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 -
ocpaul20

The Case For Plant Life On Mars

36 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
21 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

Can we stick to discussing the evidence I presented and stop attacking me personally. It does not achieve anything constructive.

So, how do I show it is a stalk then? I have drawn attention to and shown the straightish pointy thing at the bottom left of the image in post #4. Yes, I claimed furry surfaces because these 'concretions' are not round and formed by dripping(!) or flowing water. In my opinion, they are dessicated and deflated and have discharged their original contents which were fungi spores (as seen all over the ground in several images).

I claimed it was a stalk because thats what I think it is, given the other things which fit in with that (the 'dimples' in the spherules, the images of other spherules on stalks, the buds of growing stalks). So, which part of all that can you explain away? None I guess otherwise you would have done so rather than calling me a fantasizing liar who is making up stories. (see the bolded part above)

Explanations have NOT been provided. Please, I would love to read them for this presented evidence.

1. You did not show evidence for a stalk.

2. You did not show evidence for furry.

Those are facts. Those are not personal attacks.

The issue is that you need to show it is a stalk. I don't have to answer that question. It is your idea. You need to support it. You haven't. There are multiple descriptions for that item in the photo. You need to show it is a stalk.

It is true that it is hard for many people to imagine the 3-d shape of an object seen in an image. Another mistake is the dumb-bell mitochondia. They do not exist yet have been reported in the literature due to the mistaken interpretation of an image.

Concretions do not have to be round. Round is simply due to isotropic forces at play. Your opinion is based on no evidence. The evidence tells us your opinion is quite mistaken. These are inorganic structures with no internal structures. There is zero evidence of dessication or any of the other processes you are fantasizing about. Please explain why these structures are not organic before  you begin to pretend that they have become dessicated.

I provided explanations in the links. Claiming they have not been provided tells all that you are disregarding other posts in preference of your fantasies.

Did you read this link:

https://www.space.com/24529-mars-mystery-rock-nasa-lawsuit.html

Or did you read the links in the thread which started this nonsense?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist

My post from the thread where this nonsense began

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20
On 12/17/2019 at 10:29 AM, stereologist said:

Nothing but inorganic materials

Unfortunately, I am just going to have to believe the evidence I see. However many articles from NASA scientists you link to. I have read many, many scientists assertions these are hematite concretions, but no-one has explained HOW they appear so evenly dispersed in these images and WHERE the original source is NOW. No-one has explained what that stalk-like thing is or what those 'bud' like things are 'growing' out of the shperules. I think ....if it looks like a duck(stalk) and quacks like a duck...".

No-one has any other explanation for the common spherule features (appearance of desication, 'dimples' in the surface, no evidence for weathering out of rocks or washed downstream by ancient water) and spore-like grains on the ground which I point to.

All you can point to is existing articles which say they are concretions. I agree that I am not a scientist, and I do not have the training and experience that these NASA scientists have, but I believe from the multiple pointers which I have identified, that they are incorrect in telling us these are ALL concretions. However, I have admitted that SOME may be hematite concretions as they say and I believe they are focusing on those(for some reason) when they write their articles.

We can both be correct, it does not have to be one or the other you know. I have presented the evidence, if you choose not to accept the possibility there is fungal life on Mars, thats fine. Unfortunately I do not accept these spherules are ALL concretions as the NASA scientists claim.

I believe 100% from the NASA images there is current life on Mars and I believe it is both plant and animal based in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

If NASA was trying to hide life on Mars then why in the world would they show these pictures, that you think are life, in the first place lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
57 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

Unfortunately, I am just going to have to believe the evidence I see. However many articles from NASA scientists you link to. I have read many, many scientists assertions these are hematite concretions, but no-one has explained HOW they appear so evenly dispersed in these images and WHERE the original source is NOW. No-one has explained what that stalk-like thing is or what those 'bud' like things are 'growing' out of the shperules. I think ....if it looks like a duck(stalk) and quacks like a duck...".

No-one has any other explanation for the common spherule features (appearance of desication, 'dimples' in the surface, no evidence for weathering out of rocks or washed downstream by ancient water) and spore-like grains on the ground which I point to.

All you can point to is existing articles which say they are concretions. I agree that I am not a scientist, and I do not have the training and experience that these NASA scientists have, but I believe from the multiple pointers which I have identified, that they are incorrect in telling us these are ALL concretions. However, I have admitted that SOME may be hematite concretions as they say and I believe they are focusing on those(for some reason) when they write their articles.

We can both be correct, it does not have to be one or the other you know. I have presented the evidence, if you choose not to accept the possibility there is fungal life on Mars, thats fine. Unfortunately I do not accept these spherules are ALL concretions as the NASA scientists claim.

I believe 100% from the NASA images there is current life on Mars and I believe it is both plant and animal based in nature.

 I will again ask; "What does the term 'magnetosphere' mean to you?"

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, I am just going to have to believe the evidence I see. However many articles from NASA scientists you link to. I have read many, many scientists assertions these are hematite concretions, but no-one has explained HOW they appear so evenly dispersed in these images and WHERE the original source is NOW. No-one has explained what that stalk-like thing is or what those 'bud' like things are 'growing' out of the shperules. I think ....if it looks like a duck(stalk) and quacks like a duck...".

No-one has any other explanation for the common spherule features (appearance of desication, 'dimples' in the surface, no evidence for weathering out of rocks or washed downstream by ancient water) and spore-like grains on the ground which I point to.

All you can point to is existing articles which say they are concretions. I agree that I am not a scientist, and I do not have the training and experience that these NASA scientists have, but I believe from the multiple pointers which I have identified, that they are incorrect in telling us these are ALL concretions. However, I have admitted that SOME may be hematite concretions as they say and I believe they are focusing on those(for some reason) when they write their articles.

We can both be correct, it does not have to be one or the other you know. I have presented the evidence, if you choose not to accept the possibility there is fungal life on Mars, thats fine. Unfortunately I do not accept these spherules are ALL concretions as the NASA scientists claim.

I believe 100% from the NASA images there is current life on Mars and I believe it is both plant and animal based in nature.

The original source has been explained. You stating that no one has explained it tells me you have not read any of the links. You are clueless because you want to be clueless.

Then you claim there is a stalk like thing. There is no stalk like thing. You made that up. There are no bud-like things growing out of the spherules. You made that up too. These are fantasies on your part. They are not reality. 

When you make up stories you end up with fiction. Your claims of desiccation is fiction. Your claim of a stalk is fiction. Your claims of spore like grains is also fiction. These are just whimsical ideas you are tossing out.

Here is another comment which shows you are not reading any of the links and sticking to your hallucinogenic delusions: "All you can point to is existing articles which say they are concretions." There are in fact two competing theories that have been introduced. Had you been reading then you would know this. Instead you are blathering on about your delusions which describes things that are not there.

We cannot both be correct. Your statements are clearly delusions. There are no stalks. There are no internal structures. There are no spores. There is no growth. There are no organic materials.

You are free to continue on your laughable claims. You can spout whatever fiction you want to prattle on about. Just expect to be called out on these false statements.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Here is an example of pareidolia at work.

Image result for unmentionable pinnacles

I am not going to suggest that this is evidence of giants. You might. I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Or what about this:

Related image

Is this a large geoglyph, evidence that people built a monument to entice the aliens to return? Or is this just something that is a natural formation that our brains are hardwired to see as a face?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
13 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

Unfortunately, I am just going to have to believe the evidence I see. However many articles from NASA scientists you link to. I have read many, many scientists assertions these are hematite concretions, but no-one has explained HOW they appear so evenly dispersed in these images and WHERE the original source is NOW. No-one has explained what that stalk-like thing is or what those 'bud' like things are 'growing' out of the shperules. I think ....if it looks like a duck(stalk) and quacks like a duck...".

No-one has any other explanation for the common spherule features (appearance of desication, 'dimples' in the surface, no evidence for weathering out of rocks or washed downstream by ancient water) and spore-like grains on the ground which I point to.

All you can point to is existing articles which say they are concretions. I agree that I am not a scientist, and I do not have the training and experience that these NASA scientists have, but I believe from the multiple pointers which I have identified, that they are incorrect in telling us these are ALL concretions. However, I have admitted that SOME may be hematite concretions as they say and I believe they are focusing on those(for some reason) when they write their articles.

We can both be correct, it does not have to be one or the other you know. I have presented the evidence, if you choose not to accept the possibility there is fungal life on Mars, thats fine. Unfortunately I do not accept these spherules are ALL concretions as the NASA scientists claim.

I believe 100% from the NASA images there is current life on Mars and I believe it is both plant and animal based in nature.

I think you could learn what you are asking by taking a geology class.  No one should have to teach you from scratch about a subject like geology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

If there was plant life growing, provide your evidence of how would they grow? You done  models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

One of the main questions is where would life on Mars get nitrogen.

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.