squishing a berry

so how hard are these things?.. finally a clue. i combined two mi pictures from day 80.. pre and post mossbauer.. note the berry on the left with two dimples showing.. note the same berry on the right after it was slightly touched by the mossbauer.. flattened by the ring of that instrument. it did not press into the soil as some harder (predimpled) ones often do. obviously the top of the berry is relatively soft at this point- just like you'd expect when something ripens..

Great work scidude -- very interesting.

Hmm.. So what are you saying exactly? As far as I know hematite is a hard mineral, though I must admit I have no actual idea.. Iron itself is fairly soft, though not all that soft (I don't have any handy softness ratings handy, I'm afraid).

Are you saying hematite can 'ripen'? Are you saying the 'berries' aren't really made of hematite? Or what?

nice scidude. here again is the hematite scan of the area. notice anything?

I'm not buying this.

1) There is no indication the blueberry is pushed into the soil/sand
2) The entire "squished area" you postulate exists in the initial photo
3) The "squished area" is not perpendicular to the Mossbauer and there is no rotation of the berry evident.

Scidude, what do you suppose the life cycle is like? Can you put together pictures of a life cycle progression?

No, I agree with blue. Sorry to be the skeptic but I don't see anything in this second image to suggest that it has been pushed down. In the first image the illumination is from above and slightly to the right. In the second its from the left and I think that the 'flattening' is just a shadowing effect.

Having said that, I must say that the blueberries are fascinating structures and there's some great discussion going on in some of these threads on their origin, geological or biological. NASA's ideas on concretions make by far the most sense (IMHO) but there's lots of interesting features - keep looking for evidence, one way or the other!

anyone can see what they want-- cannot argue on that front... as for those who do see the what i would call an obvious flattening of the upper part of the berry then read on... first, hematite is hard and berries most likely contain hematite as part of their content (or possibly expel it in their general area). it's color is either gray or rust. a berry's connection to hematite is the entire extent of what nasa has released about their makeup. nasa has NOT been able to provide a best fit for the mineral content of the berries because there's simply no mineral fit that is going to work for them.. it's not for lack of trying- squires all but admitted that in an interview.. the reason i think they contain or are connected to hematite is simple - there's an iron oxidation process going on inside them. it's a relatively common-primitive metabolic ATP cycle used on earth by early life forms and current ones.. to date- these are the things that can be seen from various images regarding the berries: we have berries with attached filaments- berry interconnections- filaments in the soil- berries that are seen round - dimpled - decayed to irregular shapes - and just about every phase in between.. we now know when they're pushed on- the round ones are resilient and resist permanent deformation (sinking into the soil). the ones that show signs of initial decay are softer and deform (like pushing on a ripe fruit).. we can detect structure inside them when they've opened.. we see they are virtually everywhere on these plains.. we see they've fossilized in rock outcrops indicating they've been in this area for a long time.. and we also know they are purple to blue..

those are some of the observations i've made anyway. if others have looked at the same pictures and noticed these same things- fine. i do know most people will do their best to stick with nasa on this stuff-- it's way safer there.. but the difference between this bio path and nasa's is every new clue that comes along fits perfectly- no need to alter this theory or rationalize away conflicting evidence (as nasa has attempted to do with the filaments)... personally i could care less what path nasa takes - it's their biz. they are geologists who spent years putting together a nice set of equipment to look at rocks.. they can run no bio experiments- no tests for current water- provide very few clues on the the makeup of these things- they can give us no more than magnifying glass look at them.. with what they've got they're best sticking to rocks..

Scidude .... I like where you're going with your ideas, interesting path. I can't obviously see the "squishing" of the berry, but I do see some differences between the pics. My eye sees them as relicts of image processing and changing angles, but I'm a skeptic by nature. I need more time to be convinced.

"we can detect structure inside them when they've opened ..." - do you have an example of this? I'd like to see what you're talking about.

Personally, I tend toward a more biologic, although non-earthlike, origin for the berries, but don't have enough evidence for this position yet.

one note to clarify the mi pics-- the mossbauer has a washer like ring that fills up the majority of the MI's field of view.. in the original pics (day 80) - the left side berries are clearly depressed in the soil. those on the right side are not- indicating a slightly uneven soil area.. the higher/upper part of the berries on the right did however make contact with the mossbauer ring- creating the deformation as described. in my viewing context there are no rotations or strange contortions required to explain this..

rpapson- i've posted this one before- it's the best open one i've come across to date. it appears to be in a stage of decay. the inside area is definitely at the limits of mi resolution- but i would also conclude there's more evidence in this pic to support a structured inside as opposed to a solid core concretion..

note: others have rightfully noted that the ratted berries that were 'encased' in eagle outcrop were solid appearing. i would argue those are fossilized and that the mineralization and ratting processes would not likely preserve fine structures.

