reply to post by qmantoo
When we say "Harsh Environment" we mean conditions in which most life here on Earth would have a hard time living in.
Mars atmosphere is very low in pressure. Averages at 0.636 kPa. Air pressure that low means that water would boil at a temperature of -37 deg F or -38
Every living organism on Earth requires water in liquid form, and that is impossible, at least on the surface of Mars.
Now, I know that is for living organisms here on Earth. Who is to say what other living organisms from other planets might require? It may not be the
same as what we see here on Earth.
However, that is the problem: we do not know of ANY OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS. We only have one template to go by as far as life is concerned, and that
is life here on Earth. Until we discover life off of this planet, we do not have anything else to compare it to.
We do know however, that "Earth like conditions" once existed on Mars. Because of that, they are hoping that it may be possible that "Earth like
life" may have formed and existed on Mars at one time. But, with the way Mars is now, that life would not survive on the surface very easily.
Is it possible that life did develop there and adapted? That is a possibility.
Is it possible that life developed under different conditions on other planets that require different environments, for example, Mars as it is today
would be just fine for them? That is a possibility.
However, those things are also HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. We have no proof. No evidence at all that they do exist. We only have speculation that life in
places other than Earth should exist based upon things that we do know:
1) There are a staggering number of stars and planets in the universe.
2) Due to that staggering number, the odds of life forming on only one planet (Earth) in the entire universe is highly unlikely.
3) Life (at least here on Earth) is very tenacious. Life here is made from the most common elements that are also the most abundant in the
And that is all we actually know. Until we actually find something that is not like anything here on Earth, or we can sample and who's DNA does not
match anything here on Earth, we simply do not have anything to compare it too.
Having a photograph of something and saying it MUST be "A" or "B", with no room for discussion of in between, is incorrect thinking. It's being
as "closed minded" as you are accusing others of being.
Pointing to something in a photograph and insisting that is MUST have been made by a ET source, and being unwilling to entertain other explanations
again, is just as closed minded as those you accuse. Worse, since insisting that it MUST be the way you say it is does not have any scientific basis
what so ever, but only HIGH speculation on your part.
Insisting that others are "parroting NASA" for explanations of things you show, again shows closed mindedness and ignorance on your part. Humans
have been studying Mars since well before NASA was a gleam in anyone's eyes. Even today the red planet is studied by people other than NASA, and
their findings (planet geology, atmospheric make up, etc) are the same.
Several times you've been offered a way to test certain things yourself, but you either ignore it, or dismiss it. Like the Rover's speed. You've
been told time and again, the Rovers do not move that fast, and yet can still make tracks like you're seeing, and I even suggested a way for you to
test this yourself, so that you can either confirm what we are saying..........or show us that we are wrong. Instead, you wave it away, and still say
they are moving fast, like a dune buggy on a beach I believe you suggested.
Being curious about things on Mars is great. Wondering what something is, is wonderful. Questioning official explanations is fine too.
But dismissing things out of hand, and refusing to even do the same research or tests that have been suggested to you, simply because they do not
conform to how YOU think things are?.........
....that is just as closed minded as all those you accuse of being.
You've done this with the water cycle for Mars, the atmosphere and winds of Mars, and now the Rover tracks.
Why not instead use the Scientific Method?
1) Ask a question.
2) Formulate a theory to answer it.
3) Design a experiment to test that theory.
4) Do the experiment and record the results.
5) Do the experiment again to make sure you get the same results.
6) Come to a conclusion and share it with others, so that they may also do the same to confirm your results.
Is the above so hard? So hard that you insist on putting yourself into a closed box of "belief" and insist that it MUST be the way YOU say based
only on photographs and what you think something IS simply because you "believe" it MUST be that way?