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
Ummm... well what *are* the opinions of the site that host the picture? (Or better still, what's the URL?)
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.
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!!!
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
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????
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.
I've solved the problem, the spheres are rabbit coprolites.
I agree it is not life but they could be fossils.
dang rabbits, they are gettin' everywhere!!!I've solved the problem, the spheres are rabbit coprolites.
But yes, they could be fossils or pseudomorphs of fossils, it'sd be nice to know more!
Martian Weaselbunny coprolites!
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.
I don'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.
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??
Thats an interesting pic i wonder what it is.