Mars Rover finds water on Mars?

Share this page!

In Oct 2010, NASA claims to find water on Mars, or did they? Here’s the story: Discovery news (link). Notice the wording: Mar Rover Spirit finds “evidence” of water on Mars.

Next claim: Mars rover finds “puddles” on the planet’s surface (New Scientist Link). Then there is an update on the page that says: Update: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater. It takes readers from a blog to point out NASA’s mistake? Or maybe attempted deception? Why deception? Well there is about a trillion dollars involved in sending a manned space ship. That much money can corrupt most people.

No oceans, flowing streams, waterfalls? NASA is ready to commit to anything as evidence for water on mars, and here’s why:

They have already committed to oceans of water being on mars. Spent money to animate it, and they want to spend a trillion dollars to send a manned spaceship there. So there is a lot of grant money involved in selling the idea to the public and to the government. But selling is not proving. Anyone can animate an idea to sell the idea, but only finding evidence of what could have been on mars, is not proving what has been on mars.

Video

Video

Also, when you make claims better not forget the laws of physics. To sustain water a planet has to have certain conditions. Mars does not have this.

1) The right barometric pressures aka atmospheric pressures. Mars has 1/32 the pressure of earth. That means water boils at 50 degrees F. or less. And mars gets as high as 70 degrees.

2) Mars has to have the right molecules (H2O) on the air to make water. But mars atmosphere is 98% CO2. Which means there is only enough hydrogen in the atnosphere to make a pond of water not a ocean.

3) Water boiling means if there were evidence of water it would be in the atmosphere. 98% CO2 = no evidence, ZERO!

4) As far as life goes. There is no ozone layer so full rays of the sun would strike the surface. UV rays not being filtered at all would sterilize the planet. And that’s what we see since there has been no soil microbes found anywhere on the planet.

5) What about the ice? A atmosphere that has 98% CO2, and if it gets cold enough at the poles and it does. Will freeze CO2 in mid air and it will fall to the ground like snow and look like H2O ice when it’s not.

6) What NASA fails to tell people because they are trying to sell life on other planets. And that planets can have 2 different types of ice. H2O and CO2 ice. The ice you see on mars is 100% CO2, and that’s provable by the atmosphere having 98% CO2 and not enough hydrogen to even mention. Google it if you do not believe me.

NASA Lies.

CO2 aka Dry ice, looks just like regular ice.

So what would be more feasible type ice on mars with a 98% CO2 atmosphere?

1) H2O ice?
2) CO2 ice?

If you choose #1, I have to ask: Where did the 2 parts hydrogen come from to make enough water to create oceans of water when there is only a trace of hydrogen?

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments