Origin of Life on Mars? - Page 10

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
Author Message
John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 181



PostPosted: July 24, 2017 10:20 AM 

Faceless/Lin,
Your "Most Obvious Artifact Ever Found on Mars" is just a case of pariodolia where two separate rocks trick our eyes into seeing something that is not real. You have to take a closer look.

What looks like a somewhat horizontally lying triangular shaped object with a circular trunk is actually two separate rocks the create the illusion from a distance of being one. But if you look closely you will see that the left side of the triangle does not connect to the circle bottom of the circle as it would if it was one piece, it instead slides behind the circle. Once you realize that the back part of the image, which is sedimentary sheet-like plate which most likely broke off of the section immediately above, is actually standing up almost vertically with the left point high above the circular small rock in front. Once you can envision this back part of the image as standing in a more vertical position you can free yourself from the pareidolia. If anything, it looks more like a sharp tooth with the point being on the lower left (but it is NOT a tooth). The circular small rock (not exactly circular) is leaning against the fallen rock behind and faces us at an angle where the right side is tilted towards us. The sunlight coming from the right lights up the edge following the curvature of the rock, which indicates this is a small piece of a flat sedimentary layer also standing on edge. Also, since this small rock is leaning against the bigger sheet behind it at a slight angle, it leaves a space for sunlight to shine between the two pieces as you can see on the bottom left:

So, nothing artificial here at all.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 182



PostPosted: July 24, 2017 10:44 AM 

Faceless,
To add to the above post, I want to show a few other images.
From far away, and image could look like if has a smooth surface, but as we know from the sidewalk stream that look flat and smooth from a distance but unclose it looked like a gravel flat. It is the same with this image:

The surface up close will look more like these:

And this:

This is an example of how and image could at first be misleading. When I first saw this I thought rock on the upper right was a hollow bock:

This is a good example of assuming we know what the hidden side of an object looks like. This is a rock that split in two. There are two nodules on the large rock on the right side. It is easy to assume that the second nodule is completely round an all sides, but it is not, back side it flat, as the rock split slice right through the nodule:

And this one is just for fun. the shadow looks like a shadow of the rover arm:

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 183



PostPosted: July 24, 2017 11:17 AM 

Faseless,
Re: #177, you make a preposterous fake news claim that Wretch Fossil Posts have made thousands of scientific paper and journals useless. Wretch Fossil continually hurts its own credibility by posting things that are proven to be wrong, not correcting posts after getting evidence that they are wrong (columnar Basault), Posting things that are intentionally misleading. One example is when you used wikipedia to that a small volcanic rock could not be transported intoGale Crater by a meteor impact because Wikipedia said 90% of the material dislodged would not travel more that a few radii from the impact and then concluding that it must have been moved there by ancient aliens who just dropped the rock there for no particular reason. But you intentionally left out the part where wikipedia said that some debris from an impact can exceed escape velocity and travel to other planets (so of course it can send debris to any where on Mars). To me that was particularly disingenuous because you also brag on other posts how easy it is to buy microbe fossil containing Mars rocks on eBay (scam).
It is not likely that people will agree with you as so much of Wretch Fossil is based on wishful thinking and unscientific theology based creationism.

And then there is your claim that all organic molecules, which is anything with a carbon and hydrogen molecule, are the product of living things, basically saying that God created universe full of instant life and all organic molecules we find in interstellar gas clouds, in the seas of Titan in the cores of red dwarfs, all originated from living things. That is just incredibly back ward an unscientific. It is very well understood how carbon monoxide on the surface of interstellar dust can react at low temperatures with hydrogen to create methanal (CH3OH) which is the most basic step to the formation of more complex organic molecules.
So you have a lot of work to do to fix up your site before you can trash real scientific work. When a real scientist finds something they have never seen before, they start investigating to find out how it came to be, they are not going to just make up an answer just to get off of work early.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 184



PostPosted: July 26, 2017 3:30 AM 

These photos show many artifacts found by Curiosity rover on Mars:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/21535456445/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/33836321242/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/21159227455/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/29160864896/in/dateposted-public/

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 185



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 4:05 AM 

Re 183, first paragraph, my post (http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/2017/03/nasa-challenged-by-this-rock.html?q=a+few+radii
) said "it may be an artificial rock."

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 186



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 4:16 AM 

Re 183, last paragraph, "basically saying that God created universe full of instant life", I am tired of your twisting my words.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 187



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 7:45 AM 

Re 181, 182, there are no two rocks in your red circles.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 188



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 8:01 AM 

Re 157, 163, 164, did you ever see Figure 2-2-4 of the femur article? Only you believe it is a decades-old murder case. Many people cannot tell concrete from natural rocks. You cannot tell decades-old bone from coalified fossil.
Your fake news disproves nothing in my posts. Next time please include your "absolute proof" and detailed evidence.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 189



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 8:14 AM 

Re 183, "not correcting posts after getting evidence that they are wrong (columnar Basault)", your evidence did not evidence that columnar basalt was naturally formed.
The "columnar basalt" was concrete piles constructed by ancient human beings. See evidence in
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 190



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 8:50 AM 

RE 164, this photo shows no horizontal cracks in Devil's Tower:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/15622995074/in/photolist-qsRKYH-pNxW93

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 191



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 9:05 AM 

RE 183, "how easy it is to buy microbe fossil containing Mars rocks on eBay (scam).", meteorites found on Earth did not necessarily result from another meteorite impacting on Mars.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 192



