a martian oddbox

[funbox]

I don't like her.  Neoliberals are fuc4ing up the planet.

so you like your Clinton boiled then ?
and soon they'll have the three witches.. Clinton, Merkel and May..
almost a suicide squad

funbox

[Pimander]

A scratch caused by the Rover?

Looks like the rover does cause scratches when it brushes rocks.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1130363/pg4#pid21083710

[funbox]

Looks like the rover does cause scratches when it brushes rocks.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1130363/pg4#pid21083710

on Mr Shifts say so ? I don't think so , even with the before/after gif;s, its still impossible to say if the rover caused the markings. some of the impressions can be seen under the dust.

funbox

[Pimander]

on Mr Shifts say so ?

You don't know me very well if you think I just take any persons word for it.

even with the before/after gif;s, its still impossible to say if the rover caused the markings.

No but as the rock has been brushed and most of the marks were not visible it is likely that the brush (or the brushing process) caused most of those "scratches".

some of the impressions can be seen under the dust.

Yes the rock has a surface that is not  smooth but none of the marks that we thought were possibly fossils were visible before brushing.

If you disagree then you need to get your Photoshop/GIMP skills to work on that pre-brushed image and show us.

I want to find proof as much as anyone but this doesn't look like the big one to me.

[funbox]

You don't know me very well if you think I just take any persons word for it.

I don't know you at all

No but as the rock has been brushed and most of the marks were not visible it is likely that the brush (or the brushing process) caused most of those "scratches".

occams razor ?

If you disagree then you need to get your Photoshop/GIMP skills to work on that pre-brushed image and show us.

I want to find proof as much as anyone but this doesn't look like the big one to me.

so basically we have scientists using non geologically friendly tools, that mark and fracture their samples.. whats more likely ?

Yes the rock has a surface that is not  smooth but none of the marks that we thought were possibly fossils were visible before brushing.

that's because we don't have a book on martian fossils, we only assume they would follow some golden rules

If you disagree then you need to get your Photoshop/GIMP skills to work on that pre-brushed image and show us.

I want to find proof as much as anyone but this doesn't look like the big one to me.

so how again do I identify a Martian fossil ?




funbox

[Pimander]

Occams razor.

You can see some marks before brushing.  The problem is that, unfortunately, they are not the ones that looked like fossils.  That means you should be able to see the "fossils" too but you can't.  Therefore Occam's razor = the marks were not there before brushing.

I agree that, if the brushing process marks the rocks, then something odd is happening.  It could be that the brush is damaged (it is old now)  but if it has been doing this all along then NASA have done the most stupid thing (not entirely surprising).

The scratches could be deliberate to obscure evidence but that would be a conspiracy theory.

[funbox]

You can see some marks before brushing.  The problem is that, unfortunately, they are not the ones that looked like fossils.

so wouldn't the more likely explanation be that the ones we can't see were covered by sand, it would be staggeringly implausible to imagine that Nasa would mark the sample rock

or do I have to believe that the whole mission is a farce not facilitated by the highest trained people on the planet?

I agree that, if the brushing process marks the rocks, then something odd is happening.  It could be that the brush is damaged (it is old now)  but if it has been doing this all along then NASA have done the most stupid thing (not entirely surprising).

see above

The scratches could be deliberate to obscure evidence but that would be a conspiracy theory.

just above above

funbox

[Pimander]

so wouldn't the more likely explanation be that the ones we can't see were covered by sand,

No.  Why would we only be able to see the "marks" on the rock that don't look like fossils?  The ones that looked like fossils would also be visible before brushing and they are not, therefore they were likely not there before brushing.

it would be staggeringly implausible to imagine that Nasa would mark the sample rock

or do I have to believe that the whole mission is a farce not facilitated by the highest trained people on the planet?

I think it would be implausible that they would mark the rock deliberately (unless there is a conspiracy obviously).  That does not mean the rover instruments did not make the marks though.  The rover has been brushing rocks for years and there might be a problem with the instruments by now.

If some of the possible fossils were visible prior to brushing (like some of the features/marks were) then I'd agree with you but they are not.  The fact that only marks that don't look like fossils/scratches were not visible indicates that the brushing process was most likely what caused them.

If you're right then there will be lots more fossils to see I'm sure so lets keep looking.

[ArMaP]

so basically we have scientists using non geologically friendly tools, that mark and fracture their samples.. whats more likely ?

Several tests a geologist does to a rock are destructive.

[funbox]

No.  Why would we only be able to see the "marks" on the rock that don't look like fossils? .

whats to say many of the protrusions/ marking arn't fossils ?

The ones that looked like fossils would also be visible before brushing and they are not

you mean the central curling one ? or any of the other potential unknown, unclassified fossils, take you pick

therefore they were likely not there before brushing

or just as likely covered by sand , and now they're uncovered, just as unlikely to classify..

I think it would be implausible that they would mark the rock deliberately (unless there is a conspiracy obviously).

you'd be surprised how many time they've used that wire brush and the marks its left behind, cant say I've ever seen markings quite like this made by the tool itself , but then there's always a first time.

a Wire brush though .. crass

If some of the possible fossils were visible prior to brushing (like some of the features/marks were) then I'd agree with you but they are not.

see aboveish

The fact that only marks that don't look like fossils/scratches were not visible indicates that the brushing process was most likely what caused them.

Fact's ?..or manipulation of the visual evidence to affirm your own belief they weren't covered by sand, contrary to Nasa's own initial interest, hence the using of the tool In the first place on that piece of rock , somebody took notice of , and thought it would be a good idea to use a wire a brush to observe what's underneath the sandy covering.. did they think fossil's were there also ?

maybe they should have used the Laser

funbox

[funbox]

Several tests a geologist does to a rock are destructive.

I don't think they were taking mineral samples in this instance..

funbox

[Pimander]

Several tests a geologist does to a rock are destructive.

I guess I should rephrase that.  I doubt they would deliberately damage the rock with the brush.

[funbox]

I guess I should rephrase that.  I doubt they would deliberately damage the rock with the brush.

why? your not ArMaP are you ?

the devil in another guise

funbox

[Pimander]

Fact's ?..or manipulation of the visual evidence to affirm your own belief they weren't covered by sand,

This doesn't make sense.  What evidence have I manipulated?  Where have I said I don't believe they were covered by sand? 

What I said was that if some marks were visible (but NOT the "fossil" ones) before brushing then the fact that the "fossil" ones were not probably indicates that the "fossil" ones were made by the brushing process.  That is my opinion based on the visual evidence.  If you have some evidence I haven't seen I'm happy to reconsider.

[funbox]

This doesn't make sense.  What evidence have I manipulated?  Where have I said I don't believe they were covered by sand? 

in your mind you believe all the curly shaped markings are fossils, so you are manipulating the photographic picture in your mind, I believe ive already asked for clarification on what potentials your talking about  ..

therefore you've already classified them in your brain, and segregated them as the ones that are covered by sand.. you didn't ask what I thought were fossils at which im deeply upset.

sadly this isn't a place I can go to see the full picture, on how you've gone wrong

What I said was that if some marks were visible (but NOT the "fossil" ones) before brushing then the fact that the "fossil" ones were not probably indicates that the "fossil" ones were made by the brushing process.  That is my opinion based on the visual evidence.  If you have some evidence I haven't seen I'm happy to reconsider.

see aboveish

funbox