Possible new classification opportunity for concretion spherules (blueberries) on Mars.

Blueberry, blueberry, blueberry talk, I know it's a fungus 'cos I've found a stalk.

This will either get shut down pretty quick or else moved to the hoax forum out of the way. We'll see which.

We all know that blueberries are supposed to be spherules of iron-oxide which are formed over thousands of years. The way they are 'released' is by weathering and the breakdown of the rocks in which they are embedded. Scientists also think they may be created by volcanic activity or meteors arriving from space.

I have thought for a long time that these spherules may be a fungus of some kind and I have tried to show this is a previous post along with evidence for lichen too. Now I have found a vital piece of evidence in my search which is a stalk from a blueberry in a MI camera image. (see lower left corner and below) I have wondered how there are so many of these spherules scattered around certain areas of Mars and the much smaller and darker grains which litter the same areas as these spherules to me look like fungi spores released from mature fungi.

Stalk


Knowing what I now know(!) about the wind and the total lack of wind, and water erosion, it seems the only erosion worth much is radiation bombardment erosion. I did not really know how this affected the rocks, and whether this would be enough to release all these spherical concretions of iron oxide that we see scattered about the images.


1M145852648EFF3505P2957M2M1
Rover Opportunity Sol 199 Site 35 Drive 05
Camera Microscopic Imager
Filter number 2

two growing fungi

As you can see at the bottom right of this image (see above pic) there are two spherules growing out from under some kind of covering. At the top left of the same image, there are two holes with (I assume) the stalks of new spherules starting to grow out of these holes, and also on the ground to the right, there is another 'bud' emerging.

3 budding fungi


But now, looking at these images, perhaps we have to conclude they are fungi and there IS life on Mars. Start with plant life, progress to animal/alien life.
Of course, this is only speculation on my part as we all have no way of knowing what they are, however the evidence to me looks pretty strong, so what do you think?

I also think there may be concretions as well as these fungi.

double spherule like 'fungus stones' on Earth


current science references
======================
Yahoo says this

When Opportunity landed on Mars in January of 2004, the rover found an abundance of these spherules resting on the surface. They were nicknamed 'blueberries' by NASA scientists because of the bright blue color of their hematite shells. Hematite typically forms under watery conditions, so these 'blueberries' were listed as evidence of past liquid water on Mars' surface. However, scientists eventually concluded that they were more likely caused by volcanic activity or by meteoroid impacts. Adding to this, a recent study called into question a watery past for Mars by showing that large clay deposits found on Mars may be the result of volcanic activity, rather than deposition by water.

Huffington Post says this

It's a question that has plagued scientists for decades: Is there, or has there ever been, life on Mars?

While the answer to that question has often swayed from a slight "maybe" to a definitive "no," the recent discovery of iron 'blueberries' -- small, spherical hematite balls -- by the NASA Opportunity Rover indicates that life may have existed on Mars millions of years ago.
These 'blueberries,' as they have been dubbed, were initially thought to provide evidence of water on Mars, according to LifeScientist. However, researchers from the University of Western Australia and the University of Nebraska found that similar iron-oxide spheres analyzed on Earth are formed by microorganisms. If the same holds true for Mars, the iron 'blueberries' could not have plausibly been created without the existence of microbes on Mars.

Wikipedia says this

Martian spherules (also known as blueberries due to their blue hue in false-color images released by NASA) are the abundant spherical hematite inclusions discovered by the Mars rover Opportunity at Meridiani Planum on the planet Mars. They are found in situ embedded in a sulfate salt evaporitic matrix, and also loose on the surface.

The shapes by themselves don't reveal the particles' origin with certainty. "A number of straightforward geological processes can yield round shapes," said Dr. Hap McSween, an Opportunity science team member from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. They include accretion under water, but apparent pores in the particles make alternative possibilities of meteor impacts or volcanic eruptions more likely origins, he said.
Mosaic shows some spherules partly embedded, spread over the (smaller) soil grains.
For example, ranging in size from less than 100 micrometers to more than 250 micrometers, similar spherules were found in Moon soil samples collected by Apollo 12 at the Procellarum Basin, and Apollo 14 near Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains), the dark crater that dominates the Moon's face, and their properties were consistent with expectations for creation by meteor impacts.

