"OhBrother" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:55:17 -0500, jonathan wrote:


This is bull**** of the highest order.

Nasa is concluding the spheres are concretions
based on absurdly limited observations. Their
evidence consists of merely that the spheres
are aligned with the layering so they must
have formed in place. And that the slash
in the spheres 'hints', as they say, it's caused
by the layering in the rocks. Plus the presence
of hematite.

What a load of bull****.
They've assumed the spheres are concretions merely
because they ruled out impact and volcanism. Not
because they proved they're concretions.

If their theory is true, that the spheres formed
in place, then the spheres must be evenly distributed
across the field. But they will find instead that the
spheres will dissipate as they travel out. That
will be the proof of their mistake. That the spheres
are associated with, and emanating from, the craters.

I can't wait to see what nonsense they come up with then.


They have clearly decided any finding of life
will wait for the next mission, so they can guarantee
a next mission. There is no doubt now.

This is a historic miscalculation.

The large Opportunity crater is certain to hold the
most exciting findings of the entire mission.
Making it there will unveil the true motive behind
Nasa now, not discovery, but their own self-serving
asses.

Nasa must now find a way to prevent Opportunity
from making it to the crater, they have to!
Or watch the entire organization become the
source of ridicule and scandal.

They just set the agency back twenty years.


Jonathan

s

Yes, very irresponsible, unlike the serious Usenet scientists that have
concluded, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the tiny balls are from
sponges.


So, tell me one thing, how does a hematite concretion weather
uphill? Nasa explained at the conference that the sedimentary
outcrops the uphill and field concretions weathered out of
must have...weathered away. They say they are still looking
for an explanation for the missing sedimentary outcrops.

Please explain to me this one completely fatal flaw?

Either the ...iron...concretions defy gravity, or some
mysterious unseen ....mountain...weathered away
faster then the ...soil...the spheres are lying on.

Can you answer any of these questions, where did
the spheres come from?? How did they get there?

If you can't answer these questions the theory is
nothing more than the speculations of geologists
desperate for a geological explanation.

This is what hematite concretions look like.
http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resource...oncretions.htm


This is what a gemmule looks like
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules



Sponges that live at the bottom of the Martian primodial sea.


No they don't, they live on outcrops in shallow waters.
And they leave behind lots of sulfates, care for a link?


Their tiny fondril roots driving deeper and deeper in the dry soil to
extract moisture to continue to survive.


Sponges pump water, you don't even know the first thing
about either concretions or sponges yet feel qualified
to comment. You're embarrassing yourself.


Jonathan

s


Truly the weak rationalizations
of the NASA goons represents bullsh*t of the highest order in the face of
such serious scientific observations as those.

However, since mars is really a battle planet, those little balls are actually
lead shot left from the last big martian war in which the warring tribes,
expelled from the hollow planet spent hundreds of generations of making
crude weapons of destruction (such as the lead shot) only to discover
there are no saltpeter and carbon veins to use for gunpowder. Why didn't
NASA know that?

Of course, only the truly enlightened savants know that the little martian
balls are indeed marbles, being used by the disembodied spirits of
venusian gamblers of aeons ago who have been stranded on the planet as
punishment for their many sins.

NASA has no imagination, eh?

O'