On 3月1日, 下午11時45分, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did NASA give wrong pixel size for microscopic images of MER?

NASA said Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) Opportunity and Spirit take
microscopic images at 30 microns per pixel.

However, I often found that pixel size was about ten times too large
for many fossil cells/tissues discovered in the microscopic images
taken by the two MERs. One recent example is Figure 1:

http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=20&f=1556277484&p=155
Image source (note 1):http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/im...
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS

In above Figure 1, I marked two complete  osteons with Haversian
canals, lacunae,etc., but found they were ten times too large for
Earthly Haversian canals if I use the pixel size given by NASA.
Another example is Figure 2:http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=20&f=1556215164&p=135

This discrepancy with reality has happened since day 1 of MER’s
landing on Mars. Something is terribly wrong.

Note 1: NASA recently made public many newly colorized microscopic
images taken by MER Opportunity, displayed athttp://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/me...

Added on March 2, 2011:
Surely osteons; no minerals match them

Google images contain numerous nano-sized and micron-sized mineral
images (note 1). But no mineral images match the following structures,
which resemble instead osteon and blood vessel remains:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=20&f=1556277485&p=156
Image source (note 2):
http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/images/1MP962IOF76ORTPOP2957L257F2.jpg
Photo Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS

Note 1: numerous search results for mineral SEM at
http://www.google.com.tw/images?hl=zh-TW&biw=796&bih=420&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=mineral+SEM&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Note 2: see also Sol 962/961 images at
http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/merges.html