Origin of Life on Mars? - Page 9

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Author Message
Lin Liangtai


Posts: xxx

Reply: 161



PostPosted: July 3, 2017 7:36 AM 

I was banned from this thread.
Falsified are numerous mars rocks:
[link]

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 162



PostPosted: July 3, 2017 11:54 AM 

Lin,
You have not been banned by anyone.
The Planetary conference you refer to gave very good and rational explanation for why these rocks are NOT artificial. They said if "all you have is basaltic rocks to work with, your sedimentary rocks are going to look more like basaltic rocks." Very early Earth was much like that.
When Ezat Heydari pointed out that almost all of the rocks are "broken-up basalt, and a finer-grained material that looks like the ash you'd get from erosive eruptions of very iron-and magnesium-rich komatiites," he was explaining how this happened naturally on Mars. (volcanic material can be found in sand and mudstone, it even happens on Earth).
Allan Treiman also explained why these rocks are NOT artificial
when he said that Mars turned the basaltic lava rocks into sediment with out the use of water, that Mars broke basalt into grains through "mechanical rather than chemical weathering," which is a completely natural process (ice thaw and expansion, glacial ice abrasion, pressure against other rocks). He then explains that that what ever water-related experience moved those sediments into Gale must have happened quite fast, with water going away very quickly."
These ideas are consistent with other evidence that after the lake period there were also a number of other detritus flows into Gale that brought a lot of new material into the basin, including various kinds of volcanic material. The ultra dry environment after the lake period fully explains why the basalt is still there and also explains the abundance of basinite in the area.
So, Lin, the science is moving forward and still has a lot of work to do, but there is actually no evidence that any of these rocks are artificial.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 163



PostPosted: July 4, 2017 12:42 AM 

Re 157,
1. the femur bone is fossilized. See Fig. 2-2-4 in the research article.
2. The word cracks is used in Wikipedia article on columnar basalt.
3. Devil's Tower and Devil's post pile have no horizontal cracks.
4. "Columnar basalt" is mostly concrete piles. They were not constructed in the way you mentioned. Many piles are there without support for thousands of years. Gravity is there every minute.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 164



PostPosted: July 4, 2017 11:52 AM 

Faceless,
You were gone for a while so I guess you missed that all four of your points have already been debunked. Here is a review:
1. The possible femur bone has not been separately carbon dated. It was found in a coal slag trash heap where coal as (highly cementive material), coal slag (highly cementive material), coal dust (highly cementive material), and coal gravel and particles from the mines have been dumped. This material has been known to lithify and encrust itself on all kinds of other objects that are found in these dumps in a very short time (decades). So the coal it may be imbedded in is old, but not necessarily the bone. Also, Conrad cannot name the mine of origin where the coal came from. The evidence does not even come close to accepted scientific standards and that is why the mainstream science community does not accept Conrad's work. Please do not respond with a conspiracy theory!

2. Yes "cracks" was the word Wikipedia used but that does not accurately describe the separation between the basalt columns. It is true that as time goes on, freeze/thaw cycles of any moisture that may get in will can loosen the columns and lead to quicker erosion. Go read some science articles t get better wording. There have been some hanging columns that re loose enough to wiggle by hand with out them falling apart. The internal horizontal layers are part of the contrails process of cooling basalt columns. As time goes by, they become weak points in hanging columns so of course that is a likely break area.

3. Devils Tower certainly does have the horizontal lines as all basalt columns do. You can actually see them if you look at the picture:


Notice how some of the bottom column breaks are flat and horizontal. Notice the horizontal lines above the bottoms of many of the other columns.

4. You say the columns are mostly concrete piles but you are just making that up and you are ignoring all the established science concerning these structures. That takes a lot of cognitive dissonance. The complex internal structures of these columns cannot by explained by during concrete.

BTW, right angles and flat surfaces are very common in nature as has already been shown in these blogs. Wretch Fossil continues to put out fake news, re-edits its posts to hide its most ridiculous statements, continues to post statements with out actual evidence (zero proof that the basalt columns are artificial), continues to post statements that are misleading or out of context (side walks, mechanical), and continues to post statements that have been proven to be factually wrong (#4), just to push its supernatural religious belief system.

