It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: wildespace
I've changed my mind, those swirls look like tiny mineral veins. Gerald at UMSF agrees:
Those brighter mineralic-looking inclusions/veins/concretions seem to be a little harder than the surrounding soft (inferred from the scratches) rock.
Do we see carbonates (like calcite) for the first time, or is this still a sulfate?
So, these veins aren't literally lying on top of the bedrock, but they are protruding from it slightly. Previous brush events seems to have been over a harder type of bedrock.
originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: argentus
The stone shown in my previous post (scale reference) is indeed different than the formation in the OP, likely denser and lacking the biological-looking features. The OP image also looks much different than the feldspar crystals imaged in 2014. I guess it'll be up to the geologists to offer alternative interpretations.
I also look forward to what the scientific community and NASA are going to conclude from the available MSL data. The last time something that close to fossils had been imaged was IIRC back at Kirkwood and Eagle crater, where R. Hoover suspected the remains of crinoids and echinosphaerites might have been discovered.
originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
Oops ... okay I 'get it' now. I am no longer discouraged. Thanks ... took me a minute!
originally posted by: Spacespider
a reply to: jeep3r
wow..
just wow, looking forward to see where this goes..
originally posted by: Blue Shift
Okay, how about this? Predusted and post-dusted. Find the "fossils" in the predusted image:
(image inverted)
originally posted by: jeep3r
Provided that there is no dust layer in the pre-dusted image in all areas (which seems to be the case, see top section) then I guess it has to have been the DRT.