I accept the challenge that I overstate the tension in the public/NASA drama in this new mission. There is a true and very substantial 'fall off' or better stated as a 'failure of this government in keeping the new science a public accessible relatively full content record keeping process. The prior missions offered to give us a 'full' viewing of the records in the rovers. This MSL mission has changed the commitment by offering the public a filtered and partial set of select results.
The change is dangerous and real.
I'll be happy to make it an ongoing topic if it is better.
It is a problem throughout society, both this country and all others.
If we commit ourselves to science, it will not happen when we read filtered documentation. It will happen only in an environment of full 'OPEN ACCESS'.
We seem to be diluting the discussion of the one image as a topic. It is very interesting to us for it's rock or fossil potential in the record. Many other sections also showed portions of this set of layering across a local small area. As most of Mars has a 'layering' domination of the geology, we are degrading the concept by inferring all refined patterns are geological, then not selecting a laser test for the various examples which could be fossil or castings. As I have seen some similar rock layers on Earth, I can accept the probability that it can be either inorganic or possibly formerly organic or certainly active and unusual, at the least.
No laser test, and no allowance of a public viewing of such a 'cheap' test? Why or why not? Does Paredolia include persistent demands of denial as a economic argument for a lack of science and testing? Yes is the answer. Science uses paredolia as a sling for a lazy mind. We all have the problems, but the pro's give a 'special case' or 'social caste' to the denial of public scrutiny as a leveling and an openess solution. The final economics is of a few gaining at the expense of full group inclusion in the findings. It is pleasing to those on the inside track, and that does exist.
This mission and others are now cordoned off and restricted in access, but they have an aspect of public openess in appearance. That does now exist.
We are demanding full public access over a period of delay if it is fair, and that is now real as well.
Science is favorable to the public only when the public states they have decided that fact.
I have here an additional image to present. It may dilute the topic or complex it somewhat, but as we are asking if simple shapes have value as evidence, in finding objects which could be tested for the chemisry and patterns of life, we have many simple examples in a few weeks images from this small part of Mars at Gale crater.
Sol 198, a section of the side of a 'mudstone' or whatever the chemistry, seen as a repeat of a partial disk or cylinder shape, very low in tonal variation and with no color differentiation.
The pattern is similar to the several horizontal arrayed spiked arcs around stem shapes, matches the tiny gravels I showed in this area, and is some type of mineral or chemistry, or, even a fossil record of a simple object aspect. Is it a part of a large concretion or a portion of a pyrite dollar? I can't tell you, we have to decide these discriminations as a group.
The laser sets unused. Why? So many items to check or study. How many uses will the laser handle over two or three years use? Perhaps it is aggressive to demand many uses in a small area. Perhaps we are being denied good geological evidencing we seek.
Are we likely to find a mountain slope record better than this area? We are near a 'streambed', yet the denial persistence seems a standard. If I find these examples on Earth I either photo them, mark the location, and check the history record, or, I carry the objects to a microscope or collection for analysis.
The faint image circle has a matching outer partial added concentric portion. Not special, but unusual.
A great alteration effort to show it in the inset below the real view at the white box.
How can this not interest fossil hunters or geologists?
MAHLI imaging might be accessed by the public, but the laser tests are 'off limits'. Do the mission organizers believe a couple SAM tests will show content from nearby rocks and formations?
How could a seeking of microbial life billions of years past be satisfied by a few checks of known to be former 'basalt', yet a conclusion of denial be presented by those who are also being denied the laser and SAM instrument results? We cannot accept a blanket while using a personal microscope in seeking microbes, why would we accept one for a space rover on another planet as a substitute for the actual science? Science is direct, and while 'Occam's razor is an aspect of science testing, it also is used by some as a reason that these images cannot be fossils in this blogging. Misuse and misdirection. A lack of results in the long term mission documentation is underway currently. That is not the process of 'Occam's razor'. It is the process of handing the public a simple razor by the wrong end.
The investment the public makes should be respected. The results should be public record. The records should be 'Open Access'.
It is similar to the Open Records (A)ct of public meetings.
The small objects I have seen in this area do not look like volcanic tube items I have seen. I have seen only a limited number of types, however. If concretions, then these might associate with fossil objects.
MAHLI, SAM, and the laser might give answers.