On 3月2日, 下午5時28分, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:

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/im...
Photo Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS

Note 1: numerous search results for mineral SEM athttp://www.google.com.tw/images?hl=zh-TW&biw=796&bih=420&gbv=2&tbs=is...

Note 2: see also Sol 962/961 images athttp://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_instrument/images/merges/me...- 隱藏被引用文字 -

- 顯示被引用文字 -

Added on March 4, 2011:
Apology: NASA was right, but…

I have re-checked above-mentioned figures many times and found NASA
was right about the actual width of microscopic images taken by MERs.
Those images were taken at 30 microns per pixel.

However, I still believe fossilized remains of blood vessel and
osteons are contained in the subject image newly interpreted at:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=20&f=1556277485&p=156