Replies

Ah from the pics I've seen, and everything else we've learned in the past from the topography, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the MANY MANY artifacts in these pics are indeed fossils and that Mars was once like Earth. There are way too many artifacts of organic appearance in almost every photo to be some kind of igneous anomoly that just "happens" to look like a fossil. NUTS to that. And I wish the scientists would stop being elitist and tell us what we already know.

The overwhelming evidence discovered thus far makes it imperative we send astronauts to Mars to attempt to learn what happened to "kill" the planet and perhaps help us keep it from happening here on Earth, as well as to confirm the presence of hardy life that still remains, and the types of life that did exist, which could very well be similar to early life on Earth due to the planet's proximity. I've already seen what appears to be trilobite and erypterid fossils as plain as day in some of the pics.

Ah from the pics I've seen, and everything else we've learned in the past from the topography, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the MANY MANY artifacts in these pics are indeed fossils and that Mars was once like Earth. There are way too many artifacts of organic appearance in almost every photo to be some kind of igneous anomoly that just "happens" to look like a fossil. NUTS to that. And I wish the scientists would stop being elitist and tell us what we already know.

I think there's a good chance they'll admit to the various small fossils we've seen in the rocks (i.e., tiny molluscs, coral, etc.), but not to the conch-looking fossils seen on the surface.

As to the "blueberries", it suddenly occurs to me where I've seen that shape and size object before. I've seen them in my garden, and in the woods, and in my barnyard. I've even seen them at the actual moment of production, when they've come a-tossin' out my goat's ass.

There are probably animals other than goats and whitetail deer that produce loose spherical fecal material, but those are the only two I know of.

That is not to say that the "blueberries" are fossilized ruminant turds. In fact, I rather suspect they're not. <g> I would not be surprised, though, if they're some analog to fungus or "cacti", of the very hard type -- plants that make very spartan use of water. I saw one photo that someone commented that some of they looked like they were "dying" -- dimpled, shriveled, in various states of decay. Their ubiquity -- buried deep in solid rock, buried in the sand, tossed about the surface willy-nilly -- is just too strange IMO for a mineral explanation, especially when combined with the lack of any non sperical examples. If mineral, I'd expect to see some that were teardrop-shaped, some that were flattened into a disc shape, etc. The consistency of the spherical shape says "biological" to me, at least -- as does that strange "peach line" they bear.

I suspect one of two things -- or, two of two things. It could be that the planet simply lacks the mass to retain its atmosphere over a long period of time. Or, it could be that whatever created the asteroid belt also affected Mars, blowing off most of its atmosphere in the process. I think it's likely that both processes are involved. The planet is smaller than Earth, and, it's close to the asteroid belt, and, contains some really dramatic impact-scars, including one that goes nearly halfway across the planet, as if something really ugly took a long glancing blow before continuing off into space.

One other likely contributing factor would be the lack of a magnetic field, which leaves the planet's surface exposed to a variety of radiation that we're spared by our magnetic field.

On the "pro life" side, there's something I read about a while back, and have not heard a peep about WRT these two missions. If my hunch is right, one of the bits of data they've been holding very close to the vest is the sub-surface temperature.

I don't remember the exact figures, but I recall reading about a very dramatic air temperature gradient between near the surface, and a few feet above the surface. IIRC, the incredibly bitter cold temps we're familiar with hearing about are based on the avg. temp a couple of feet off the surface, but, when you get very close to the surface, it's a lot warmer, IIRC in the 70 deg F. range during the day.

The very thin air could explain this, if the ground temp is in fact considerably warmer than the air temps commonly tossed about, because it would have very inefficient heat conductivity and convection.

So, I think it's quite possible that the ground temp, esp. a few inches below the surface, may be much warmer than anyone would ever suspect given the commonly understood air temps. The implications for ground level (and lower) life speak for themselves.

This is also consistent with Levin's observations of liquid water being driven to the surface by the rover's wheels, and then freezing and glistening when the air hits it.