You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Well, Rxke .... blah... NASA did another poor job
Good science but a poor job... it is great they did the science to confirm something.... but they still hiding behind the "we must be sure before we say anything" excuse. Lets hear their hypothesis and why... we need to hear more heheh
I still haven't gone to a rock hound site yet.. but will soon.
Here is a good site that may help some of us (somehow I doubt it, but it is still a GREAT idea
Ask an Astrobiologist (lol.. say will answer 80-99% of questions.... want to make a bet you fall in the 1-20% ???)
[http://www.vrd.org/locator/sites/astrobio.shtml]http://www.vrd.org/locator/sites/astrobio.shtml
Great Idea chaosman, thank you :band:
Rxke .... posting on a rock hound site.. not a bad idea
From above "the press conferences give a good clue what they're thinking"..... NOPE the press conferences suck (and I think you know this)... Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we know that there are 3 leading theories as to the spheres and some talk about charged particles holding sand together (or some talking of salty water) <<< wow.. I just summed up all the info from a month or two of the press conferences.
As to waiting for "papers to be pushed" .... that is simply a bogus excuse for the apparent lack of info that is coming from the "science community".. no papers needed to be pushed for the limited amount of info that we do have, it just took someone to give a little incite to what they guys at Arizona and Cornell are thinking. They do have theorys... lets see what they are.. then later they can be updated after some "papers have been pushed"
NOW if you know a way to get the same treatment as to the theory of the spheres applied to the above mentioned odd looking things... let me know :laugh:
Otherwise we will have Hoagland (mis)guiding the masses.. lol
Spin
PS.. I take issue with Shaun Barrett saying the objects are of too poor resolution.
Well.. let us start over again....
I simply want to know what these objects could be and I want the best educated guess from someone that could qualify as being an "expert".
For example.. if they are rocks.. how could they of formed these unusual shapes and what examples could one point to with Earth examples.
These objects deserve a better explanation than "sand held together by electrostatic forces" or "almost anything"... they are unusual and I just want to know from someone qualified as to just how unusual (did they expect to see such object, can the objects be accounted for, if not- then what are the current theories as to their formation and why)
Spin
"Show me the money"
oh.. my mistake http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … 53M2M1.JPG from spirit's trench
now.. back to the topic at hand...
you see, i'm not interested in Hoagland's view ! (not really your view unless you know what your talking about)
"you trust jpl".... GREAT! now the issue is what does JPL (or some other expert) say about the things "that could be about anything" ??? ... and how could we find out
spin
Take this image for example (there are many more odd things in other images)................
[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … 53M2M1.JPG]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery....2M1.JPG
Microscopic Imager Non-linearized Full frame EDR acquired on Sol 50 of Spirit's mission to Gusev Crater at approximately at approximately 10:00:49 Mars local solar time, Microscopic Imager dust cover commanded to be OPEN. NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS
1. What are the objects that are pointed out?
2. Does anyone else think they could be fossils or life?
3. What other explanations could account for these?
4. What may be the best way to find out what the guys at JPL/NASA think? Or for that matter, any other expert?
If any of you have any good ideas, please post them
Pages: 1