Scientists Just Found Oceans of Liquid Water on Mars

originally posted by: matafuchs
Very cool.

There used to be polar caps and green 'rivers' in old pictures. I was taught they melted every year and would create the 'canyons' we were seeing. This was late 70's. It was speculated you were seeing growth each season.

Is this another Mandela Effect taken away?

Mars has polar caps, mostly made from CO2 ice and some water ice trapped below it, but no rivers or any surface water.

The growth we see in some areas near the south pole (if I'm not mistaken) that were called by some "banian trees" are probably CO2 ice evaporating and releasing darker sand that was below it.

originally posted by: 5thHead
Well that's what they say but clouds are water. Not a gas form but a liquid form.

Wrong. Even on Earth we have clouds of ice crystals.

At the very least they should say liquid water on the surface won't last very long before sublimating, but instead they just tell you it's not possible at all.

If the water turns into vapour instantly it means it's not possible to be in liquid state, as it goes directly from ice to vapour.

a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: 5thHead
Oh come on now. We all know it's water.

There's no way of knowing what it is with the data we have today.

Some people may speculate that it is water, but it's just speculation.

Initially they tried to say it was rocks rolling down a hill. Until it was pointed out that that was not possible because there are no rocks at the bottom of the streaks among other things.

I don't remember anyone saying it was rocks, and it wouldn't make any sense.

Have you ever gotten a paper towel wet? Then you know that water wouldn't just run down in a thin line. It would fan out at the source as it's absorbed into the sand. Just like we see in the craters.

We are not talking about paper towels, that are made of crossed fibres, we are talking about slopes covered in dust.

Main stream science even said it was water until the powers that be found other "scientists" to spit ball any idea other than water.

I remember references to brine, as normal water would evaporate instantly, but I don't remember any mainstream science source saying it was water.

Sort of like they came out and said that Martin meteor had fossils of organisms in it then tried to say it didn't. ...it does.

My problem with the meteors is how can be sure that they came from planet X or Y? Just because it's similar would not enough for me.

Or how bout the article in the OP where it's mentioned that no signs of life have ever been found on mars. Yet the Viking landers data said otherwise. ...so they had to come up with excuses to sweep that under the rug.

The supposed signs of life are dubious, chemical reactions may happen in more than one way.

One problem with all the "finding life" methods is that we may be looking at it and not recognising it as life.

a reply to: ArMaP

It's water

The meteor is from mars. They've always said it was Martian. Never heard otherwise

When the Viking experiments came back positive they said well maybe we are idiots. Uh maybe we designed the experiment to dump rocket fuel all over itself and somehow that created life. LOL

🙂

a reply to: 5thHead

I remember that GIF, it's one of those in which the flow marks get wider at the end.

If I'm not mistaken there was at least a few photos from a specific crater in which the flows got thinner at the end, but I don't remember the photo's IDs, I have to see if I can find them.

originally posted by: 5thHead
It's water

That's your opinion, mine is that we do not really know.

The meteor is from mars. They've always said it was Martian. Never heard otherwise

I know that's what they say, what I meant was that I don't think they should act so sure.

a reply to: ArMaP

It does seem like a stretch to say they know for sure ithe meteor is from mars. How could they KNOW that ? But that's what they say.

Thinking about mud tracks.
On the moon the conspiracy people would say it had to be faked because of the regolith was dry then the Apollo astronauts wouldn't be able to leave clear boot prints like that.

But later the samples brought back from the moon were discovered to have water in it. They quickly brushed it aside as contamination.

But now we are discovering that there is water all over the lunar surface. Not just at the poles. Some scientists even speculate that water is produced continually through an electrical storm that moves with the Terminator. (Where shadow meets light)

Now main stream science is wondering if the water found in the samples from the moon was really from the moon. So maybe there is water in the regolith that Buzz left his boot print in.


And maybe sometimes when it looks like the rover on mars rolled through mud it's because it may have. How would NASA even know ?

Also. Here on earth the dry dusty ground has a pale look to it. If you kick the dirt you will expose a darker more richly colored soil. It is darker because of the moisture in the ground. Same on mars


On Mars there is water in the ground. It's not hard to get to and it's pretty much all over the place.

"Get your @ss to Mars" - Quaid

a reply to: 5thHead

Have you ever worked with cement powder? It behaves exactly like the Moon's regolith or the Martian dust.

a reply to: ArMaP

No. But I I know you can make good impressions with dry baby powder. That use to be my response to people saying the footprints on the moon couldn't be real. They would argue that even a dry powder here on earth would still have some water in it.

a reply to: 5thHead

It's not moisture that makes the dust act that way, it's the size and shape of the particles and the fact that they are dry.

Cement powder is made to react to water, initiating chemical reactions that turn it into hard cement, that's why cement powder needs to be stored away from moisture.