Mars - The current water theory

[ocpaul20]

 

Is something wrong with the current water theory perhaps? This scientist thinks there might be.
This guy from the University of Chicago thinks there is something odd about the science view of water on Mars.

Discover Magazine article

 

Quote

The findings appeared in March in the journal Science Advances.

Lead author Edwin Kite of the University of Chicago says that if the data are correct, something else in our comprehension of the planet must be wrong. Maybe the rivers are older than researchers think. Or perhaps Mars dried out much faster than current theories suggest. Or, Kite says, some unknown process also may have kept Mars warm long enough for large rivers to flow, even after most of its atmosphere had disappeared.

Quote

“All three options are uncomfortable,” Kite says. “All three of these solutions would require significant revision of our current understanding.”

However, from my own point of view, I suspect masses of water is now flowing on Mars and I have seen what I think might be streams of water flowing from underground lakes perhaps. See what you think below.

Links...to ESA images
Article
Maunder Crater page

Quote

The High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on ESA’s Mars Express orbiter took pictures of the Noachis Terra region during orbits 2412 and 2467 on 29 November and 14 December 2005, respectively, with a ground resolution of approximately 15 metres per pixel.

Official original image Maunder Crater (feature in Maunder Crater at 10 o'clock)
Just under 1M
14M tif

Cuts taken from hires tif image above
Enlarged and context

Enlarged close up

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by ocpaul20

[tmcom]

Mars is full of inconsistencies, that NASA, dismisses or provides dubious evidence for, and a percentage of the masses buy, and the rest know something is amiss.

 

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Mars is full of inconsistencies, that NASA, dismisses or provides dubious evidence for, and a percentage of the masses buy, and the rest know something is amiss.

 

I dismiss your magical mirror rocks too.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

4 hours ago, tmcom said:

Mars is full of inconsistencies, that NASA, dismisses or provides dubious evidence for, and a percentage of the masses buy, and the rest know something is amiss.

 

And some of us dismiss your hand waving because we have a basic education in science.

[Duke Wellington]

6 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

 

Is something wrong with the current water theory perhaps? This scientist thinks there might be.
This guy from the University of Chicago thinks there is something odd about the science view of water on Mars.

Discover Magazine article

 

However, from my own point of view, I suspect masses of water is now flowing on Mars and I have seen what I think might be streams of water flowing from underground lakes perhaps. See what you think below.

Links...to ESA images
Article
Maunder Crater page

Official original image Maunder Crater (feature in Maunder Crater at 10 o'clock)
Just under 1M
14M tif

Cuts taken from hires tif image above
Enlarged and context

Enlarged close up

 

I think the obvious problem is the lower air pressure reducing both the boiling point of water, and its freeze temperature. Maybe water on Mars is still liquid at -30C?

[tmcom]

A case in point, Closeup of Mars Left, (Hubble animation) typical image NASA shows right!

Left strong atmosphere or blue sky on the ground, right no atmosphere at all, yeah, black and white!

One of many gaping holes, but we can trust NASA right, after all they show the climate change graph showing the 3mm sea level rise, since the 1800's, eventhough no obvious visual comparison of old and new Google images of Earths coastline showing the rise, can be found!

Evidence is truth, not gullibility!

Edited January 3, 2020 by tmcom

[Rlyeh]

46 minutes ago, tmcom said:

A case in point, Closeup of Mars Left, (Hubble animation) typical image NASA shows right!

Left strong atmosphere or blue sky on the ground, right no atmosphere at all, yeah, black and white!

Look at the different photos of the moon

https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+photos

The moon is fake!!!

 

46 minutes ago, tmcom said:

One of many gaping holes, but we can trust NASA right, after all they show the climate change graph showing the 3mm sea level rise, since the 1800's, eventhough no obvious visual comparison of old and new Google images of Earths coastline showing the rise, can be found!

Evidence is truth, not gullibility!

Champ, your ignorance of photography isn't evidence.

[+OverSword]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Mars is full of inconsistencies, that NASA, dismisses or provides dubious evidence for, and a percentage of the masses buy, and the rest know something is amiss.

 

 

Truth be told is that the description of Mars will be constantly updated and changed as we learn and understand more.  At one point flowing water was a given and a canal building civilization an assumed probability, then there was no water on mars because an ancient catastrophe had cast the water and most of the atmosphere into space. Now only ancient frozen water beneath the poles exist.  Maybe in 50 years we will assume that mars is a developing world that may one day replace earth as the cradle of life in our solar system, who knows?

[ocpaul20]

The point is there are scientists who follow the mainstream (or NASA/ESA/JAXA provided) view of Mars and there are others who look at the data again and see something else.

If data is open to interpretation, then what is the point of 'proof' and 'evidence' if, in the end, it just boils down to a subjective opinion of wizened old scientists working for governmental organisations?

Yes, we all know science will update its theories but it is NOW when we need the truth of the situation so that we, the people, can decide what our money should be spent on and to whom it should be given. Dishonest arms of our governments should not get money to spend as it essentially condones and continues the dishonesty.

NASA scientists often make conflicting judgements and we really do not know if there is an agenda or not.

[ocpaul20]

OK, so now evidence of flowing water - up-close and personal.

water/mud/indentation
Evidence for flowing water in the form of mud formed by flowing water(red arrows) and even an indentation within the mud(blue arrow). Yellow arrows are MER Opportunity shadow.

Official NASA images "mud" Front Hazard Camera
Mud Link 1 left
Mud Link 2 right
(further away in sunlight)
(further away in sunlight 2)

 

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by ocpaul20

[tmcom]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Truth be told is that the description of Mars will be constantly updated and changed as we learn and understand more.  At one point flowing water was a given and a canal building civilization an assumed probability, then there was no water on mars because an ancient catastrophe had cast the water and most of the atmosphere into space. Now only ancient frozen water beneath the poles exist.  Maybe in 50 years we will assume that mars is a developing world that may one day replace earth as the cradle of life in our solar system, who knows?

That is the official record, eventhough Mars does have a magnetic field and also does have a molten core, (but our moon also does, so that isn't definitive proof of anything).

We will learn a lot in the future, mainly that NASA is suppressing the truth no end, and Mars is a long way from being a dead lifeless rock in space.

1 hour ago, ocpaul20 said:

The point is there are scientists who follow the mainstream (or NASA/ESA/JAXA provided) view of Mars and there are others who look at the data again and see something else.

If data is open to interpretation, then what is the point of 'proof' and 'evidence' if, in the end, it just boils down to a subjective opinion of wizened old scientists working for governmental organisations?

Yes, we all know science will update its theories but it is NOW when we need the truth of the situation so that we, the people, can decide what our money should be spent on and to whom it should be given. Dishonest arms of our governments should not get money to spend as it essentially condones and continues the dishonesty.

NASA scientists often make conflicting judgements and we really do not know if there is an agenda or not.

Yes, exactly, evidence is the deciding factor, not innate fear!

There is an agenda.

If Mars was a dead rock with virtually no atmosohere, then there wouldn't be any conflict, but if Mars is a second Earth, then there will be.

Edited January 4, 2020 by tmcom

[ocpaul20]

If Mars was a dead rock with virtually no atmosohere, then there wouldn't be any conflict, but if Mars is a second Earth, then there will be.

So..could it all (all this deception, lies, misinformation, etc) be about the colonisation of Mars rather than the fact that alien life lives in our Solar System?

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, ocpaul20 said:

So..could it all (all this deception, lies, misinformation, etc) be about the colonisation of Mars rather than the fact that alien life lives in our Solar System?

Arr, no, it is about not letting the price of oil plummet or losing a comfy lifestyle, for as long as it is possible, since alien life is in our solar system don't use oil.

Or the rich and poor thing!

[ocpaul20]

19 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Maybe water on Mars is still liquid at -30C?

OK, some possibilities -

a)  we have not been told the truth about the environment on Mars.

b) this is not water but some other liquid

c) this is not a liquid but something else entirely.

What do you think these images show?

[tmcom]

Here is one more.

Wet ground.

[Duke Wellington]

54 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

OK, some possibilities -

a)  we have not been told the truth about the environment on Mars.

b) this is not water but some other liquid

c) this is not a liquid but something else entirely.

What do you think these images show?

They show water grooves cut into the rock

The average temperatures on Mars range from -125C in winter to -60C in summer. During the middle of summer the equator can get up to 20C during the middle of the day.

Having done a quick search on it I see numerous links saying water would boil on Mars at 10C and the general view is that water always freezes at 0C regardless of air pressure. So, liquid water would occasionally exist on Mars during the summer at the equator, but it would likely be boiling.

[ocpaul20]

33 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

They show water grooves cut into the rock

Are we talking about post #10 or post #1 ?

Apart from being a stretch of the imagination, how would these 'grooves' be cut into the rock exactly? Your explanation is probably less likely than mine.

I cannot account for what the scientists say and what you report above, however it seems unlikely that the photographs would show what appears to be liquid running over the surface or liquid shooting out of a cliff face with some force if the temperatures were as they say - unless these images show something else.

I do not understand how you determine these are water grooves? Where from? When did they get made? Millions of years ago or just a few days ago? What of the indentation I mentioned which was obviously formed AFTER the liquid flowed over the surface of the rock.

 

[Duke Wellington]

7 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

Are we talking about post #10 or post #1 ?

Apart from being a stretch of the imagination, how would these 'grooves' be cut into the rock exactly? Your explanation is probably less likely than mine.

I cannot account for what the scientists say and what you report above, however it seems unlikely that the photographs would show what appears to be liquid running over the surface or liquid shooting out of a cliff face with some force if the temperatures were as they say - unless these images show something else.

I do not understand how you determine these are water grooves? Where from? When did they get made? Millions of years ago or just a few days ago? What of the indentation I mentioned which was obviously formed AFTER the liquid flowed over the surface of the rock.

 

You are engaging in wishful thinking.

We know from looking at Earths geology that the flow of water cuts grooves into the landscape. Cutting grooves (aka river channels) takes repeated flows of water over an extended period of time. With the present day conditions on Mars then environmental circumstances do arise where liquid water would exist.

Focusing on Earth we know that most of our water actually exists inside the crust, not in our oceans. In essence water saturated rocks all the way down to the mantle. Where the water gets heated and under high pressure forces its way back up to the surface where it shoots out from geezers. While Mars lacks our oceans, there is likely to be huge amounts of water below its surfacing undergoing a similar heating process causing the geezers on its surface that have been documented.

[tmcom]

Lets cut the crap, and blurry satellite images.

This was originally taken from Curiositys first lot of images, mast cam, clearly showing water flowing down this hill, and nada from NASA.

Even if this is very salty, which is unlikely going by the last 5 years l have scoured through its images, this should be a major announcement, but NASA only announces blurry distant stuff.

Edited January 5, 2020 by tmcom

[ocpaul20]

15 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

You are engaging in wishful thinking.

Not so. How am I engaging in wishful thinking?

Why would I question that water cuts channels in rock? We all know that and we can see it all around us here on Earth, but what has that got to do with either of the images in post #1 or post #10 ? I want you to be specific.

I ask you again - are you referring to post#1 or post #10 ?

If you cannot be more specific, then I will have to think you are just arguing for the sake of it.

[Rlyeh]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Lets cut the crap, and blurry satellite images.

You'd have nothing to post then.

 

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

This was originally taken from Curiositys first lot of images, mast cam, clearly showing water flowing down this hill, and nada from NASA.

Wow. Cut the bull****. This is as pathetic as your non-existent "mirror rocks".

 

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Even if this is very salty, which is unlikely going by the last 5 years l have scoured through its images, this should be a major announcement, but NASA only announces blurry distant stuff.

NASA announcement; "Major discovery, tmcom can't tell the difference between sand and water".

[toast]

6 hours ago, tmcom said:

This was originally taken from Curiositys first lot of images, mast cam, clearly showing water flowing down this hill, and nada from NASA.

The image libraries of Curiosity, and other Mars rovers as well, are public. The material displayed get used by a various number of institutes, which are independent from NASA, related to planetary science. For example at the DLR Institute for Planetary Research in Berlin/Germany and at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Munich/Germany, just to name a few.

So please let me know for what reason there are "nadas" from these, and all the other related institutes, as well.

 

[toast]

On 1/4/2020 at 2:15 AM, ocpaul20 said:

OK, so now evidence of flowing water - up-close and personal. water/mud/indentation
Evidence for flowing water in the form of mud formed by flowing water(red arrows) and even an indentation within the mud(blue arrow). Yellow arrows are MER Opportunity shadow. Official NASA images "mud" Front Hazard Camera

Please provide your findings to, e.g., the DLR Institute for Planetary Research in Berlin/Germany and at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Munich/Germany, contact details see their HPs, and let me know the outcome soon. Curious.

Edited January 5, 2020 by toast

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, toast said:

The image libraries of Curiosity, and other Mars rovers as well, are public. The material displayed get used by a various number of institutes, which are independent from NASA, related to planetary science. For example at the DLR Institute for Planetary Research in Berlin/Germany and at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Munich/Germany, just to name a few.

So please let me know for what reason there are "nadas" from these, and all the other related institutes, as well.

I tend to think that nada's are a given, since a search for such on one of NASA's sites, only brings up satellite images of the water flowing down the side of the crater.

But if anyone here finds some half decent images like what l have found, then let us know, but l doubt it.

[Duke Wellington]

8 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

Not so. How am I engaging in wishful thinking?

Why would I question that water cuts channels in rock? We all know that and we can see it all around us here on Earth, but what has that got to do with either of the images in post #1 or post #10 ? I want you to be specific.

I ask you again - are you referring to post#1 or post #10 ?

If you cannot be more specific, then I will have to think you are just arguing for the sake of it.

You asked me how exactly grooves got cut into rocks and I told you. You questioned it, and I told you. Now you are playing games claiming you didnt ask.

Your first low-resolution picture could be the way wind has blown sand mounds, it could be hot geezers releasing steam, or it could be nothing being mistaken as something because of the low-resolution. Your second could be the way the dirt has been blown across rocks, its hard to tell because of the low-resolution. Except during the middle of the day, at the height of summer, on the equator, then the conditions do not arise for liquid water to exist.

You need to give it up already. You are rapidly losing credibility.