Alien Anomalies

we called them puffballs. fungus.

and they are mangos? iceman?

the blueberries are not the other thing, they are not anything presented here.


we don't know what they are yet.

How about stick to the original topic instead of stuck in a unrealistic example that has no reference to the project.

I mean working  on a solution instead of considering the coverage of the dust paralyzed thinking.

Bohnerz image is from earth.

This kind of " Bohnerz" occurs in sandstone and in limestone. Both are sedimentary rockformations.  Bohnerz needs the force  of streaming  water to be created. The shape of these spherules goes from kidney-shaped to perfect round. Cause Bohnerz  consists of a bunch of layers of Fe hydroxydes encircling a center, like the famous Mn-concretions from the deep sea, this would be (maybe) a  distinctive feature, regarding the question if the martian spherules are of organic or of unorganic origin.

After the solid rock is moved away by erosion the spheres get embedded into the earth or they are washed away or washed together in certain places by water and wind. 

...but where are the cup recesses left where the spherules fall out after being eroded from the rocks? I assume this photo is from Earth and it clearly shows the recesses where the spherules were... (I hope it IS from Earth, if not it is the best and clearest photo I have ever seen from Mars!)

I think I am right in saying that the rock they come out of needs to be a sandstone type too which this one is in your photo osd.

Right, further investigation leads me to the radical idea that this is not rock but a whole area of this fungus-type plant and these spherules ARE the fruituing bodies of them. Look at this and tell me that this is not a whole scene of plant matter with the spherules as the mature reproductive method.

You know when NASA was supposed to have destroyed that fossil? Well, it was not a fossil at all but one of these pieces of plant life. If you look carefully, you can easily see 'scales' or overlapping segments which could have been what NASA destroyed and everyone else thought was a fossil. THAT is why they did not bother too much - because it is all over the place. If it HAD been a fossil, they probably would have preserved it on a "if in doubt, then preserve it" kind of mindset, but because they knew what it was (and we the public did not know) they went on and destroyed it with the RAT.

Sorry, but as you can see, I am really excited about this possibility.

The other thing that just occurred to me is that the 'soil' they are growing in is not soil but they are tthe spores of this plant and they come from the burst-open fruiting bodies.

-- Edited by qmantoo on Friday 18th of March 2011 01:54:25 AM

It could be similar to a tree fungus - except we are shown Oppo taking the picture . Now, this may be all part of the illusion, I dont know, but if challenged, othodox people will say that it was found near rock not near wood. (That image I have given the link to, is a little strange anyway - with a straight 'track' at the top of the picture and no sky) So, anything is possible in this case.

SOL 305

Not sure if this is accumulated sand/dirt or some sort of vegetative growth on left side of spherule. 

The problem is sometimes that all images which show an area of fuzz/blurriness (for example) are modified in the same way. Now, we know from specs that the pancam is in focus from about 1 metre to infinity which means that unless there is a spot of rain or some other liquid on the lens of the camera, then this has to be manipulation. Unless of course there is some other reason for it.

I am not an expert photographer like some are here, however, my common sense says that if the specs of a camera say that it will be in focus from 1 metre, then I expect it to be sharp focus from that distance. Is this a reasonable assumption?

Even the pds images are affected and they are the ones which are supposed to be used by our scientific community.

It seems that no-one of any standing has the guts to stand up and ask why the specs of the cameras are not realised in the images we see in the pds. I can understand why some images may have to be reduced quality for website display purposes, but for scientists to use images for their research and for forming their hypotheses, they need the best quality available.

Sorry, I forgot to say that it is not difficult to prove that we are getting far, far lower quality images in the pds than the specs of the camera say we should be getting. The environment on Mars does not account for the differences.

-- Edited by qmantoo on Wednesday 16th of March 2011 01:21:17 AM

 Here we see an area where the paint job has failed.

I've been looking into the possibility that these 'blueberries' are similar to the ancient plant 'Pachytheca' which are similar in shapes and sizes to the objects we see in the Mars images. 
Pachytheca - (Late Silurian to Early Devonian) Algae consisting of single spherical body 1.5-7 mm diameter composed of an inner and outer zone. The inner zone consists of a nucleus with multicellular filaments oriented randomly, but in the outer zone are radially oriented.  For a long time Pachytheca was thought to be part of a bigger plant, but nowadays it is rather firmly believed to have been a complete organism. 

There doesn't seem to be much about them online yet here is an interesting site that shows a few good examples of them. 

http://www.xs4all.nl/~steurh/engpach/epachy.html

1)then what the heck did that on mars?
the spiurils or blueberries in the lab are just, what you call it, 

results of high temp elec arc. (in the lab!)

then what the heck did that on mars?


niburu? what?

no one says what the actual catharsis was!