Just once I would like to see Wretch Fossil admit they were wrong about something!

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 165



PostPosted: July 5, 2017 12:12 PM 

The British Guardian newspaper reports on July 4, 2017:
Why Roman concrete still stands strong while modern version decays
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/04/why-roman-concrete-still-stands-strong-while-modern-version-decays
Scientists are still trying to find the exact recipe for Roman concrete. The video in the report is quite nice.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 166



PostPosted: July 6, 2017 5:36 AM 

Ancient concrete is better than modern concrete. Modern human beings use Portland cement in underwater concrete. However, ancient concrete listed below is better than modern underwater concrete:
1. Roman concrete (note 1)
2. Concrete in the pyramids of Egypt (note 2)
3. Concrete in "basalt columns" (note 3)
4. Concrete on Mars (note 4)

Note 1: see https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/04/why-roman-concrete-still-stands-strong-while-modern-version-decays
Note 2: see https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/
Note 3: see [link] ?q=basalt+column
Note 4: see [link] ?q=concrete+on+mars

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 167



PostPosted: July 6, 2017 11:59 PM 

Faceless,
Nice try but you cannot undo real science.
1. Yes Roman cement is great. and internal mineralization can make it stronger. But molding cement basalt and creating the circular internal structures that extend vertically through several layers of the column is not possible. There is zero proof of artificial cement on Mars.
2. It is possible that some cementing was done by the builders of the pyramids but that has nothing to do with anything on Mars. Real scientists are working out the material c=science behind the findings of the Curiosity Rover.
3. You are really beating a dead horse here. First of all I checked you link to see what you were writing about and was appalled by the amount of fake news. You/Lin twisted the words or Dr. Grotzinger's comments in a previous post but now you are doing it are once again using the name of a prominent and reputable scientist, Allen Treiman, and twisting his word out of context to mean something different than what he said. I know you that know he was not talking about machines when he referred to mechanical weathering, because you deleted the word from the original headline. But you underlined the quote as an edit to the original text in a way that sure looks like an attempt intentionally mislead readers into thinking he was referring to machine mechanics an not natural mechanics. Nobody in that Planetary Society meeting in any way suggested that anything was artificial, in fact they gave examples of how the issues can be resolved that were consistent with other known geological events on Mars and inGale crater. You know, the basalt rocks did not enter the crater bed until after the lake period, the stream, we discussed could only happen after the lake period, very shallow, ankle deep in some areas so it may have only been active for very short time (decades?). There is evidence of Tsunami activity in some places on Mars, the team suggested something like very short duration water based detritus flow.
But getting back to #3, as I have pointed out in previous posts, you/Lin apparently have no idea how exhaustive the research and science is on basalt columns. You put out fake news on Wretch Fossil that nature cannot make flat bottoms and flat sides to rocks as if you had never seen sedimentary layers found all over Earth. We have posted examples of flat naturally forming surfaces in ad nauseam. You could probably look out your window and see a flat surface on your front lawn. At this point I have to think about your motives for continuing to post this nonsense .
The corn starch experiment can be done in your own home to show how cooling masses can self form into hexagonal shapes. Of course your example shown is not perfectly straight flat vertical sides in the corn starch columns because it is actually just a CAKE! What do you expect a cake to look like when you open it up? You offer a picture of columnar striations where they do not match up from one side to another but you did not look up the reason why. The picture was not a random photo, it was taken to make a scientific point that you missed completely:

Not all columns are alike, some, especially those further away from the center of the volcanic pool they formed in will not come out hexagonal and may have melt deformities depending not the temperature and pressures of its neighbors. Notice how the lip at #5 hangs over on one side. This is a good example because as the lip erodes it becomes harder to determine what actually happened. There are lots and lots of variations to columnar basalt and I am not going to write books about it for you. But seriously, if you think these are artificial you may as well think the word is flat.

