..and I'll sleep comfortably in them.

Philip,

Some interesting observations. Hopefully we'll be seeing something in the raws soon about the newest manifestation of the "blueberries."

I started to go through a point-by-point discussion of your earlier post (which you spent some time composing) but I stopped halfway through. Maybe I'll finish it and post it later. Maybe not. I'm in the middle of backing up my files before I do a hard-drive transplant and start from scratch. If I'm quiet for a while, say a prayer, okay?

I know how this is supposed to work, but in a nutshell:

I think these are cross-beds and this is why: I've seen thousands: aeolean, marine, fluvial, modern, ancient, even metamorphosed, and this is what they look like. It's actually quite the textbook example of low angle cross-bedding. I know that may not satisfy as a fully supported argument, but it just feels so intuitive to me. Something I'd walk by and say, "yup, cross-beds" and keep walking. (If I were a sedimentologist, I'd just be getting started, probably have to keep from drooling.) Perhaps that's bad science, I'll admit, so I admire your challenging assumptions. Please google images of cross-beds.

I'll see what I've got on block diagrams of cross-beds that illustrates the strange outcrop pattern of low-angle cross-bedding. Just remember, the lower contact of a cross-bed is tangental to the (original) horizontal, the upper contact is at a high angle to the horizontal. The official release said that some of the cross beds were created by water (liquid) of a fairly shallow minimal water depth, and that some were aeolean in origin. Totally consistent with an evaporative depositional environment.

But I'll grant you this: Some of the "blueberries" have some interesting subtle morphologies. But I'd not seen the one you tried to link to! Good eye! Pretty weird lollipop rock. I think it is an artifact of weathering, the attaching matrix is parallel to the closest bedding and is possibly more blade shaped than stem shaped, but it's weird! I've seen some awfully strange looking concretions here on earth, though, and some pretty strange weathering morphologies, 'specially in the desert, so I'm not all fired up to label it as a fossil. Plus, these things are really small. I'm not sure how big the lollipop is, but I don't think it'd satisfy my sweet tooth for very long at all.

Blowed it up for everyone, 'cause I know you want them to see the lollipop:

You are correct about the proper orientation of the observation of sedimentary structures. I'd put it: "parallel to strike". Strike is a horizontal line within the plane in question. But lots can be read from other POVs. With sedimentary structures, you also have to view it perpendicular to the transport direction. Which changes from bed to bed in these environments.

Make sure you look at some of these pictures in stereo. It really helps resolve surface angles and rock layer orientations. That, and it is so cool! When I get the 'puter out of ICU I'll look for stereo pairs of your lollipop and give it a view in stereo. In the meantime, get left and right Navcam images or those paired wavelengths of the Pancam and do the stereo thing. Or use Robert's cool viewer. If you don't know how to do stereo pair viewing, see some of the discussions from earlier. Google habitablezone.com and stereo. (sorry, too lazy right now to link it)

Thanks for your thought provoking post,
~jms~

PS Get ye to Moab, my friend, (or anywhere in the Colorado Plateau) take yer bike, or your toughest hiking shoes, and your canteen, and explore the "Petrified" dunes of the Navaho Formation! This was one of the greatest deserts that ever existed on earth. You'll see x-beds and sedimentary structures that'll blow your mind! This explains much of my rambling pedantics. Too much time in the desert.

PPS If you're working in word, save as text file before pasting. Word's got too much formating crap. Or use notepad or a simple txt editor. That might help with those links. You're using the preview, yes? you can check the links there.