Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Photos show Mars 'insects', claims scientist

71 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Carnoferox
5 hours ago, highdesert50 said:

Occam's razor -- the point of the poster presentation. It is not intended to be definitive research. Rather, he is using ambiguity to foster interest in a niche area within his discipline. He has appropriately presented this as a poster session -- literally on a poster. Posters are often grouped and situated to promote conversation and interaction as individuals move between plenary sessions. Did he 'raise a few eyebrows?' Of course, that was the intent.

I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm applying Occam's razor to the argument itself, not the medium that it was presented. As I said, these kinds of claims are very off-putting to scientists, the opposite of what you're saying. Seeing insects in blurry photos of the Martian surface is more likely to inspire derision than curiosity. It's poor science regardless if it was purely to grab people's attention.

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist

What is the difference between what this professor did and what is done by Scott Waring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highdesert50
21 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm applying Occam's razor to the argument itself, not the medium that it was presented. As I said, these kinds of claims are very off-putting to scientists, the opposite of what you're saying. Seeing insects in blurry photos of the Martian surface is more likely to inspire derision than curiosity. It's poor science regardless if it was purely to grab people's attention.

You are abstracting the argument from the venue it was presented. For me to accept your argument, I would have to agree that a career scientist from an R2 research institution as well as the conference selection committee, surely well credentialed, are idiots. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than being off-putting, I suspect they thought this an interesting, potentially even humorous, opportunity for the conference attendees to toy with ambiguity and foster some interest in a niche area. Why take it so seriously? After all, the NSF recently awarded three-quarters of a million US dollars to study scientists’ practice of communicating with humor.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
2 hours ago, highdesert50 said:

You are abstracting the argument from the venue it was presented. For me to accept your argument, I would have to agree that a career scientist from an R2 research institution as well as the conference selection committee, surely well credentialed, are idiots. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than being off-putting, I suspect they thought this an interesting, potentially even humorous, opportunity for the conference attendees to toy with ambiguity and foster some interest in a niche area. Why take it so seriously? After all, the NSF recently awarded three-quarters of a million US dollars to study scientists’ practice of communicating with humor.

I can appreciate humor in science communication, but nothing so far has shown this was intended to be humorous. All reports have presented this as a claim intended to be serious. I think you underestimate the ability of cranks to work their way into academia. Conferences have a limited review process and it’s quite easy for fringe abstracts/posters/presentations to slip in from my experience. Argument from authority is functionally useless in these situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highdesert50
7 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

I can appreciate humor in science communication, but nothing so far has shown this was intended to be humorous. All reports have presented this as a claim intended to be serious. I think you underestimate the ability of cranks to work their way into academia. Conferences have a limited review process and it’s quite easy for fringe abstracts/posters/presentations to slip in from my experience. Argument from authority is functionally useless in these situations.

Enjoyed the debating. The best to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
On 11/23/2019 at 1:39 PM, stereologist said:

Let's consider vocabulary for a second. These martin blueberries are being called spores. Here is what a spore is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore

But these object are large and are unlikely to be spores.

It seems that spores on Earth are on the order of 10 or 20 microns across.

How do we explain the difference in size?

Well... Why would anyone expect Mars to be the exact same enviromnent as earth? It is blatantly clear that species here are as diverse and varied as thier methods of survival require. Why would you assume that seeds or spores be identical to any here? That is a pretty huge limitation, had someone actually been looking for evidence... Must we only acknowledge life if it is identical to something on earth? I mean if these were little mushrooms or something it wouldnt be dissimilar to many things that occur here anyway, and still a bit smaller than many seeds. There seems to be a bit more wind whipping around on mars, so i would expect any spore-type things to be able to be larger. These however are round, not designed for sailing so where did we get the conclusion of spores anyways? I would have guessed regular seeds (i take that back they vary too much in size to be seeds) or that they are the main structure.

Edited by Nnicolette
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
On 11/20/2019 at 9:53 PM, Hankenhunter said:

Martian "blueberries. Hematite. Probably caused by the abundance of dust devils taking fragments and spinning them. Over eons they round out and collect in depressions. That's my personal theory of how they're produced, anyway. They are mineral not spores.

Now that i look, these dont even look organic. I think Hanken is right, they look like weathered stones. Too unevenly edged. Living things tend to be more uniformly structural i think. But the ant hill... I don't believe that formed naturally something dug it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

I think any life currently living on Mars would be simple. Microbial. Maybe something like lichen too.