I think (if I have understood what little I read correctly) the point of it is that someone has made 'blueberries' in the lab with electric discharges and there is evidence that possibly many of the structures both large and small on Mars and in the universe are made using this phenomenon.

read it, lol. thanks!

i look for traces of life elsewhere. i leave this stuff to the kids i used to beat up in school.


Summary



A complete summary of all the aspects of the Electric Cosmos is too extensive to fit into a single web page. In fact, this entire web site, with all its pages, is only a cursory introduction to the vast implications of these ideas. Therefore, this summary page can only list a few (not all) of the points that should be remembered by anyone who is trying to learn about the modern view of the Universe that is emerging. It is my hope that if you have read through these webpages, you may be interested in seeing a more complete description of these and other properties of the Electric Sky provided in my book by that name available through Mikamar Publishing and at Amazon.com.

The entire cosmos is permeated with plasma. In some regions (within a galaxy, within a solar system) the plasma is denser than it is in others. In some cases the plasma is visible, in some, not. But everywhere our spacecraft have gone - they have found it.
The electrical properties of plasma vastly outweigh its mechanical (gravitational) properties.
There is nothing mysterious about magnetic fields. They do not "get tangled up", "break", "merge", or "reconnect". They require moving charges (electric currents) in order to exist.
The relative distances between even the most densely packed stars are vast in comparison to those stars' diameters.
The homopolar motor - generator shape seems to be ubiquitous. Stars, pulsars, and galaxies are organized in this morphology.
The z-pinch effect that occurs in Birkeland currents (electrical currents that flow through plasmas) is responsible for the accretion of stars, planets, and galaxies.
It is quite possible that the solar system started out as a collinear array of "Herbig - Haro" type objects formed by a z-pinch.
The presumption that, if an object exhibits redshift, it must be far away - is false.
The Big Bang Theory is false. It has been defended in a most unscientific way.
There is a lot more electrical activity out there in the cosmos than astrophysicists seem to want to admit.
Astrophysicists and cosmologists need to take some courses in electrodynamic field theory and experimental plasma physics.
Astrophysicists need to stop acting in a "knee-jerk" confrontational way to any new ideas, especially those involving electricity. True professionals do not engage in ad hominum attacks.
Astrophysicists should stop dreaming up impossible imaginary entities such as black holes, neutron stars, strange matter, WIMPs, MACHOs, and MOND, when a perfectly real and well understood body of knowledge stands ready to explain all the things that "mystify" them so. For anyone who is interested in learning more about these ideas, some important web pages to take a look at are shown on the Links page that follows this one.
Some Last Thoughts I have been asked several times recently why I think it is so important that the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory gains general acceptance. What difference can it possibly make to the future of humanity? How will knowing how the cosmos operates benefit mankind? Who cares? Of what possible practical use is this information anyway? Why get so excited about it? How will it help us in the future?


A blunt short answer would have been: "Posing that question is equivalent to asking, Why study astronomy in the first place?" It would have to have been asked by someone who can look at the night sky and not wonder about that marvelous sight.

So, let me answer it this way instead:

One of the attributes that separates the human from the animals is our yearning to know about our world and our sky - to wonder about the cosmos and have a desire to find out how it works and what is up there. Another attribute is that we do not like to be told things that are untrue and have these ideas forced on us by people who claim to have superior knowledge and intellect. We have been told that we average humans are not capable of really understanding the cosmos - that it is inhabited by mysterious and invisible forces and entities that only impenetrably abstract mathematics can explain. We are told to just passively accept whatever the 'experts' tell us. We have become so intimidated by how complicated modern science has become that we throw up our hands and say, "You're the experts - we'll believe what ever you tell us." And they say, "That's good, because our continued funding depends on your feeling that way." What will the reaction of the taxpaying public be if and when they realize the full extent to which they are being bilked by the scientific power-structure?

Educated lay-people have abdicated their responsibility to think proactively and ask the questions that will keep science honest. It seems we would rather just lie back and believe whatever we read in "Discover" magazine. If 'they' tell us black-holes and dark matter exist - so be it. The public has become enthralled by the magic show that astronomy, particle physics, and some other sciences have become. Why does every TV 'science' program have background music that is more appropriate for a sci-fi horror movie? And a narrator's voice that sounds like God? The public apparently enjoys the magic, mystery-tour aura of most of present day science 'shows'. The ship of science, captained by astronomy and astrophysics, is not just steering a wobbling course - it is miles off track and it is intentionally laying down a smoke screen - implying that modern science has to be counter-intuitive and mysterious. The astronomical world badly needs a reality check. The challenges embodied in these pages constitute just that.

