posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:39 PM
originally posted by: Archivalist
As observation improves with more data, perspectives need to be adjusted to match the evidence.
As it should. Since we're not actually there and can't pick up these rocks and brush them off (or lick them like a good rock hound) these are just
observations based on available imagery. Sometimes the rover will provide a better close-up and suddenly they don't look so unusual.
That's why I can't really say for sure that such and such is for sure a fossil or artifact or whatever. It's just interesting within the context of
the rest of the stuff lying around up there.
There are a couple of things that keep cropping up that makes me wonder, particularly as they have to do with layers. For one, where the hell did all
the calcium come from that it dropped a layer that seeped into these cracks? Secondly, what made the cracks and tossed everything around so much?
Third, why does it seem that the more complex-looking rocks the ones that so often look like artifacts or fossils, are more often found in the
Seems to me if the planet was much wetter in the past and then dried up, then the more complex stuff should be in the lower layers. But as it is,
what looks like what happened is that the planet had periodic warming, possibly accompanied by water and the creation of complex mud balls,
interspersed with periods of devastation. And one of those periods of wetness was not all that long ago, since it's in upper layers.
I don't know if any catastrophists have looked at Mars that way, but I think it suggests that Mars is subject to the same kind of periodic upheavals
that the Earth is exposed to, and maybe even at the same times. Decreased sunspot activity causing widespread freezing. Periodic asteroid / meteor
swarm impacts. And so on. I guess NASA / JPL is still working on constructing a planetary geological timeline but don't have a definitive one yet.