I am not trying to be derogatory when I say that Wretch fossil is fake news but it does meet several standards for this. The biggest one is methodology. You describe physical conditions and then instead of looking for the natural science behind it you just announce it is proof aliens did it or it is artificial. This is not science, but it is the very essence of fake news. Then there is the circular reasoning where one not true statement is used to prove another not true statement.
Also there is the plausibility issue. Faceless, you claim that humans lived on earth 300 million years ago, in complete defiance of our well established fossil record. Iceland did not rise above sea level until 60 million years ago so the columns there are all younger. That would mean for at least 240 million years an advanced human society lived on Earth yet there is no trace of tools, living quarters, high-tech machinery? No evidence in sedimentary layers over the course of all those millions of years of an earlier Anthropocene? Its just not plausible. It would be like a criminal saying that you can't prove the gun with his finger prints on it that was found in the bushes in front of his house was really his because you can't prove that there is not someone else with the exact same fingerprints. Yeah, can't prove it but still going to jail.
Are you going to delete the line where Treiman explains how the basalt rocks broke up naturally?

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 168



PostPosted: July 7, 2017 5:21 AM 

Re 167, no scientists said Martian machines broke basalt into basaltic grains. But it was broken by Martian machines or manufactured by Martians. The Martian "mudstone or sandstone" was made of particles smaller than 2 mm across. Those small particles have to be cemented in order to become large rocks. Without machines, nature alone cannot do all that quite fast, with the water going away very quickly.
I don't know where I misquoted or misinterpreted the source article.

John Radogno


Posts: 37

Reply: 169



PostPosted: July 7, 2017 10:45 AM 

But there is zero evidence they were broken by martian machines (and why anyway?) But it is consistant with natural break up the way Treiman said at the meeting. What Treiman said is also consistant with conditions we know happen on Mars so there is a solid basis for his statement. To say that martian machines did it is just making something up. There are no conditions on Mars that we know of that would allow that to happen.
Where Treiman used the word "mechanical," it it clear you intupreted the word to mean by machines rather than by mechanical weathering as he meant. Why else would you underline a phrase that proves your artificial idea is wrong! Be honest.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 170



PostPosted: July 7, 2017 11:55 AM 

Faceless,
There is a reason why this is important. Because the context of your use of Treiman's words are in a Wretch Fossil Post claiming everything on Mars is artificial, underlining Treiman's comments could easily be misunderstood by casual, naive visitors who are not familiar with the language of geologists, to think Treiman, a reputable NASA scientist, is proposing the use of machines for breaking up the rocks, giving legitimacy to your argument. This misuse of Treiman's name to promote something he does not support is disrespectful to him but it is also a classic example of how fake news works, where something that is real gets twisted out of context to mean something it is not.

It is pretty clear that you don't want to know what nature can and cannot do to make such a blanket statement as you did in #168. Just because the science is not yet complete does not mean it is not there and it certainly does not mean that made up, artificial solution is the answer. When confronted with a scientific challenge it is better to take the advice of Galileo and just say I don't know. If there is anything on Mars that is artificial, science will find it. But what you have proposed so far just isn't science.
The real science of Mars is being discovered right before our eyes. Little by little the dots to Martian history are being connected. It is fun and exciting to follow along on this ride. Most of the scientists involved are very interested in finding extraterrestrial life and are searching for any proof that can be found. Why would you want to mis-direct people away from this great adventure?

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 171



PostPosted: July 10, 2017 3:18 AM 

Plentiful ooids in latest image of sand ripple
https://www.facebook.com/marscuriosityimages/photos/a.584691531546000.149854.584605114887975/1806382789376862/?type=3&theater

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 172



PostPosted: July 10, 2017 3:50 AM 

Allan Treiman did not recognize ooids or blood vessel remains in Martian meteorite ALH84001:
[link]
[link]

David McKay did not recognize ooids or collagen fibril in ALH84001:
[link]
[link] ?q=fibril+in+alh84001
David McKay curated moon rocks but did not recognize the "Moon Rocks" are fakes.