The present day peer review system determines which proposed research projects get funded and which do not. It also determines what results get published and which do not. At first it seems very sensible that any scientific field should be able to keep 'quacks and crack pots' from being funded and published. However, when any given area becomes controlled by 'experts' who have accepted a deductively arrived at theory, they tend to see any alternative data or proposed hypotheses as 'crack pot'. When those who steer the ship of science refuse to allow alternative hypotheses from even being discussed or investigated, let alone published, it is little wonder we are wildly off course. The general public thinks of science as always looking for new ideas. The sad truth is: it does not, certainly not in astronomy / cosmology. What it does do is constantly seek funding from friendly peer reviewers.

When we think about the travesty the Roman Catholic Church perpetrated against Galileo (waiting until late in the 20th century to admit it) we feel superior. WE modern folk would never ignore and suppress a scientist in that way! No? Then how about astronomer Halton Arp who was denied access to Mt. Palomar and refused publication of his work because the present day high priests of the Big Bang Power Structure found the publication of his photographs embarrassingly contradictory to their well-funded dogma? Would it not be educational to realize that we have just screwed up again - big time!

If the Electric Star hypothesis is even partially correct, there is no guarantee that the Sun will continue to shine for millions of years as we have been assured by the experts. What anxieties will this realization engender in a scientifically semi-literate public? But, it may be reassuring for them to know that Earth has much less to fear from a near collision with an asteroid or comet than they now think. Why have billions of tax payer dollars been used to support "accepted" solar fusion models and the Big Bang but none invested in any alternative ideas, however worthwhile they may be?

The fundamental challenges that are described in these pages contain the most potentially explosive ideas ever to have been issued in science. They constitute a cosmic reality check for the entire intellectual community. There is almost no field of academic endeavor that will not be affected in some way (or even overturned) by these ideas. Areas of science that refuse to honestly address these questions will become irrelevant.

Will it take another several hundred years (as it took Galileo) to gain official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science? Will it ever happen? I don't know. But does it have practical importance? You bet your pocketbook it does. The eventual outcome depends on the public's attitude - do you want the expensive magic show to continue - or do you want honest answers from science?

Links to Other Web Sites


peace!

Here's a more comprehensive explanation.  It spans a lot of reading, so beware:

well that seems like over kill to me.

we should have seen it on earth. on going at that.


not for anything but stuff like that on a planetary scale and we don't see it on earth, i find hard to believe.


especially as it is supposed to be system wide.



i can't roll with the electric universe.

A small tip on a rock; if organic or man-made objects are a form treated by computer technology to look like stone, the character of things can occurred as remnants of the original form and can therefore give a wrong picture of reality including the sizes of organisms and the environment dimension.

It is perhaps time to confirm the existence of some rocks on the surface of the planet.

I totally agree.  Life is totally possible in very dry desert regions.

Excellent points,

There are many examples of the "hematite concretions" that are terrestrial.  However, if we are to believe that these photographs containing the so-called "blueberry spherules (mostly from Meridiani Planum) are real then we need to know much more about the nature of the Martian planet's conditions.  For instance, why so much iron on Mars?  Are the concretions formed above or below the surface?  Why do some differ in shape and size or blossom from an apparent stem or seemingly have holes in them?  Let's compile more accepted data into our analysis and figure out what exactly is the case here and why this phenomenon is not or is in fact more widespread throughout Mars and Earth.  Why does Mars have such an abundance of these anomalies?

For comparison: here is a useful photo link from a researcher of Earth "hematite concretions"... :

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/id/concretions.

Has anyone recovered or shared any intel regarding this matter with the various space agencies beyong the scope of the public release data?

I personally would enjoy the validation of the notion that these objects are indeed some sort of fungi/mold life-forms yet am wondering if it is indeed simply a geological/chemical process.

Cheers,

Mark

i don't know about the electric thing, eaol.

seems like it would be system wide and we would have it documented here on earth.


in myth or seeing it all the time.

qmantoo,

what is left?


So after all that,
I do not think they are growing from
a plant due to there are not enough evidence
plants/fungus for them to grow from. Yes, there
are a few examples, but not enough.

I do not think they are natural rock formations
such as concretions, some are, but not the
millions we see.

I do not think they are hail or atmospherically
created.

Please argue against these points if you disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

2P170030726EFFAAEEP2534L234567M1.JPG
Spirit, Sol 492

we have only one image of some spherules attached to stalks. We have images where the spherules appear to be embedded inside rocks. We have one image where the spherule is possibly growing out of the ground, but we have millions of spherules lying on the ground not attached to anything. I think we need to try to find out how they get there. ie: the process BEFORE they appear on the ground. Like on the tree, on the fungus, etc Maybe we need to find where they come from perhaps.

It's a good idea to study this phenomenon and express as many ideas as we can, in this case a picture of plums.