Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ignored Image?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2


    I don't completely agree with the opinions of the site that hosts this image but it certainly is an interesting picture.

    The original is at Original NASA Image

  2. #2
    Ummm... well what *are* the opinions of the site that host the picture? (Or better still, what's the URL?)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2
    I originally spotted the image in the marsrover files but was unable to find any reference to it in any science site. I subsequently found it on www.enterprisemission.com. Their site is an "Art Bell" delight full of controversial content, most of which I personally do not buy into.

    In this case though I believe that the image does deserve some decent scientific comment. Ideally from someone with a background in fossils.

    I think the original image, as posted on the official NASA site under SOL34 Opportunity Micro-images speaks for itself.

    I only chose to reference the other image because it is a true and accurate representation of the detail clearly visible in the original that I have been unable to find elsewhere.

    humbly, mondojava

  4. #4
    enterprisemission.com? Hmm... you might want to read this first.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/

  5. #5
    Faulkner Guest
    Mondojava already states he doesn't agree with much of that website's content. But the picture IS a mystery, all the same.

    And one good thing about that website is that it DOES compile all the juicy NASA pics under one roof. Very convenient!

    So what is it? I imagine NASA has the cream of the geologist crop under its wings, so why don't we hear some commentary on these anomalous images? Are they natural formations or not? Or don't they know yet? Whatever the case, they should be talking to us, not holding back.

    Take, for instance, the anomalous "Mars bunny". NASA didn't comment until the public plagued them enough with the question "What is it?". Whether it was truly a Martian rabbit or a piece of debris is besides the point here, it was NASA's initial silence on the matter that's at issue. It's just not fair on the tax-paying public!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    675
    I can sympathise with NASA's reticence. If they'd come straight back with "maybe it is a Mars bunny...", think what a fuss that would have created, without being backed up by any proof either way. And if they said "well it must be a bit of the lander because there aren't any bunnies on Mars", they couldn't back up that assertion with any details so it wouldn't really provide any new information.

    Personally, I'd prefer they took their time to analyze the images properly so that they can provide a coherent explanation like they did for the bunny. Plus it gives everyone time to speculate wildly on what things might be, before the boring explanation comes out

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    79
    I bet it has been turned into hematite also like the spheres through diagenisis. This object, and the spheres could very well be fossils. However, they won't say that possibility exists will they. WHY????

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    194
    The reason why they do not say it is life is because it is not life.

    Think of how much NASA's budget would increase if they did find life on Mars. Many projects are continually cut because there isn't enough money. If NASA found conclusive evidence that there was life, they would say it and be able to fund a lot more projects.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    361
    I've solved the problem, the spheres are rabbit coprolites.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    79
    I agree it is not life but they could be fossils.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,746
    I've solved the problem, the spheres are rabbit coprolites.
    dang rabbits, they are gettin' everywhere!!!

    But yes, they could be fossils or pseudomorphs of fossils, it'sd be nice to know more!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    Martian Weaselbunny coprolites!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    77
    Does anyone know the size of the object in question? Looks like they took the picture with one of them thar microscopy thing-a-ma-bobs. Also looks kinda like eroded crystal structure to me. But then I am old and hardened and my imagination ain't what it use to be.
    <_<

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    45
    I don&#39;t believe NASA would have anything to gain by withholding any information from the public. Major finds and discoveries would only enhance their budget and credibility.

  15. #15
    Faulkner Guest
    Agreed, but what about larger global "cultural" repercussions??? Surely "Church & State" would want to set up a roadblock on the "information superhighway" if something radical was detected? Ie. total secrecy?? Yes??

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    580
    Thats an interesting pic i wonder what it is.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-06, 07:45 AM
  2. New Image: Sh2-155, vdB 155
    By tvdavis in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-02, 04:21 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-May-30, 09:20 PM
  4. Another 'What's that?' image
    By Anthrage in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-23, 08:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •