I've only skimmed his site, but he doesn't seem to be too wild eyed about it. He does provide links to the images on NASA's site, and isn't just using cropped versions of them.

My God, It's full of Starfish!

I can't view this site in full (I'm at work) but it's better than a woo-woo page that's for sure.

From what I saw the claims and evidence aren't anything new - but his process is far more thorough.

Except that he is still using compression errors and pixellation as "data".

It will never stop.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

This one is interesting indeed. C2C had a guest this past weekend, Sir Charles Shults, who made similar claims about seeing Sand dollar and Sea Urchin type life forms in NASA pictures. This guy also came off as not being a woo-woo. His site and photos are linked on C2C's site and bring up interesting questions. Are they "proof"? The jury is still out, but he makes a compelling case. Time will tell.

__________________
Those who repeat History are doomed to learn it.

Unless I'm mistake, at least one of the mars rovers has used its RAT to cut an in situ nodule in half, revealing it to have no discernable internal structure whatsoever. This would seem to rule out it being a fossil.

This page looks like a lot of seeing faces in clouds to me.

Anybody go through all the pages?

First, credit where credit is due. He starts off with the right attitude. His tone is fairly scholarly, and he is not screaming. He also doesn't begin with accusations of a huge NASA conspiracy to wipe out the fossils and cover it up. He gets points. Plus, it is a fairly ordered presentation - not like the jumble of Enterprise Mission at all.

He also gets points for linking to the original images. And he employs a technique for image enhancement that seems valid to me. This is not staring at a CRT with a magnifying lens.

However, by the end of the pages, his tone has taken on a strident tone, a certainty far above the meager evidence offered. His justification boils down to identifying what seem like repeated patterns over multiple blueberries, and details in suface features. However, when I look at his images and descriptions of the patterns, they greatly exceed my ability to identify the same patterns. He starts drawing lines on the images to enhance them, but I still don't see the features. I think he is overextending and imagining detail. But I could be wrong.

Toward the end he kind of lost me with the "crab-like" organism. But before that, the duplication of the markings on various rocks was very, very interesting. Is there a non-biological explanation for such duplication?

I sure would like a closer look...

Yeah, but is the RAT designed to slice open the nodule in such a manner as to preserve the kind of internal structure which one might find in a fossil? (BTW, it's pretty rare for paleoentologists to hack apart fossils.) If the RAT wasn't specifically designed to do that, then it might very well erase some of the traces.

That's it, you win the internet. =D>

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

If they are fossils, they are rock-replacement. That is, the original material has been replaced by minerals - petrification. Thus the RAT grinding away should not destroy all signs of internal structure. Rather like slicing up a rock like a geode, that has crystals inside. Cutting the thing in half does not destroy the crystals all along the inner wall, only where the blade hits. Grind off part of the rock, the remaining interior surface should still be intact and show any layering from the formation.

Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you. :D

I'd agree, faces in the clouds is what he's got.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder if 50 years from now or so, jewelery made from those 'blueberries' that will be collected from mars will be all the rage.

I hope it's a lot sooner than 50 years from now!

Yeah? Like the broken one marked up on Chip Shults' "fossil" site? That one's hilarious.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

?

That is NOT the picture I was referring to, TRY AGAIN

I dunno, NASA doesn't think so. And I think they would have checked it out.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...es_040211.html

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

You had better notify NASA of your stunning discovery.

Steve Squyres, in the June 25 press conference, in a question about RAT'ing through Meridiani blueberries, remarked that they've seen no internal structure when they've examined the insides of the spherules -- just as one would expect of concretions.

By the way, there's something about your theory that's been bothering me. Can you really conceive of a 3D shape whose intersection by a plane at an arbitrary angle, always yields a shape with 5-fold symmetry in 2D?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

For this absurd claims to be true the entire surface of Mars has to be littered in fossils. We dont have anywhere near this kind of fossil densities here on Earth. So common sense tells us it is all ridiculas.

I'm sorry you got the wrong idea, I did not mean to suggest that the stars were all revealed at the same angle, they are not all perfectly symmetrical, the angles are arbitrary,