There could be fossil evidence of previous life as well. We do have a lot of evidence that suggests Mars was once a lot more like earth, a few billion years ago.

We'd have to not only find it, but collect samples and send them back to Earth for study. We're still quite far off from getting all that done.

I agree with the university 100%, take that sad conjecture down. It's an institution of learning, FFS.

Edited by Seti42
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Nnicolette said:

Well... Why would anyone expect Mars to be the exact same enviromnent as earth? It is blatantly clear that species here are as diverse and varied as thier methods of survival require. Why would you assume that seeds or spores be identical to any here? That is a pretty huge limitation, had someone actually been looking for evidence... Must we only acknowledge life if it is identical to something on earth? I mean if these were little mushrooms or something it wouldnt be dissimilar to many things that occur here anyway, and still a bit smaller than many seeds. There seems to be a bit more wind whipping around on mars, so i would expect any spore-type things to be able to be larger. These however are round, not designed for sailing so where did we get the conclusion of spores anyways? I would have guessed regular seeds (i take that back they vary too much in size to be seeds) or that they are the main structure.

Actually you and I are on the same track. The person claiming this is calling it a spore and yet why should it be a fungal spore? They want it to be a spore and it shows nothing reminiscent of life on Earth.

I certainly would  not claim it to be similar to life on Earth and yet this person has assigned it to being a spore. They do that simply because they know about spores and have arbtrarily assigned it to be a fungal spore.

Seeds? Unlikely an idea as being a fungus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

 

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

Actually you and I are on the same track. The person claiming this is calling it a spore and yet why should it be a fungal spore? They want it to be a spore and it shows nothing reminiscent of life on Earth.

I certainly would  not claim it to be similar to life on Earth and yet this person has assigned it to being a spore. They do that simply because they know about spores and have arbtrarily assigned it to be a fungal spore.

Seeds? Unlikely an idea as being a fungus.

Do spores even get as big as the blueberries? 1/8"? Just checked google. Largest spores are 20 microns. So, no they don't get that big.

What Are the 'Blueberries' on Mars? After NASA's Opportunity Rover landed on Mars in 2004, the probe revealed a puzzling phenomenon — tiny spheres, or spherules, just one-eighth of an inch (0.3 centimeters) in diameter, embedded in Martian rock.Dec 24, 2018
Edited by Hankenhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

There are rivers with natural bore holes in the solid rock river bottoms. These are cause by rocks spinning in a cavity slowly boring down by abrasive friction. Most of these rocks are almost perfectly round. I used to dig these out for my high powered slingshot. Theres no reason that dust devils over long periods of time ( millions of years)can't do the same. Plus, the Mars blueberries are different sizes. Spores tend to be close to the same size. All much, much smaller than the blueberries.

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
On 12/1/2019 at 5:07 PM, Hankenhunter said:

There are rivers with natural bore holes in the solid rock river bottoms. These are cause by rocks spinning in a cavity slowly boring down by abrasive friction. Most of these rocks are almost perfectly round. I used to dig these out for my high powered slingshot. Theres no reason that dust devils over long periods of time ( millions of years)can't do the same. Plus, the Mars blueberries are different sizes. Spores tend to be close to the same size. All much, much smaller than the blueberries.

They didn't even have to. Are we sure this isnt an old riverbed we are looking at? I mean people did already announce that there were some around some time ago...

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mars-looks-like-a-riverbed.amp

Edited by Nnicolette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ocpaul20

I never said the spherules or blueberries were spores, I said they expelled the spores because they are (or at least some are) the fruiting bodies of fungi.

The spores I claimed to see were on the ground in the picture I posted previously. These spores are much, much smalled than the fruiting bodies or spherules. It was Stereologist who mistook what I said for spores. The spores are the darker grains on the surface of the ground in the area of the hole in my previous posted picture.

============================

Quote

How do you know spherules, these blueberries, are not blown around at times? Please show evidence for your position as I have posted evidence.

How can I show that blueberries are NOT blown about? You can show that they are blown into piles in the lee of rocks - if you can. I believe you cannot do this from the photographic evidence from Mars.

Quote

You seemed to have skipped the fact that dust devils are often photographed. They have been photographed for years. Yet you only allude to a single gif.

