3 ms·
NASA itself investigated similar spherules [0] they called "blueberries" and determined they were hematite-rich "mineral concretions" [1]. Evidence of water in
by hcrisp 5y ago
NASA itself investigated similar spherules [0] they called "blueberries" and determined they were hematite-rich "mineral concretions" [1]. Evidence of water in the environment long ago, but not of life. This ResearchGate paper has only one reference to "spherules" and none of "blueberries".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_spherules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_spherules
[1] https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/6944/martian-blueberries/ https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/6944/martian-blueberries/
- jboggan 5y agoIf you read the paper instead of ctrl-fing they spend a lot of time discrediting the hematite hypothesis.
- hcrisp 5y agoI guess my point is that they are, at minimum, not in the mainstream in discussing this phenomena. That is not a refutation of their research or logic but gives context to what other serious scientists have concluded. Even this article [1] on NASA's astrobiology site (a.k.a. "Life in the universe") concurs that they are hematite mineral concretions and that the only real implication to life is the ancient presence of a large volume of water. [1] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/check-type-iron-blueberries/ https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/check-type-iron-blueberri...
- BlueTemplar 5y agoYou know what is really mind blowing ? I remember Kim Stanley Robinson's character(s) discussing spherical, shell(?)-looking volcanic pebbles first mistaken for fossils in his book The Martians. Which came out 5 years before this study !!
- ALittleLight 5y agoThe paper discusses hematite and NASA's conclusions directly. I don't know the paper's reasoning is sound, but it's not right to suggest they don't consider this explanation.