Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dustytoad
The implication should be that Mars is a bit like Earth in that the top soil drys out protecting moisture underneath.. Not that the mars rover
is turning over darker soil with no explanation as to why it's darker..
It's darker because it is of a different composition and texture than that on the very top layer.
edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
I must say, my respect for your thoughts oscilates (sp?) like a soundwave. One post you seem like a critical thinker, that while absolutely a skeptic:
still willing to ask questions and be open to possibility. Then the next post you're no better than Jim "The Enemy of Truth" Oberg, speaking in
these crazy absolutes that are no claims no better (and maybe worse), and backed up by just as much data (sometimes less) as the people saying "it's
a face!!" on every other pebble.
You can't deny it "looks" wet in that picture. And if based on the ancient "dry" salt lakes here on Earth, which have absolutely no life on the
surface in some cases, and have been baking in the hot sun with little to no precipitation in some hundred-thousand years, but yet just a mere inch or
2 under the surface it's "wet" with many millenia old rotten fish guts and plant matter that looks just like mud.......if based on those you are
completely closed to the possibility of that being the case here.........even when NASA even says this is an ancient lake bed (they didn't say
whether it's salt or not).........then I would call that proof you aren't a critical thinker and maybe have a bit of an agenda to supress even the
THOUGHT of ancient civilizations outside of Earth. Though I honestly don't get why that means you need to so adamantly be against "mud" being on
When you see a picture that so obviously at least "looks" like mud or damp dirt on the rover pointed out by someone outside of NASA, why do you feel
so compelled to say "NO, that's not wet, no chance, it's dry, static charge, that's the answer, end of story"? immediately when the picture
suggest otherwise, instead of saying "hmmmm, that does kind of look like mud, I wonder if it is wet dirt or not"?
Speaking in the kinds of absolutes you so often do, on subjects that the human race as a whole doesn't have enough data to come to any sure
conclusion on, just WREAKS of the same kind of agenda that propelled Jim "The Enemy of Truth" Oberg to get his "friend" Ken Johnston fired from
NASA for DARING to go through the image archives looking for interesting things to help Richard Hoagland's research. As an American citizen Richard
Hoagland has as much right as the POTUS to those images. Hell if NASA really wasn't hiding anything, they'd have a full time employee dedicated to
assisting Hoagland's search on a macro-scale for life on other heavenly bodies. Why so quick to shut down the human search for answers and
It's like NASA will only allow people to look for life on a micro scale. We can only look for carbon isotopes, methane molecules, MAYBE fossilised
bacteria. Why not allow, and indeed nurture the search for ruins, large fossils, current water, not just evidence that it was there in the past? Maybe
even some creepy crawlies scrurrying around there now? Forget "Deny Ignorance"....WHY DENY POSSIBILITY ?!
RICHARD C HOAGLAND FOR NASA DIRECTOR 2012 !!!!!! lol........hey, as much as I'm joking.....at least the guy would TRY. And I'd much prefer a NASA
looking for things on the macro scale.