It is NASA's gif not mine. There are also images of 'wind tracks' from dust devils scouring the ground, yet no piles of blueberries in the lee of rocks. IF the wind was able to move <20mm particles into the air, then we all would have thought it should be strong enough to blow these 5mm blueberries - yes? No evidence in pictures anywhere. I rest my case until you can show evidence this is real, until that I dont see it in the photographic evidence presented by NASA.

Quote

You claim they do have internal structure. Well, I posted evidence that shows that is a falsehood. Post evidence instead of making a false statement: "concretions are formed of concentric rings around a central core" That might happen. That does not necessarily happen.

Not false ideas at all. You were the one who quoted a piece saying there was no internal structure, yet point 7 below says there is fine grained internal structure, point 8 says there is no internal structure, so which is it?

Quote

(vi) the blueberries are hard; (vii) the blueberries are made of very fine grain material; and (vii) the blueberries have no internal structure. In addition, all the hematite spherules appear to be located within the upper 10 mm thickness of the surface soil.

Since all hematite concretions appear to be located in the top 10mm of soil, that would add weight to my argument that they are growing there from the surface of the mother plant.

I have said I think they are fruiting bodies of fungi and have (developing) spores inside. I even pointed out the spores in the picture which any biologist would agree with me, which I reckon were expelled from the fruiting bodies in the photograph. The photograph shows a dessicated and dried out fruiting body which we are calling a spherule while we are debating it. There are just too many spherules for them all to be concretions weathered out of rocks. I have not seen the rocks with piles of weathered out concretions lying about beneath them - have you?
 

I will post compelling evidence.

Edited by ocpaul20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

I never said the spherules or blueberries were spores, I said they expelled the spores because they are (or at least some are) the fruiting bodies of fungi.

The spores I claimed to see were on the ground in the picture I posted previously. These spores are much, much smalled than the fruiting bodies or spherules. It was Stereologist who mistook what I said for spores. The spores are the darker grains on the surface of the ground in the area of the hole in my previous posted picture.

============================

How can I show that blueberries are NOT blown about? You can show that they are blown into piles in the lee of rocks - if you can. I believe you cannot do this from the photographic evidence from Mars.

It is NASA's gif not mine. There are also images of 'wind tracks' from dust devils scouring the ground, yet no piles of blueberries in the lee of rocks. IF the wind was able to move <20mm particles into the air, then we all would have thought it should be strong enough to blow these 5mm blueberries - yes? No evidence in pictures anywhere. I rest my case until you can show evidence this is real, until that I dont see it in the photographic evidence presented by NASA.

Not false ideas at all. You were the one who quoted a piece saying there was no internal structure, yet point 7 below says there is fine grained internal structure, point 8 says there is no internal structure, so which is it?

Since all hematite concretions appear to be located in the top 10mm of soil, that would add weight to my argument that they are growing there from the surface of the mother plant.

I have said I think they are fruiting bodies of fungi and have (developing) spores inside. I even pointed out the spores in the picture which any biologist would agree with me, which I reckon were expelled from the fruiting bodies in the photograph. The photograph shows a dessicated and dried out fruiting body which we are calling a spherule while we are debating it. There are just too many spherules for them all to be concretions weathered out of rocks. I have not seen the rocks with piles of weathered out concretions lying about beneath them - have you?
 

I will post compelling evidence.

I checked back and I did get it wrong.

The problem is that the spherules do NOT show any internal structure. They are not fruiting bodies. There is nothing at all to show that the smaller dark grains are spores or that there is a relationship between the smaller grains and the spherules.

The blueberries do congregate in low areas showing that their distribution which is  evenly distributed in the rock layers changes.  The idea that blueberries should be found in the lee of rocks is also wrong. Over time they should end up in lower areas which is what they do. 

There is no internal structure to the spherules other than the grains of which the rocks are composed. There is no structure to these spherules. There are no lineal features.

The fact that these are surface features has no bearing on whether or not it is inorganic in origin.  These could be impact pieces or they could be concretions, both of which happen close to surfaces.

One of the main problem still for you is that the grain in the image are much, much larger than fungal spores.

I don't see much you've posted that has merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

These spherules are not organic.

https://www.space.com/42645-mars-blueberries-formation-mystery-earth-analogs.html

Quote

Unlike the terrestrial versions, Martian blueberries seem to be made of hematite all the way through, no longer sporting any calcite heart.

