny it any longer. But if you see something that looks similar to what this OP suggests, I see no reason to not discuss it here with some hypothetical thinking & personal views ...

I suggest we keep looking and discussing this, and let's not forget that not all on here are researchers or scientists. Yet a lot of us are interested in this subject matter and would like to share the excitement of a potential sensation.

By the way: your alternative definition of 'vuggy porosity' is also valid, no question ... thanks for looking into that for us!



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

jeep3r

wildespace
Here's another definition for "vuggy porosity":

Porosity with high aspect ratio (spherical) commonly caused by the dissolution of calcareous material.

subsurfwiki.org...

"Calcareous" is an adjective meaning mostly or partly composed of calcium. Curiosity has seen plenty of such calcium-based minerals, such as gypsum. These minerals had formed veins, wrinkles, hollows, and other interesting features.

But you folk see the word "fossils" on Wikipedia, and take it as far as suggesting that NASA admits the possibility (or certainty) of life on Mars. That's not how it works, sorry.


The big bad F-word (fossil) is considered 'nasty' when it comes to astrobiology, that's true. Scientists & academia will try to avoid it until there's enough data & evidence that you can't deny it any longer. But if you see something that looks similar to what this OP suggests, I see no reason to not discuss it here with some hypothetical thinking & personal views ...

I suggest we keep looking and discussing this, and let's not forget that not all on here are researchers or scientists. Yet a lot of us are interested in this subject matter and would like to share the excitement of a potential sensation.

By the way: your alternative definition of 'vuggy porosity' is also valid, no question ... thanks for looking into that for us!


Well you guys, just wander over here and start reading from this post. The F- word may have taken form. As for vuggy porosity? Ha. Come have a look. Bring champange to pour over BuzzDengue's and funbox's heads if this pans out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-1-2014 by Aleister because: spelling fix to "champagne" aye
edit on 21-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I dont think the question is "Was there once life on Mars?" Of course there was once life on mars.

But the question just may be - Was there once life as we know it on Mars. The implications of that would be mind-blowing, it would mean that all this literally once happened before. Go figure eh!

We really aren't that special. I will be patiently waiting for the day they find the remains of an old McDonald's buried hundreds of miles under the surface, now that would be impressive...Or not.


Cool thread anyways.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

galadofwarthethird
I dont think the question is "Was there once life on Mars?" Of course there was once life on mars.

But the question just may be - Was there once life as we know it on Mars. The implications of that would be mind-blowing, it would mean that all this literally once happened before. Go figure eh!

We really aren't that special. I will be patiently waiting for the day they find the remains of an old McDonald's buried hundreds of miles under the surface, now that would be impressive...Or not.


Cool thread anyways.


The fact hat changes on other planets are occurring a we see the possible signs of major change on ours led me to pose this to a geologist. "If major changes were considered to happen on Earth around 4 billion years ago and some hypothesised that Mars underwent great changes at around the same time, once again from a certain consensus, could it be that both changes and their timing were the result of a Solar System wide event." This was immediately dismissed as that would have a solar system older and Mars as the earlier developed planet orbiting in the Goldilocks zone and Earth somewhat out of it until some tremendous event within the Solar System.

Just a thought that nags at me occasionally.

As to the 'shiny' rock and in keeping with the seashore theme, well having worked some years in antiques it looks a lot like Mother Of Pearl to me.
edit on 22/1/14 by goldentorch because: Clarification.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


I agree that life is probably so common that we arent that special. Wether mars has had life before im not certain, but through panspermia i think all planets get contant seeding with microbial life, but wether it takes hold depends on the areas climate and suitability to keep alive is the question, especially long enough to leave a trace such as a fossil.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Whether you believe life once existed on Mars or not, its important that man someday acknowledge it with definitive incontrovertible proof. That changes a lot from a scientific perspective. We all know life existed and probably still exists on Mars, but it cannot yet be a scientific assumption. It must be proven before science can agree and move on to discover the civilization that died there and how to avoid a similar fate.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 



I'm sure NASA will deny whatever they find, even if there's a Red Truck in front of the rover. There will be some geologist's cheap explanation to it.

"It will always be a rock"



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LordAdef
 


Does anyone know who has a credible geological background here on ATS? The Spoke "fossil" needs such eyes on it, imnho. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


I've been hanging around ATS for years as have you, and i'm sorry to say i haven't really noticed many of your posts.

It's fantastic to see you posting this kind of work Super70, thanks for putting in the time and work to bring us interesting brain candy.

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   

LordAdef
reply to post by jeep3r
 



I'm sure NASA will deny whatever they find, even if there's a Red Truck in front of the rover. There will be some geologist's cheap explanation to it.

"It will always be a rock"



I'm sure NASA would absolutely LOVE to announce life past pr present..their agency would probably quadruple in size and funding almost overnight. The Government on the other hand, would definitely not love to announce it, and since they're (taxpayers in fact) paying for NASA's budget, they get to decide on what is 'discovered' or not.

NASA don't call the shots, they follow orders.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Hey Aleister, as a matter of fact my mother-in-law is a geologist.
I may send her the pictures and see what she says.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

MysterX

I'm sure NASA would absolutely LOVE to announce life past pr present..their agency would probably quadruple in size and funding almost overnight. The Government on the other hand, would definitely not love to announce it, and since they're (taxpayers in fact) paying for NASA's budget, they get to decide on what is 'discovered' or not.

NASA don't call the shots, they follow orders.



I agree MysterX. But whenever we judge NASA's behaviours we are in fact considering the whole thing right. NASA is Government, and play by the Government's own interests.
Science is the most controlled thing in the world today, and it's the most dependent thing in the world too.
....And.... Modern Scientists are very burocrats and soly career driven. Galileo would have a hard time in the modern era



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

LordAdef
reply to post by Aleister
 


Hey Aleister, as a matter of fact my mother-in-law is a geologist.
I may send her the pictures and see what she says.


Great. Here's the picture I was speaking of aside from the data in this thread. It's a find by BuzzDengue and imaged by funbox:






 
66
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join