Interesting article. Profound implications if true.
Did NASA really grind the first discovered fossil on Mars to dust? Check out this article:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/articl ... ver-up.htm
Fossils on Mars
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Try This:
3-10-04
New Perspectives on the "Centipede"
[Paleontologist Ray Stanford has given me permission to post the following skeptical commentary on the "centipede fossil" (see above). Meanwhile, Richard Hoagland has posted a feature-length piece on the curious formation (The Curious Case of the NASA Crinoid Cover-Up) that leans toward a biological origin. --M.T.]
After many years of studying fossils and looking over hundreds of thousands of pieces of sedimentary substrate to determine whether they contain any fossils or not, and from working closely with some of the world's most respected paleontologists (researchers into ancient life forms) and paleoichnologists (researchers into the ground traces left by ancient life forms), and with all due respect because I know that to the inexperienced eye the "centipede" may look like a fossil, I can tell you that I see nothing in the image that appears to be either an animal or plant fossil or even a fossilized trace of such.
At this point I should also add that if it showed me any possibility of being a fossil, I would be delighted and not write this. If anyone doubts that, look at what I wrote about the "concretions" (NASA/JPL's term) probably being evidence of bacterial life. I am in no way a 'goat' about the possibility of life (either past or present) on Mars. The trouble is, the "centipede" image shows merely cracks radial to a vaguely crescent-shaped cavity. I could offer several hypotheses accounting for the crack pattern (and the cavity), but none require any organism to have been involved. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the image that appears diagnostic of fossilization of any kind, whatsoever.
Personally, it would greatly surprise me if there are not fairly abundant fossils on Mars, since there was abundant water even on the surface at one time, but I recommend great caution in what we call a fossil, lest we "cry wolf" so much as to be unheeded when a real "wolf" shows up.
3-10-04
New Perspectives on the "Centipede"
[Paleontologist Ray Stanford has given me permission to post the following skeptical commentary on the "centipede fossil" (see above). Meanwhile, Richard Hoagland has posted a feature-length piece on the curious formation (The Curious Case of the NASA Crinoid Cover-Up) that leans toward a biological origin. --M.T.]
After many years of studying fossils and looking over hundreds of thousands of pieces of sedimentary substrate to determine whether they contain any fossils or not, and from working closely with some of the world's most respected paleontologists (researchers into ancient life forms) and paleoichnologists (researchers into the ground traces left by ancient life forms), and with all due respect because I know that to the inexperienced eye the "centipede" may look like a fossil, I can tell you that I see nothing in the image that appears to be either an animal or plant fossil or even a fossilized trace of such.
At this point I should also add that if it showed me any possibility of being a fossil, I would be delighted and not write this. If anyone doubts that, look at what I wrote about the "concretions" (NASA/JPL's term) probably being evidence of bacterial life. I am in no way a 'goat' about the possibility of life (either past or present) on Mars. The trouble is, the "centipede" image shows merely cracks radial to a vaguely crescent-shaped cavity. I could offer several hypotheses accounting for the crack pattern (and the cavity), but none require any organism to have been involved. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the image that appears diagnostic of fossilization of any kind, whatsoever.
Personally, it would greatly surprise me if there are not fairly abundant fossils on Mars, since there was abundant water even on the surface at one time, but I recommend great caution in what we call a fossil, lest we "cry wolf" so much as to be unheeded when a real "wolf" shows up.
Woodchip-
Thanks for the info.
Ouch-
I never said I believed Hoagland. I said I thought it was interesting.
Pro or con, the only way to know for sure is either photograph something more substantial, more detailed (which is Hoagland's main argument that NASA didn't take phtographs at different angles to really analyze the formation properly), or go there with a hammer and start breaking rock.
Thanks for the info.
Ouch-
I never said I believed Hoagland. I said I thought it was interesting.
Pro or con, the only way to know for sure is either photograph something more substantial, more detailed (which is Hoagland's main argument that NASA didn't take phtographs at different angles to really analyze the formation properly), or go there with a hammer and start breaking rock.
Here's another interesting link. This guy will be on the radio show Coast to Coast this Sunday night.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/marsfoss.htm
http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip/marsfoss.htm