Not fruiting bodies or spores or anything once alive, but inorganic hematite.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/12/eaau0872

Quote

On the basis of this evidence, we propose that hematite spherules in Meridiani Planum were possibly formed by interaction between preexisting carbonate spherules and acid sulfate water that infiltrated early in martian history. 

https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/6944/martian-blueberries/

Quote

Opportunity's investigation of the hematite-rich concretions during the rover's three-month prime mission in early 2004 provided evidence of a watery ancient environment.

Nothing but inorganic materials.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Stare at images of Martian ventifacts long enough and you'll imagine you see a lot of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20
7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Stare at images of Martian ventifacts long enough and you'll imagine you see a lot of things.

And... read enough NASA articles and you will continue to believe the scientific dogma.

I am NOT saying ALL spherules are fungi fruiting bodies and the ones which NASA may have analysed may have been concretions. However, I reckon some are fungal fruiting bodies and I have presented evidence for this belief - including spherules on 'stalks' and tiny spores on the ground NOT blown by the wind. I have never heard of concretions being formed on 'stalks' have you?

OK, see the thread I have posted which gives many examples of what I consider 'evidence' for fungi. Please explain what you see there, particularly the 'stalks' attached to the spherules.

IF plant life exists, then insects are a possibility as are animals and other creatures on Mars.

You can continue to believe what NASA science tells you or you can look for yourself at the other evidence from the images sent back from Mars. I realise that believing science provides you with a safer world, but sometimes you just have to let go and strike out on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, ocpaul20 said:

And... read enough NASA articles and you will continue to believe the scientific dogma.

I am NOT saying ALL spherules are fungi fruiting bodies and the ones which NASA may have analysed may have been concretions. However, I reckon some are fungal fruiting bodies and I have presented evidence for this belief - including spherules on 'stalks' and tiny spores on the ground NOT blown by the wind. I have never heard of concretions being formed on 'stalks' have you?

OK, see the thread I have posted which gives many examples of what I consider 'evidence' for fungi. Please explain what you see there, particularly the 'stalks' attached to the spherules.

IF plant life exists, then insects are a possibility as are animals and other creatures on Mars.

You can continue to believe what NASA science tells you or you can look for yourself at the other evidence from the images sent back from Mars. I realise that believing science provides you with a safer world, but sometimes you just have to let go and strike out on your own.

It's a possibility, but we won't know until we have instruments and/or boots on the ground to confirm it. I was referring more to the claims of artifacts of unknown origin, as interpreted by some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Eternal Flame

Alot of srange stuff going on on mars i saw ghost worm once.

Edited by The Eternal Flame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
On 11/19/2019 at 8:58 PM, Oniomancer said:

58a3d4f729a7d67d686ff9377cb21268.jpg

Yeah, its prepared well to get probed. Revenge! Revenge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
9 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

And... read enough NASA articles and you will continue to believe the scientific dogma.

I am NOT saying ALL spherules are fungi fruiting bodies and the ones which NASA may have analysed may have been concretions. However, I reckon some are fungal fruiting bodies and I have presented evidence for this belief - including spherules on 'stalks' and tiny spores on the ground NOT blown by the wind. I have never heard of concretions being formed on 'stalks' have you?

OK, see the thread I have posted which gives many examples of what I consider 'evidence' for fungi. Please explain what you see there, particularly the 'stalks' attached to the spherules.

IF plant life exists, then insects are a possibility as are animals and other creatures on Mars.

You can continue to believe what NASA science tells you or you can look for yourself at the other evidence from the images sent back from Mars. I realise that believing science provides you with a safer world, but sometimes you just have to let go and strike out on your own.

You've given no evidence for fungi on Mars. All you have done is told a story that has zero supporting evidence. You and you alone need to show evidence for your belief. 

Using straw man arguments such as "I have never heard of concretions being formed on 'stalks' have you?" is all you seem to have. What you call stalks have already been explained in this thread. 

If you are saying that NOT ALL spherules are fungi fruiting bodies then please show one that is. Until you do this remains what it started out as, your fictional tale. 

Your claims of "tiny spores on the ground NOT blown by the wind" are a bad joke. There are no fruiting bodies and no spores. Small pieces of sand are just that, small pieces of sand. You suggest that they are not wind blown is as vapid as any of your claims.

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.