Darwin


Posts: xxx

Reply: 173



PostPosted: July 11, 2017 8:44 AM 

The power of the mind to make what it wants to see can be argued only in time.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 174



PostPosted: July 11, 2017 9:15 AM 

faceless,
I see you're going full monty with the conspiracy theories and fake moon landing stuff. So much for real science!
I will trust Treiman and Mckay to know what they are doing. it is possible that there are Martian oids in ALH84001 but the samples a are not enough to legitimately identify, and these scientists are professionals. There are no known conditions on Mars from the era this rock came from that had enough time to support the evolution of complex macro-biotic life that would include blood veins. So it is just not plausible.

Also, we have absolute proof that you cannot accurately identify fossilized blood cells!

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 175



PostPosted: July 12, 2017 11:13 AM 

No scientists recognized numerous neuron remains in Martian meteorites:
[link] ?q=neuron+in+alh84001
Sample return from Mars is unnecessary and useless in view of such findings.

John Radogno


Posts: xxx

Reply: 176



PostPosted: July 12, 2017 5:27 PM 

Faceless,
Have you considered that no scientists recognized neuron remains in the meteorites because they are not there. Once again you are making claims with zero proof. It is kind of crazy for one thing, to think you can find fossilized blood cell, veins, and neurons that are not in the context of an animal.

A simple visual comparison is not even close to being adequate to make the claims you are making. You should know how unreliable visual comparisons are from your own experience. Remember on your Wretch Fossil link, on April 1st, when when you claimed that dust trails from a sliding pebble on the Curiosity deck "looked like blood vessels" (since deleted but the green arrow is still there):

Nobody else would think the dust trails looked like blood vessels so what do you know? And then there was the claims you made last August when you were completely lost in an inverted Knockers Cube illusion and insisted that bright sun-lit sides of depressions in the rock (small micro-channels), and scratches made by the Curiosity brushes, were blood veins, blood cells, and collagen.

Do you seriously think any scientists would call these brush scratches, which look the same as many other brush scratches by Curiosity, which is found on a rock in the exact place that the Curiosity team said they were brushing the surface of, anything other than what they are, brush scratches?

I am sorry but there is no credibility to your claims. They are based only on what you want to see. The scientists are not missing anything.

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 177



PostPosted: July 13, 2017 4:33 AM 

Thousands of journal articles were rendered useless by these posts:
[link]
[link]

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 178



PostPosted: July 19, 2017 10:52 AM 

Found on Mars are numerous organics, microbes, fossils, artifacts and concrete blocks:
1. Organics found all over Mars:
[link]
2. Numerous microbes in the past:
[link]
3. Numerous fossils on Mars:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/search?q=fossil+on+mars
4. Numerous artifacts on Mars:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/search?q=artifact+on+mars
5. Numerous concrete blocks on Mars:
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.tw/search?q=Numerous+concrete+blocks+on+Mars

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 179



PostPosted: July 20, 2017 5:43 AM 

Re 178, links are not good for points 3, 4, and 5. Listed below are hopefully better links:
3. Neuron remains on Mars: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=12527956%40N07&sort=date-taken-desc&text=neuron%20on%20mars&view_all=1
4. Artifacts on Mars: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=12527956%40N07&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=artifacts%20on%20mars
5. Concrete blocks on Mars: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=12527956%40N07&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=concrete%20blocks%20on%20mars

Faceless


Posts: 24

Reply: 180



PostPosted: July 21, 2017 7:30 AM 

In reply to American Congressman's question to NASA about whether there was civilization on Mars, the following post answers the question:
[link]
The Most Obvious Artifact Ever Found on Mars

In the red circle is the most obvious artifact ever found on Mars. Mars rover Curiosity imaged it on Nov. 27, 2014 (Sol 821) at Pahrump Hills, Gale Crater, Mars. This artifact was not first discovered by me. Image source:
mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0821MR00361700805...
Location: www.flickr.com/photos/fossil_lin/15301378803/in/dateposte

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


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