It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by UmbraSumus
Originally posted by smurfy
Many of the OP posts here are unfortunately given to sensationalism, since the requirement is to use the title originally used from a link. However, in this case there is not a link to a story from elsewhere, and you could say that the use of the word 'mud' in a general sense is not the case here, but it is a mud of sorts if there is water in the mixture.
Place a ? at the end of sensational claim - hey presto ! ....... " I`m just asking a question "
In fairness to the O.P it wasn`t the worst example that I have seen on ATS - Those photos are spellbinding - just blows my mind -edit on 11-9-2012 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Dustytoad
dry sand stays the same color when you step in it... Think of the physics of it. There is nothing to change the color.
I grew up around farms. When you "churn" the dirt it does look darker. Why is this? It's because the sun can't bake away the water so much under the surface. There is a LOT of moisture on earth. Turn over some dry dune sand in a pile and get someone else to see If they can find it... I have gone to the beach every summer of my life and I know that dry dirt does not change color...
Phages point that there could be different color dust makes more sense except for the distribution, which looks more like a wet spot to me.. Or maybe a more clay like soil, which would still mean wet..edit on 9/11/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Larry L
No. I'm stating the highly educated opinions of people who have been studying the geology of Mars. I've read what they have to say and why they say it. Have you?
You're stating complete guesses on the part of humans as absolute fact.
Mars could have died just a couple thousand years ago by some unknown cause......meteor strike....somehow being knocked out of it's original orbit
Why would losing its magnetic field cause every living thing to be sterilized by cosmic radiation? Where did all the water go? The water which made the seas that once existed?
it's core could have stopped spinning enough to create a strong magnetic field and everything living on the surface was sterilized by cosmic radiation in the year of our Lord 213 a.d.
Have you bothered to look? Or would you rather just rely on your personal speculations?
You have to stop speaking in such absolutes about things not only you, but no one in the entire human race currently has any real knowledge of. Show me one single piece of evidence that proves this area of Mars (or any other for that matter) has been dry for ONE BILLION YEARS aside from the fact that it happens to be "dry" now.
Speaking of speaking in absolutes...
Here's a link to the two images where it's CLEARLY wet.
And then there is this (clearly not true):
Mind you, it's moving in this series of images.
edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
According to who?
Even carbon dating on this planet has been proven to be completely unreliable.
A magnetic field offers no protection from gamma rays and minimal protection from cosmic rays. What is "the ether of space"? What other deadly things?
So are you suggesting that things could live on the surface of a planet with no magnetic field protecting them from cosmic radiation, gamma rays and the various other deadly things floating about in the ether of space that our magnetic field is holding back?
Really? Which experts say that?
You seem to hold so much regard for what "the experts" say, yet you're saying they're all wrong when they say without our magnetic field the surface of the earth would be totally roasted?
Mars is a cold place. Not hot.
Also, as for the water, it seems logical to me that if without a magnetic field a planets surface would be roasted, the water would evaporate due to the heat, and not only the direct heat, but also the radiation particles would be heating up the water on a molecular level.
No. Here is a composite of the images you posted. Please look again closely at the rocks directly under and in front of the middle wheel in the original images. The rover was not "navigating" or moving.
I come to this conclusion by the fact that the wheels are turned in one pic and not in another. Suggesting that it IS doing some navigating in the series, even if it was just turning to head in another direction. The wheels are rotatiing between images at the very least. I have no way of saying how far or what direction it moved, but it is moving.
Current conditions on the planet surface do not support the long-term existence of liquid water. The average atmospheric pressure and temperature are far too low, leading to immediate freezing and resulting sublimation. Despite this, research suggests that in the past there was liquid water flowing on the surface, creating large areas similar to Earth's oceans. There are a number of direct and indirect proofs of water's presence either on or under the surface, e.g. stream beds, polar caps, spectroscopic measurement, eroded craters or minerals directly connected to the existence of liquid water (such as goethite), grey, crystalline hematite, phyllosilicates, opal, and sulfate. With the improved cameras on advanced Mars orbiters such as Viking, Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Express, and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter pictures of ancient lakes, ancient river valleys, and widespread glaciation have accumulated. Besides the visual confirmation of water from a huge collection of images, an orbiting Gamma Ray Spectrometer found ice just under the surface of much of the planet. Also, radar studies discovered pure ice in formations that were thought to be glaciers. The Phoenix lander exposed ice as it landed, watched chunks of ice disappear, detected snow falling, and even saw drops of liquid water.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
Since Mars has no atmosphere and has a slightly different chemical composition than Earth, I'd wager a "dark spot" in dirt is no real indicator of "dampness," at least not in the sense we're hoping for.
Here's the link explaining to you how the Earth's magnetic field protects us from deadly solar radiation and chaged particles.
If carbon dating isn't reliable beyond a mere 50,000 years, how can you expect me to take seriously your, or any scientists theory that Mars has be dry for A BILLION YEARS. I'm not even saying that's impossible.