NASA says this

Opportunity discovered spherules at its landing site more than eight-and-a-half years earlier. Those spherules were nicknamed "blueberries." They provided important evidence about long-ago wet environmental conditions on Mars because researchers using Opportunity's science instruments identified them as concretions rich in the mineral hematite deposited by water saturating the bedrock. A picture of the "blueberries" from the same Microscopic Imager is PIA05564

phys.org says this

Spherical iron-oxide concretions - dubbed "blueberries" - were first found on the Red Planet in 2004 by an earlier NASA robotic probe - Opportunity Rover - providing some of the first evidence for liquid water on Mars.
Earth-based analogues for these "blueberries" are found in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone near the Colorado River, Utah, where the concretions range in size from small marbles to cannonballs and consist of a hard shell of iron oxide surrounding a softer sandy interior.
Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed by simple chemical reactions without the help of life. However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes were essential in their formation. This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

Originally posted by qmantoo
...Knowing what I now know(!) about the wind and the total lack of wind, and water erosion, it seems the only erosion worth much is radiation bombardment erosion. I did not really know how this affected the rocks, and whether this would be enough to release all these spherical concretions of iron oxide that we see scattered about the images...

Mars has wind and wind erosion. It is known to have huge dust storms, sometimes covering the entire planet. So there are enough winds to kick up dust on Mars, and those winds don't need to propel the dust at high velocities, because any dust at all (even moving at low velocities) will act like sandpaper.

That dust can scour the planet over time -- and it has had a lot of time to do so.

Mars Dust Storms

Plus, these "blueberry" hematite concretions may have formed in water, and that could be another factor as to why they are very round. a concretion is layers of material that may form around a center nucleus, so there is a good chance a concentration could be very round.

There are rock concretions on a large scale here on Earth that create large, smooth, and mostly round formations:

upload.wikimedia.org...

There is some evidence that some of these "blueberry" rock concretions may have formed in lave explosions, which again could form very round pieces of rock.


In addition, it is also know that Mars once had large amounts of running water (billions of years ago) and the signs of erosion from that past running water can still be seen today. The bottom line is that there are sound geological explanations for these round pieces of mineral on mars.

reply to post by qmantoo


Please stop with the mars photos already, you are obsessed with finding things in those photo's that are not real. How many Mars photo threads have you made now?

Its not healthy ..have a break!

Interesting theory and I for one thank you for posting your thoughts. I like outside the box thinking that is why I joined ATS...Does not mean I agree or disagree but boy wouldn't it be something if you were proven correct...!

With the lower gravity of Mars and the huge windstorms it would not surprise me that there will be all kinds of weird natural findings; life would be nice but so far unless your blueberry is indeed a fungus derived life form we and mars is SOL ( err sorry out of luck) for finding life as of yet....... if we ever make it there to do a proper exploration with our hands and eye balls no telling what might be found tucked away is some protected place..

Thanks for the comments. However, this thread is about THE STALK meaning that the 'blueberries' are not necessarily concretions but fungi instead (or as well). If this is correct, then it is huge. I am a little disappointed that not many people have posted on this thread. Please debunk it if necesssary but to me, that stalk-like thing looks like a stalk of a fungi fruiting body and the round spore container (the spherule/blueberry) has broken off.

This would account for some of the millions of spherules on Mars and in my opinion is far more likely than the wind erroding the iron-oxide concretions out of rocks, although there is probably some of that too - if the wind does any eroding at all.

Soylent Green Is People - It is very interesting that you are concentrating on what I was commenting about the wind. If you would care to check out the other post I made about dust and the solar panels you will find out that the general concensus is that there are dust storms however there is little strength in the wind, and certainly not enough strength to erode stuff or even move blueberries of 5mm into piles Now you cannot both be correct but this is not a post about wind.

Please keep to the subject.

reply to post by qmantoo


Well since you tried to blame NASA for altering a picture because you couldn't understand why the shadows looked a certain way I would take any conclusion of what you think you see in a picture with a very very large pinch of salt.

reply to post by qmantoo

It seems quote possible, maybe even likely that Mars had or possibly still has life, so I have no problem with the idea at all.

But I think the speculation is inadequate. We've been speculating for decades and still are, but not really reaching the level of proof.

The problem with a somewhat spherical or rounded shape is, it's not very unique and there may be lots of processes that can result in such a shape. The source you posted says as much (nice list of sources). We should learn a lesson from ALH84001 where even the more unusual shape found in that Martian rock was not unique enough to be a sign of life, and could be formed from natural processes.

So we are where we have been for decades...we don't know.

I can't tell and dont really care if it's rocks, fungus or fungi. What i want you to show me is a Ferengi.

What is the stalk then ? On a planet without vegitation and without life, are we saying this 'stalk' is a piece of rock?
It is obvious that both the round spherules are underneath the coating or oddly-shaped rock on top of them. Nasa has identified these spherules as 'blueberries' or iron concretions

I think what we are seeing here fits the fungus model perfectly.
There are indentation in many spherules which would 'fit' the top of that stalk and which would suggest that the spherule at one time was attached to the 'stalk'

Everyone seems to be trying to ignore the stalk which needs to be commented apon please. (Whatever you do, dont mention the elephant in the room)

reply to post by qmantoo

What is the stalk then ? On a planet without vegitation and without life, are we saying this 'stalk' is a piece of rock?

I don't see any stalks in your examples but why not?
www.dmr.nd.gov...

I don't see any stalks in your examples but why not?

In the first image, you dont see a stalk on the left hand side?

I have already posted examples of fungus stalks and fruiting bodies on the other thread. Where are your examples of these concretion stalks? Are they exposed by the wind which you all say cannot even move 5mm spherules because it is too weak?

The 'stalk' is not straight but angled, it that likely to be belonging to a stalk of a concretion? I think you are clutching at something to explain it, while I have other examples in MER images already showing stalks and fruiting fungus bodies on top.

reply to post by qmantoo

In the first image, you dont see a stalk on the left hand side?

No.
Really. I don't see what you are referring to. I think that as with the twin "tanks" you are making a connection where they doesn't really seem to be one.

Phage -
I have been doing this for a while and I know that sometimes folk cannot see what is there unless it is pointed out to them. Even when one person thinks it is obvious, the other cannot see what they are describing. So I have put a box around it to describe what I am looking at and what to me looks like a stalk of a fungus fruiting body or spore casing.

Dont just tell me you cannot see anything, now I have boxed it, if you cannot see a stalk, please tell me what this is then (highlighted in yellow box)?

reply to post by qmantoo

Dont just tell me you cannot see anything, now I have boxed it, if you cannot see a stalk, please tell me what this is then (highlighted in yellow box)?

I saw it. As I said, I don't think it is attached to the spheroid. I do not think it is associated with the spheroid. I understand that your opinion is not the same as mine.
You assume that the visible portion of the "stalk" is all that there is to it. There is nothing to base that assumption upon. The "stalk" may complete change shape beneath the dust. There may be portions of the "stalk" which are hidden by the spheroid.

I saw it. As I said, I don't think it is attached to the spheroid. I do not think it is associated with the spheroid. I understand that your opinion is not the same as mine.
You assume that the visible portion of the "stalk" is all that there is to it. There is nothing to base that assumption upon. The "stalk" may complete change shape beneath the dust. There may be portions of the "stalk" which are hidden by the spheroid.

But you said you could NOT see it in the post above the one I showed the image with the yellow box around the 'stalk'.

Right, so you can see it. That is good. Now I never said that the stalk was attached to anything, I just said that this, in my opinion, was a vegetable (as opposed to animal or mineral) stalk.

I have given you some examples of the association between spherules and this stalk. That means there IS an association because there is an 'attachment' at the top of this stalk which looks as if it matches the 'dent' in some of the spherules. I will find some 'dents' in spherules for you to look at if you need convincing. It sounds as if you want to hold onto your beliefs as strongly as I have wanted in the past.

Lets discuss why you do not think it is associated with the spherule.
It really does not matter (and we cannot possibly speculate) on what is below ground or out of sight. We have to go with what we can see.

