|
From: Mac Tonnies <macbot.nul> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:47:37 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:46:53 -0500 Subject: CI: New Perspectives On The 'Centipede' Cydonian Imperative 3-10-04 New Perspectives on the "Centipede" See: http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html [Paleontologist Ray Stanford has give 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. On a related topic: I still have a clipping of an article that came out the day before those first, very low-resolution images of Mars were sent back to earth in 1965. Anyhow, it stated that any images from Mars might be delayed being shown publicly for a certain period of time, due to possible concerns related to national security! (Huh?!!!) Because of that, I've always wondered what JPL-NASA might decide to hide from the public. Is such a "national security" policy is still in effect? Would we be told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? There is cause to wonder. We might justifiably ask what about Mars could be considered, if released, a risk to national security, whether in 1965 or in 2004. :) -end-
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp