Submit your findings to NASA??

I finally got the chilled feeling that even the ones funding space exploration don't know anything at all. I e-mailed NASA by using an e-mail found on their website and told them that I had been viewing MARS pictures and found that in the wheel's trenches that it makes it had seemed to me that it was very moist underneath. And asked them why they don't do digging missions? Now, they posted this story:

marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Yeah, NASA really seems slow on the uptake on a lot of things, ha!

I was curious about these white things. They look sort of organic.

Originally posted by blowfishdl
I e-mailed NASA by using an e-mail found on their website and told them that I had been viewing MARS pictures and found that in the wheel's trenches that it makes it had seemed to me that it was very moist underneath. And asked them why they don't do digging missions? Now, they posted this story:

The story says nothing about wet/moist soil its about sediment deposits which point to the planet having water or another liquid in its past.

I should also point out that "looks like" or "think" or "sort of" isn't very scientific.

Originally posted by Edn
I should also point out that "looks like" or "think" or "sort of" isn't very scientific.

Could you clarify? I said that they "look sort of organic" and I never used the word "think." So what's your point? That non-scientific language shouldn't be used to point out something in a picture? Does that invalidate what I was drawing attention to somehow?

is that the picture you were talking about? there was another one that looked like actual mud the rover was driving in. it was posted here somewhere. hopefully someone will know the thread.

What I mean is none of you are exactly image analysts are you? That image yuefo is to be honest crap, theres no detail, clarity and its way to small.

Small details such as is that mud the rover has driver over in # image can take hours of analyzing and research. Shapes and the looks of things in images can be easily mistaken as something else or just a complete illusion.

Originally posted by Edn
What I mean is none of you are exactly image analysts are you? That image yuefo is to be honest crap, theres no detail, clarity and its way to small.

Small details such as is that mud the rover has driver over in # image can take hours of analyzing and research. Shapes and the looks of things in images can be easily mistaken as something else or just a complete illusion.

How do you know whether or not any of us are image analysts? But aside from that, all I did was make an observation. I'm not saying it's this, that, or anything at all. I simply opined that the white things kind of looked organic. This thread isn't a peer-reviewed scientific study, so I don't know what your problem is.

And I'm sorry my picture isn't up to your standards, but it was good enough to show what I was talking about. I clipped it from the full-res photo posted on the link provided by blowfish, so if you don't like it, blame NASA, not me. Ok?

[edit on 7/2/2007 by yuefo]