Martian Marine Fossils

Forums: Science And Math, Spherule, Spherules, Martian, Probes
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/

Aside from the crinoid fossils which people have been talking about for the last five or six months, claims are turning up that images from the new probes are showing marine
fossils, and some of the images are fairly convincing:

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsy6.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/murchins.htm
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm

I figure about half of the images in question require more imagination than I have to see, but the other half are fairly convincing and include sand dollars, sea urchins, trilobytes and the like. For instance:

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/handeye1.jpg

Martian sea urchin

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/O049dlr4.jpg

Martian sand dollars

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/Bounce05.jpg

Martian trilobytes

Naturally enough, the author of these pages at least speaks of the possibility of "parallel evolution", i.e. the same primitive animals evolving both here and on Mars. The odds of that of course would be vastly beyond astronomical.

One possible answer would be that the oceans of Mars simply got dumped onto our own planet at the time of the flood, along with most of the trilobytes, urchins and what not. That would explain both the flood legends and the trilobytes without any need for parallel evolution.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,470 • Replies: 36

No top replies

Rocks shaped by volcanic activity or natural erosion would display these same shapes. If there was any organic material or sand dollars, sea urchins, trilobytes etc, the rovers would have spotted them by now.

0 Replies

yet there is no photo evidence of relic shorelines on any of the Mars photos to date.
I agree, its more imagination bcause rolled up trilobites have their cephs, pygidia, and tthorces clearly separaate. go look up Greenops or phacops , (two favorite Devonian rollups) the inside lines can easily be seen and earth is a really dynamic planet.
Also, whhy wre the "fossils" mostly laying aabout, rather than in a rock matrix? Its probably some thing like "desert varnish" which smooths a rock side aand wind polishes it to look like a smooth surface.

Not very convincing. Sometimes , everyone gets an idea and doesnt do rigorous work to prove or disprove. I think that thsi is such a case.
Also, urchins, and crinoids are usually Caarbonate rocks and trilobites are pressed chiten. These "fossils" look just the same as the rock lying next to them. Usually there is some slight difference in texture or chemistry between the fossil and the "country rock" tthese are all the same. Im gonna look up who these "researchers are.

0 Replies

Re: Martian Marine Fossils
When I first saw the spherules last year I wondered if they might be biological, but further evidence indicates strongly that they are geological formations (chemical composition analysis).

gungasnake wrote:

Martian sea urchin

Same here, these are just spherules which have been broken.

gungasnake wrote:

Martian sand dollars

The following image is interesting, but too blurred to really prove anything, certainly anything as astounding as a "trilobite" on Mars. After all, we've already seen how blurry images can be imagined to be any range of things, from giant faces to small block devices.

gungasnake wrote:

Martian trilobytes

gungasnake wrote:

One possible answer would be that the oceans of Mars simply got dumped onto our own planet at the time of the flood, along with most of the trilobytes, urchins and what not. That would explain both the flood legends and the trilobytes without any need for parallel evolution.

The other possibility of course is that the spherules are spherules (as evidence suggests), and that the blurry "trilobite" is just a random ripple in the rocks.

I know, pretty wild suggestion... but hey, someone had to say it Wink

0 Replies

They could also be the remains of tattered Martian creatures that have left their planet and are now preparing to invade Earth! Be afraid!

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

They could also be the remains of tattered Martian creatures that have left their planet and are now preparing to invade Earth! Be afraid!

Of course. That kinda goes without saying Wink

0 Replies

Re: Martian Marine Fossils

rosborne979 wrote:

When I first saw the spherules last year I wondered if they might be biological, but further evidence indicates strongly that they are geological formations (chemical composition analysis).

Same here, these are just spherules which have been broken.

The following image is interesting, but too blurred to really prove anything, certainly anything as astounding as a "trilobite" on Mars. After all, we've already seen how blurry images can be imagined to be any range of things, from giant faces to small block devices.

The other possibility of course is that the spherules are spherule...

What about this? Just another concretion or natural formation, or a trick of light and shadow?

http://www.7art-screensavers.com/screens/horses/21.jpg

What about this item?

I mean, the guy at the xenotech site included a complex analysis of his reasoning in rejecting the idea of the sea urchin fossils being concretions and it doesn't look like any of the people posting comments here bothered to look at it:

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/notconcr.htm

Me, I'm willing to believe my own eyes most of the time and the items I posted images of are definitely not natural formations or concretions.

0 Replies

Gungasnake wrote:

One possible answer would be that the oceans of Mars simply got dumped onto our own planet at the time of the flood, along with most of the trilobytes, urchins and what not. That would explain both the flood legends and the trilobytes without any need for parallel evolution.

Now, I've heard you say this bit about Martian oceans being dumped onto Earth, but I've never heard how you think it happened.

What was the mechanism that moved the oceans, and how do we keep it from happening again?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Gungasnake wrote:
One possible answer would be that the oceans of Mars simply got dumped onto our own planet at the time of the flood, along with most of the trilobytes, urchins and what not. That would explain both the flood legends and the trilobytes without any need for parallel evolution.

Now, I've heard you say this bit about Martian oceans being dumped onto Earth, but I've never heard how you think it happened.

What was the mechanism that moved the oceans, and how do we keep it from happening again?

The whole deal would require some sort of a diffeent solar system order prior to the flood with Earth and Mars closer to eachother than they are now, near identical orbits or the same orbit. The basic idea would be that if they got too close to eachother, the oceans of the smaller planet could get pulled onto the larger one. Far as it happening again, it can't, Mars aint got no more oceans to lose and in the present orbits there's no danger of close encounters or any such.

0 Replies

ttheres no evideence of oceans cuz theres no shoreline deposits on mars.
I work with crinoid and trilobite fossils every day. You are easily convinced, I am not. The "analysis" was merely patterning, the thoracic units of a trilobite are quite complex and these guys just skipped over that witth some red highligting. TThis guy is not to be taken seriously hes seeing shapes in the "clouds"

On a2k Weve been looking at the spherules and how they are contained in the layered rocks since the rovers landed. Rosbornes correct. Many times a "fossil" is the plucked out spherule from the country rock and the remaining molds overlap into weird shapes.

martian surface water disappeared , based on Rovers pics, mostt likely because the maNTLE convection cells intthe martian subsurface either sttopped , or went very deep

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ttheres no evideence of oceans cuz theres no shoreline deposits on mars.

http://www.spacer.com/news/mars-water-99d.html

Quote:

Possible Mars Shoreline Found

Providence - Dec. 9, 1999 - In an article to be published in Science magazine Dec. 10, 1999, Brown University planetary geologist James Head and five colleagues present topographical measurements which they say are consistent with an ocean that dried up hundreds of millions of years ago. The measurements were taken by the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, an instrument aboard the unmanned spacecraft Mars Global Surveyor which is circling the planet......

0 Replies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3563651.stm

Quote:

The US space agency's Mars rover Opportunity has discovered evidence that its landing site may once have been a shoreline at the edge of a sea or large body of water....

0 Replies

Well, Ill take tthat point back , if its proven out. The original work had stated tthat tthere was no evidnce of Martian shorelines and forelands. This is new sttuff so Ill back off. However, the Trilobite fossil and crinoid is someones imagination . Theres too much loose interpretation involved.

The 1999 work had not been fully accepted by the planetary conference on martian geology because no real convincing shoreline deposits were notted. It takes a real close look to see whether standing water exists. From your same article

" Geologists sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between cross-beds formed in water and those formed in wind. But Nasa scientists say that if the sediments form in a moving fluid, such as water, the cross-bedding does have distinctive features.

Some rock layers have cross-beds that could have been formed by the action of wind. But others show festoons, smile-shaped curves which are considered by many geologists to be reliable indicators of the shifting of rippled sediments under a current of water"

Ill keep watching the mars rover data but as for your "fossils" tthey arent even close to reality

0 Replies

The trilobyte fossil strikes me as rather obvious:

I mean what the hell else would that be?

0 Replies

your only patterning from what appears to be an axial lobe , but if you nottice , that axial lobe runs all the way tto what should be the beasts head (cephalon).
Also tthe axis appears to be an indentation and not a ridge.
These could be a line of those spherules "he blueberries" tthat NASA talks of. If you look at tthe ground around this rock, you can see a bunch of spherules lying about and there appear to be otther spherules in the rock that are being exposed..
science doesnt work thaat way gunga. You have to have strong evidence and keep multiple hypotheses in mind, dont get all caught up on a single idea and tthen quit being more observant. The chances of having a same lifeform on two separate planets would argue for some interplanetary panspermia. Before we jump on that boat, lets make sure what were looking at much more critically. like, whats the scale, whats the thing look like in various light angles,

0 Replies

Re: Martian Marine Fossils

gungasnake wrote:

What about this? Just another concretion or natural formation, or a trick of light and shadow?

Nice picture of a Horse.

Bad picture of a Trilobite.

gungasnake wrote:

Nice try... a little desperate, but I'll give you credit since a good imagination is all you really have to work with on this Smile

0 Replies

No that's not all I had to work with. Try reading the original article...

0 Replies

Several Martian trilobyte fossils from probe images:

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsy6.htm

0 Replies

So let me take a wild stab here, Gunga Din--you a fervent supporter of the theories of Velikovsy?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So let me take a wild stab here, Gunga Din--you a fervent supporter of the theories of Velikovsy?

Did Velikovsky ever say anything about the oceans of Mars getting dumped onto Earth and that causing the flood?

0 Replies

Martian Marine Fossils

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know