ALIEN BONE?
Report #238
September 30, 2014
http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/images/Mars-fossil-thigh-femur-bone-like-Curiosity-
rover-mastcam-0719MR0030550060402769E01_DXXX-full.jpg
http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?image/ID=6538
The above image is one posted at the JPL
media site and has been circulated by some in the general media that speculate
it may be evidence of an alien bone found by the Curiosity rover. The official
position is that this shape is the result of wind erosion and of course that
it is not a bone at all but merely rock worn by wind and time into this appearance.
Sounds fairly plausible and maybe it's true but those of you having very much
experience with NASA and JPL will not be surprised by the official position.
A truth is that it may be a purely intentional media release designed to promote
speculation. At some point in the initial release, the media may have been
encouraged to speculate on this being a bone. There is even a indirect reference
to this at the JPL media release website with a caption under the image stating
"Bone up on Mars rock shapes" which of course leaves an exit open
for them if needed. This official position may have been interpreted as approval
by some media outlets to make similar speculations without encountering any
real official irritation and progressed from there.
It was a similar thing with the old release of the "Face" on Mars.
This was immediately jumped on and run with because of public fascination
even as the official take was always that there was nothing to it. The official
position won out in large part because the whole concept was actually something
based on an official initial release and that means they had complete control
of it that of course later included official follow-up "proof" that
there was no face. So be careful of anything even remotely debatable that
comes to public knowledge through intentional official action as its purpose
may be to manipulate.
Why would someone encourage this kind of speculation? The answer is likely
to stir up general interest to include debate. The "Face" was the
real prize at this type of reverse psychology thing stirring up interest in
space exploration and specifically Mars for decades and the appropriation
and expenditure of vast sums of money. After all, some have big expensive
plans for the future that someone else will have to pay for. Will it be a
nation already broke but looking at massive near future infrastructure needs,
huge social programs, and the strong possibility of future war to pay for?
One has to understand that they must move early and carefully or their plans
could be at risk.
The above 2nd image is the entire official image JPL released and which the evidence is drawn from reduced 80% to fit my reporting space here. In it note that it demonstrates a lot of fresh darker soil disturbance around the evidence site. Note that either the disturbance may show signs of the rover having moved into the site crunching the evidence as evidenced by a single rover wheel zigzag imprint in the soil in the lower right quarter of the image or perhaps some long and narrow items have been lifted from the site leaving distinct soil impressions. The point being that the discovery site here as presented to us is not pristine but has been disturbed and then recorded by camera for the official public view as released.
Likewise take a look at the small slender tapered object
in the lower left corner of the above 3rd image blown up by me 300%. Note
how uncharacteristically polished smooth it appears and how this contrasts
so sharply with most of the other "rocks" at the site. If this is
really on Mars, could it be possible that the rover rolled into some creature's
death site crunching and destroying most of the old partially exposed heavily
deteriorated remains with the exception of ornaments of a tougher material
worn by a deceased previous owner that degrades much more slowly?
Could it be that the fresher disturbed darker soil is evidence of the rover
rummaging around in the site perhaps even removing key evidence except such
as bones for a leg or ribs that might confirm that this may be a genuine fossil
site? Now I'm not saying that this is the case here but such suspicions sadly
are these days a necessary normal part of caution in dealing with material
coming from NASA and JPL or their subs. It's especially true when they say
their mission on Mars this time is to look for evidence of water and life
but they often publicly ignore just that kind of evidence even when it is
obvious and then either give the same old tired guff if pushed on it and/or
meet it with a stonewall of silence.
Now I'm not trying to trash the scientific achievement of what the MSL mission
really represents. Getting from Earth to Mars safely with such a heavy payload
and landing it so precisely to operate fully functional on the ground is alone
some serious science and a considerable achievement. Those involved in making
this happen are well deserving of our kudos. However, it is the interpretation
(or lack of it) on the discoveries reported that raises questions of trust.
For the years of the Mars missions NASA and JPL have too often behaved in
a slippery manner and to now place very much trust in such a vessel found
over and over again in the past to be so leaky is a bit too much. JPL tells
us that this bone appearance object is rock eroded into this shape by the
elements. In other words, although plausible we're led to not just what to
see but also how to think and characterize it.
The object in question here may be just a rock as officially described but
I'm pointing out that there may be more here to consider than just that and
that in dealing with NASA and JPL it is a mistake to just meekly accept their
take on things and blindly follow their lead as to whether in this case it's
really a natural rock or a deceased creature's bone. My point is to think
for yourself, question everything, and draw your own conclusions.
, Investigator