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 6:45 PM 

Re:184 The Flicker images your links go to do not show any artifacts at all. The first one is a very poor image taken from a distance. I have already demonstrated on numerous posts, more than adequately, how the effects of sedimentary layering and wind fluting can cause forms like these. I have also demonstrated how the winds can sculpt an endless variety of unusual shapes.
The second picture, an artifact of what? Piled dirty dishes? We have already seen numerous natural settings on Mars that show the same things (scattered layered rock pieces falling apart). There are no known artificial means for producing these shapes, nor any reason for them to be artificially made, but they are consistent with what we see in natural settings in Gale Crater. These natural settings I refer to have never, at any time, existed on Earth. You will continually see things on Mars that you will not find on Earth.
The third image is also perfectly natural. In Fact, one of the items you point to I used to help you understand why the rock in picture one was not artificial. We have already discussed, on other posts, ad-nauseam, about the unique Mars-only conditions that allow this kind of weathering and erosion.
On the fourth rock you are looking at rocks that are breaking up naturally. You can not just point to a flat surface or a 90 degree angle and say these are artificial without any proof. Again, I have already posted numerous images that demonstrate how common this is on Earth. Take a good look at image #5 in post #182. The two pieces of rock were obviously one at some point in the distant past. Along the breaks are some flat sections at 90 degrees. At the top corner of the split, it appears to be a 90 degree corner but under the break you can see that the split changed directions off of the 90 degree. If we did not have the second upper piece we could easily assume that the back unseen side was also flat but we would be wrong. This is why I often cautioned that just seeing a part of the rock can tell you the whole story. I mentioned the second nodule that the split went right through. If the exposed, flat side of the nodule wasn't there we would wrongly assume that the nodule was completely round. Do you see what I am getting at? You need to see these rocks from all angles before you can make an extraordinary claim.
So you see, there is plenty of science for why these things are natural There is no science for them being artificial.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 193



PostPosted: July 27, 2017 10:58 PM 

Faceless/Lin,
Re:186. If I twisted your words I am sorry and I apologize. I am as frustrated with your posts as you probably are with mine. I thought that was what you meant by saying all organic molecules came from living things because of your Wretch Fossil posts about how god put trillions of people on billions of planets billions of years ago, moved them to Earth and then moved them off again (and I forget if it was trillions of people or trillions of years), which sounds like magic to me. So now I don't know what you mean. Pre-biotic organic molecules are the building blocks of life that by definition pre-date life. What are you trying to say?
BTW, are you still using Grotzinger's words out of content to mislead people into thinking he was talking about mechanical machines when in fact he was taking about mechanical weathering which is a geological term for natural processes? This type of misleading posts will always be considered as fake news.
Re: 187 Pareidolia. Look closely, the lines do not match up! Perhaps you are just seeing what you want to see.
Re 188:This is a dead story. The vast majority of scientists do not think anything of it because it is contaminated by the slag heap that also contains a lot of other trash and garbage thrown in that has become encrusted with slag and coal dust. As such, it has no scientific value.
Re 189: The proof that the columns are natural are well founded with mountains of evidence. The cake experiment shows that hexagonal patterns can happen in nature. BTW, you provide ZERO evidence that they are artificial, just made up stories. It is not my evidence you are blatantly ignoring and not answering to, it is the work of thousands of scientists. It appears to me that you can not refute the truth so you just ignore it. If you want to argue about this you might as well argue that the Earth is flat. This is at the point of just being ridiculous. Everything you have mentioned, including why the columns are not falling down faster due to gravity has been explored. Fantasy will never win over science.

Re 190; Here is the photo that you say shows no horizontal cracks (not exactly the right word) in Devils Tower, coming directly from your link to a screen shot:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/15622995074/in/photolist-qsRKYH-pNxW93:

Yeah, it is pretty easy to see the horizontal cracks. You chose this photo and this photo proves you wrong! If you cannot see the horizontal lines then this is evidence that you really see only what you want to see, and that would explain a lot.
Will you admit you made a mistake?
Some cracks are harder to see for a variety of reasons but they are all there and very time they are explored internally the same thing is found. You need to accept reality. Again, you offer zero evidence that these columns are artificial because your claim of poured cement ignores all the impossible to reproduce internal structures and the consistency of the cracks, not to mention why anyone would want to artificially make these things to begin with. You will never be able to beat real science so why don't you join in? I do not deny that you have a lot of skills.
Re:191: Very few Martian meteors have actually been found on Earth. How would you propose they got here if not by impact on Mars?

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 194



PostPosted: July 29, 2017 9:34 AM 

News story on the search for extinct alien civilizations:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 195



PostPosted: July 31, 2017 4:31 AM 

News article: Mars Missions Are a Scam
https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/mars-aint-never-gonna-happen?utm_term=.kkrzN883Zj#.wgA5zBB1Kg

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 196



PostPosted: August 1, 2017 5:12 AM 

Re 192, 193, nothing therein disproves my posts.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 197



PostPosted: August 2, 2017 5:37 AM 

Martian ooids that were formed with volcanic minerals:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 198



PostPosted: August 7, 2017 6:42 AM 

Six artificial plates found on Mt. Sharp:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 199



PostPosted: August 17, 2017 10:07 AM 

Four artifacts on Mars:
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 200



PostPosted: August 21, 2017 5:31 AM 

Curiosity rover's SAM instrument found carbonates in sand of Gobabe, Namib Dune:
http://kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/polar/presentations/Ehlmann2.pdf
(see page 21)

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys