Mars Mystery Solved!-says Fox News

Mars Mystery Solved!-says Fox News

www.foxnews.com

Rocks on Mars are in some areas scattered in a strangely uniform fashion, puzzling scientists for years. Now they've figured it out.

Researchers had thought the rocks were picked up and carried downwind by extreme high-speed winds thought to occur on Mars in the past.

Although Mars is a windy planet, its atmosphere is very thin, so it would be difficult for the wind to carry the small rocks, which range in size from a quarter to a softball, said Jon Pelletier, a geoscientist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Pelletier and his colleagues now think the rocks are constantly on the move, rolling into the wind, not away from it, and creating a natural feedback system that results in their tidy arrangement.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This actually struck me as somewhat funny. On the foxnews.com main page there is a picture of mars with the headline in front of it saying "Mars Mystery Solved!" and it turns out to be some odd story about rocks rolling against the wind constantly on the move.

The odd thing is that they are trying to explain why the rocks appear to be laid out uniformly with a terrible, terrible story of rocks that are "constantly on the move".

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by GreyFoxSolid


yeh, they're also got the rock formation that looks like a person, Sounds like the rover is picking up stuff that they need to debunk before anyone asks questions. Fact that its come from Ruberts mob means that its some form of propaganda and this in itself should inspire us to look into the rover images to dig up whatever they are covering up with thick layers of red Martian dust.

I am definitely more inclined to think that this is a lie. A blatant one. One that says that rocks are continuously mysteriously rolling against the wind, being pushed into a uniform pattern.

Come on!

This is part of the disinfo drip that goes along with the real info drip.

"Would you like sugar in that coffee and a touch of salt too?"



Cheers!!!!

FOX News should stick to the frothing vomit they typically spew instead of trying to sound like an intelligent and respectable news source. Surely there's a celebrity that left the house without underwear that they could talk about.

The article is written in a very condescending way like every person who reads their poor excuse for a media outlet web site is a complete moron.

The wind creates mounds and the rocks roll down. Great. We get it. Any one who attended elementary school and maintained at least a D- average in science class understands the physics.


[edit on 1/15/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Come on now you have all seen rocks get up and move on their own. sheesh o thought everyone knew that rocks had legs!

MessOnTheFED!

Rocks rolling against the wind, when the wind itself isn't strong enough to blow rocks in the correct direction? Hmmmm, let me get my head around that...

Oh, I see! It's like saying "The more I eat, the thinner I get"

It appears the swamp gas crew just got themselves new jobs!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


It actually is a very reasonable, simple (and cool) theory. The wind itself doesn't cause the motion.

Sand is blown away from the windward side of the rocks, causing them to roll upwind into the hole created. The same process happens on Earth. The patterns are caused by the wind being redirected by groupings of rocks.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I see where you're coming from Phage - fair call my man!

I stand corrected!

IRM

Does that also explain the rock movement along the flat desert basins in Death Valley and other locations where there is nothing but solid dry ground?


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Just wondering after a quick think....

If the wind blows a hole in front of the rock that is deeper, thus allowing the rock to roll back into it, would the wind have to keep blowing an increasingly deeper hold for the process to continue?

As I see it in my head, when the rock rolls back, it is now at a lower elevation relative to the surface than before, therefore the next hole has to be an even deeper hole, relative to the surface and/or the bottom of the rock, for the process to continue.

Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't that put a limitation on how long the process can continue, or would it eventually cover the rock?

LOL!

IRM

[edit on 15/1/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by InfaRedMan


It would also have to depend on the depth of the "sand" too. Eventually that rock, as it gets deeper and deeper, is going to "hit bottom"..a solid bottom.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by InfaRedMan


I don't think the theory requires that it be a continual process. The rocks could move a certain distance then stop. It still accounts for the formation of the "patterns".

It would be nice to have access to the original paper but here's an article with a little more depth than fox.
www.astronomynow.com...


[edit on 1/15/2009 by Phage]

Interesting and stupefying nonetheless in their presentation.

Ah well.