I do not see any evidence that these spherules are concretions
Science says these blueberries are created by one of 3 things.
a) volcanic action
b) erosion on a rock where they have been encased,
c) meteors

There are many spherules in one place and not always a rock from which they were 'weathered'.

Has anyone described how these small 5mm spherules are produced by volcanic action?

Has anyone described how these small 5mm spherules are produced by meteors?

Basically, there are some places which could have spherules produced by these things, but in order to have a valid explanation for them, (either a, b, or c ) there has to be evidence in each instance for them coming from any one of these places. I am not sure there is that evidence on Mars.

reply to post by qmantoo

Basically, there are some places which could have spherules produced by these things, but in order to have a valid explanation for them, (either a, b, or c ) there has to be evidence in each instance for them coming from any one of these places. I am not sure there is that evidence on Mars.

Well I'm sure you know as much about Martian soil and rock chemistry and the formation of the spheroids as the the geologists at NASA but let's turn what you just said around.

If the spheroids are of biological origin there has to be evidence other than "Well, they look like little mushrooms so surely they are."

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by qmantoo

 

Basically, there are some places which could have spherules produced by these things, but in order to have a valid explanation for them, (either a, b, or c ) there has to be evidence in each instance for them coming from any one of these places. I am not sure there is that evidence on Mars.

Well I'm sure you know as much about Martian soil and rock chemistry and the formation of the spheroids as the the geologists at NASA but let's turn what you just said around.

If the spheroids are of biological origin there has to be evidence other than "Well, they look like little mushrooms so surely they are."

That is something that I do have to wonder about.

Say Curiosity gets lucky, and we stumble across a fossilized microbe........how would be know?

Based upon photographic evidence only, I would have to say that it would leave us wondering, or at the very least unconfirmed.

I remember when ALH84001 was shown, looking at the images made me think: wow! That does look like some sort of fossilized microbial life form!

But as has been shown, looks can be deceiving, and minerals can form in a natural way that can imitate life.

Obviously if the rover came across a rock containing a much larger and complex fossil of a fish, sea shell, leaf, etc, even alien in nature, that photographic evidence would, at the very least, be hard to argue against it not being a fossil.

But how can we confirm it with other things, especially on a microscopic scale, when all we have is an image, and evidence that minerals can form naturally in the same shape?

I have already said that there are probably both spheroid concretion AND these fungi on Mars. Why do we need to turn the question around I have already suggested that I go away and find some spheroids where there are places where the stalks attach to the round body.

If you are a science type, then have an open mind for other possibilities. It is not out-of-the-question that these are fungi, is it?

If science wants to tell us they have an answer for these things, then they have to give us as much proof for their hypothesis as we have to give them for our suggestions. Currently they are not.

Please answer the questions, otherwise it looks as if you dont really want a discussion. As the OP I have offered evidence and argued my opinion.

Lets discuss why you do not think it is associated with the spherule.
I do not see any evidence that these spherules are concretions
Science says these blueberries are created by one of 3 things.
a) volcanic action
b) erosion on a rock where they have been encased,
c) meteors
There are many spherules in one place and not always a rock from which they were 'weathered'.
Has anyone described how these small 5mm spherules are produced by volcanic action?
Has anyone described how these small 5mm spherules are produced by meteors?

reply to post by qmantoo

If you are a science type, then have an open mind for other possibilities. It is not out-of-the-question that these are fungi, is it?

Understanding what the conditions are on the surface it is, if not out of the question, very nearly so. Do you understand how dry it is? Do you understand how cold it gets?

If science wants to tell us they have an answer for these things, then they have to give us as much proof for their hypothesis as we have to give them for our suggestions. Currently they are not.

How hard have you looked? How much do you know about what analysis has been done? Do you think that images are all that is used?
But no, I'm afraid your suggestions just are not as valid as those of scientists who are trained and well educated in their field.
spherules

reply to post by eriktheawful

But how can we confirm it with other things, especially on a microscopic scale, when all we have is an image, and evidence that minerals can form naturally in the same shape?

I don't think we can. But the OP isn't talking about fossils.