To reply 5, you can See the beginning, at 2 points in this image, at pixil cordinates 301,30 367,784

Can you tell me what is "emerging", from these berries? Why do i say "emerging", because of the outward folding of the "wound", or hole in the berry. There have been posted on this site, so many images of berries in different "stages" and states, including larger Lichen/fungi type growth, one has to wonder, how many actualy look at the images in the posts.

Mann, I've looked at allthe posted pictures, but my personal experience as an amatuer rock hound leads me lean in the concretion direction. I've seen similar "beads of rust" in glacial deposits that have been alternately wet and dry due to seasonal water table changes. I think that past experience makes it harder for me to have an unbiased mind. I see something I think is familiar, and then I have a hard time seeing the other possibilities.

[Q]anyone can see what they want-- cannot argue on that front... as for those who do see the what i would call an obvious flattening of the upper part of the berry then read on.[/Q]

Um, no. That's not the way science works. I pointed out specific flaws in your hypothesis that invalidate your finding.

to blue - your opinion of a picture is not a flaw in a hypothesis- it's your opinion.. what you dont get is i'm not trying to prove anything to you.. if you don't see what i see in a picture - fine-- move on.. those who are convinced it's there - as i am- you might be interested in my point of view.. you are not - i don't care - it's not a big deal.. as i've said before on this blog - no one is here to prove anything- it's about exchanges of ideas, thoughts and opinions. you stated yours- you dont think it's flattened - ok.. and as for me- proving something to you is not why i post stuff. if you think what i say is full of crap-- so what.. avoid my posts...

Mario,
I agree it's difficult to see past your own experiences. Been a geo type for many years, but I try to put myself on another planet where processes may follow similar laws, but in totally new environment from my experiences. I like new ideas and paths to explore, as long as they are not way on the fringe .... like some other comments where everything's a fossil of some kind.

Curious about your "beads of rust" in glacial deposits. Any pictures or references to these features?

It is not my OPINION. It is a statement of fact: you are claiming the Mossbauer created an indentation in this blueberry. Yet:

1) There is no depression in the soil (which would mean the berry is more compressible than the soil)
2) The second picture is less focused than the first
3) The indentation is at an angle whereas the Mossbauer would have impacted the blueberry perpendicularly

These are not opinions: they are facts. Now, you can try to explain them away or show that the statements are incorrect...but to wave them off as "opinions" does violence to the spirit of scientific inquiry.

blue, for a fact, i can see transparent tubes emerging from berries, what do you see? And mario, do your beads of rust show transparent tubes? I would realy like to see some chemistry thats shows, fillaments extruding from exit points in a concretion. Something seems fishy about this concretion thing. Things like their hematite scan, that showed no hematite, Where berries a covering the ground. And wheres the data that shows what else might be in the berries? and why not scan some berries not setting on top of a rock, as there were clusters of berries in greater mass, setting on the soil? There are far greater inconsistencies in the concretion theory, than in something biological.

blue - if you dont think the mossbauer was pressed down between the first and second group of mi's- i suggest you review the raw images again.. it clearly did. as i stated earlier - the left side clearly has berries pressed into the soil (as has happened many times before with similar runs). for this run - the mossbauer did not make contact with the soil for 360 deg. nasa goes thru this routine all the time - images - runs mossbauer - then images again.. you can stake your claim to owning the facts - it's simply not the case. your facts don't even appear to be well formed opinions..

Sorry Scidude, I'm still with blue on this one. I looked at the raw images, yes indeed the berries on the left side of the raw images have been squashed down but I see no evidence that anything right of the centre has been pushed down, there's no movement of the soil grains, nothing on the right side. The apparently darker top to the berry you indicated still looks like different shadow to me. My opinion if you like!

ian - that's pretty much my point.. the mossbauer was obviously put down per the berries on the left being pushed into the soil. on the right - the mossbauer did not reach the soil- that too is clear - no soil depression is seen.. a few millimeters of slope to the soil easily and reasonably explains that.. anyway - if someone doesn't think the top part of the berry's dimple pattern has been altered-- that's fine- as i stated earlier. it's an opinion that reasonable people might disagree on.. i do so see compelling evidence of a shape change/flattening to the dimpled area- and i do not think shadowing changes reasonably explains the difference.. anyway- opinions are what this place is all about...