NASA Comedy For The Day

ScreenHunter_3299 Sep. 28 17.29

About once every ten years, NASA comes up with a fake story about life on Mars. This helps keep funding coming in for their climate scam.

Check out the comedy below :

Martian salt streaks ‘painted by liquid water’
By Jonathan Amos
BBC Science Correspondent
28 September 2015

MRO has an instrument called Crism that can determine the chemistry of surface materials.

It has looked at four locations where dark streaks are seen to come and go during Martian summer months. These streaks, called “recurring slope lineae” (RSL), were well known to Mars scientists and were suspected – but not proven – to be associated with trickling water.

“We know from prior investigations that these features form on Mars,” Mr Ohja told journalists at the briefing.

“However, the key evidence was missing until now – and that was their chemical identity.”

Alfred McEwen, a senior member of the orbiter team and a professor of planetary geology at the University of Arizona, agreed: “We had no direct detection of water; that was just our best guess as to what these were.”

Now, Crism has demonstrated that the RSLs are covered with salts.

There are implications for the existence of life on the planet today, because any liquid water raises the possibility that microbes could also be present. And for future astronauts on Mars, the identification of water supplies near the surface would make it easier for them to “live off the land”.

But the observation over the past 15 years of gullies and surface streaks that appear to change with the seasons has heightened the speculation.

Martian salt streaks ‘painted by liquid water’ – BBC News

In other words, they didn’t find any water on Mars. They found salt on Mars. If there is water there, why didn’t CRISM detect water?

Suppose for a minute that they did actually find brines which were so concentrated as to keep the water from freezing at -40C, and keep them from boiling away at 10 mb atmospheric pressure. Concentrated brines like that would not be conducive to life.

Scientists have been imagining that they see water on Mars for centuries

ScreenHunter_3311 Sep. 28 22.33

TimesMachine: August 17, 1924 –

By 1950, most Martian deniers had given up their denial and joined the consensus.


TimesMachine: SCIENCE IN REVIEW; Some New Answers to the Old Riddles of Mars Are Presented to the Astronomers –

What is clear, is that Martians are a lot smarter than government scientists.


MARTIANS BUILD TWO IMMENSE CANALS IN TWO YEARS – Vast Engineering Works Accomplished in an Incredibly Short Time by Our Planetary Neighbors -Wonders of the September Sky. – View Article –

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to NASA Comedy For The Day

  1. Definitely lichens. Because all know lichens spores are able to reach Earth’s escape velocity and survive in space in Earth’s orbit for millions of years while being blown to Mars.

  2. omanuel says:

    Sometimes Mother Nature plays a real dirty trick on NASA “scientists.”

    I remember attending Lunar Science Conferences after just Wolszczan and Frail reported the FIRST PLANETS OBSERVED beyond the solar system – three rocky, Earth-like planets, lying in a common plane and orbiting a pulsar, as solar planets lie in a common plane and orbit the Sun.

    A well-known Harvard astrophysicist – who had earlier told the audience at the 1976 AGU National Meeting the core of the Sun could not be a pulsar – “forgot” Wolszczan and Frail’s discovery when reporting when he thought to be the first extra-solar planets.

  3. Like many big government organisations, NASA’s main goal now appears to be to get more and more funding for NASA.

    And the bargain it tries to make with politicians is this “what we [NASA] do is [supposedly] sexy so either you support us and some of the appeal rubs off … or we’ll start the attack dogs in the environmental movement we control calling you things like “Moon landing conspiracy theorist”.

    And it seems that for the last few decades NASA have got away with these bully boy tactics and few if any politicians were willing to stand up to the fund-devouring monster.

    • Sorry – forgot to add the fact that has grown more and more obvious to me, that NASA uses its access to masses and masses of “space” footage and computer models to push space at Holywood.

      So, NASA is constantly “helping” Holywood produce acres and acres of “isn’t space exciting” films in order to encourage politicians to bung more and more money at NASA.

      So NASA doesn’t really care about the “Global warming racket” because, it’s just one of many ways it uses to attack those who would reduce its funding and to try to promote the political careers of those who would support its funding.

      • omanuel says:

        You are right. Flattery inflated the egos of scientists after WWII

        1. Nuclear scientists during the Nuclear Age
        2. Space scientists during the Space Age
        3. Climatologists in the Closing Stage

      • DD More says:

        Funny you should mention ‘Holywood’. Yahoo news?
        It would be a bit hard to imagine the space agency sitting on major Mars news in order for it to collide with a Hollywood movie.

        After all, it took “multiple spacecraft over several years to solve this mystery,” Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA Mars Exploration program, said at Monday’s press conference in Washington.

        But in a Yahoo Movies chat with film’s cast and director earlier this month, Scott said NASA was “very helpful” in the making of “The Martian.”

        “They loved the adaptation of the screenplay,” Scott said. “They thought it was fun and mostly accurate. When I showed them the film, 40 guys saw it in Washington from NASA, and one muttered, ‘Maybe this will help us with reprogramming and the refinancing [of the U.S. space program].’ I mean, he was partly joking, but that was very nice.”

        Emphasis on partly.

  4. cfgjd says:

    Perhaps you should start teaching “conservative science” together with cre(a)tinism in US schools?


    • AndyG55 says:

      Above primary school education grade.

      You will miss out !

    • Conservative science? Why would anybody want to conserve science, when we can change it into politics? Conserve F – ma? Conserve Planck’s Law? Think how groovy and hip it would be to be progressive with science, so we can use it to redistribute wealth to poor countries, for the cause.

    • Gail Combs says:

      What cfgjd is trying to say is “should Steve (and the rest of us) start teaching “normal science” instead of “Post-Normal* Science” aka Modern Lysenkoism.

      Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for contemporary conditions. The typical case is when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. In such circumstances, we have an inversion of the traditional distinction between hard, objective scientific facts, and soft subjective values. Now we have value-driven policy decisions that are ‘hard’ in various ways, for which the scientific inputs are irremediably ‘soft’….

      Wikipedia continues.

      This is why there must be an ‘extended peer community’ consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. They bring their ‘extended facts’, that will include local knowledge and materials not originally intended for publication such as leaked official information. There is a political case for this extension of the franchise of science; but Funtowicz and Ravetz also argue that this extension is necessary for assuring the quality of the process and of the product. In recent years the principles and practices of Post-Normal Science have been widely adopted under the title ‘participation’…

      [Can you say NGOs controled by the moneys from elite foundations?]

      • Andy DC says:

        Misread it as “NGO’s controled by the monkeys from elite foundations?” How that I think about it, that could actually be a better way of stating it!

        • Gail Combs says:

          I do not think they make it up to the intelligence of monkeys. Monkeys have a sense of self preservation. The Useful Idiots do not.

    • gator69 says:

      The survey was not of “scientists”, but of AAAS members.

      Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

      AAAS is a far left organization, as can be witnessed on their “About” page…

      Real conservative scientists would not be members of AAAS, so the poll is garbage.

  5. bleakhouses says:

    What bothers me the most is the volume of useful idiots not simply parroting the NASA report but amplifying it. Im sorry but NASA has not discovered water on Mars. There are no water samples nor are there images of a flowing liquid of any type; there is a theory based upon observation. Its still just a theory, it may be sound, but it remains unproven.

  6. Ted says:

    From what I’ve seen so far, they don’t have even the slightest shred of evidence beyond what they had 15 years ago. These streaks have been discussed publicly for at least that long, and highly saline water has always been a leading theory.

    For a while, they tried to claim it was small tornados uncovering darker material under the light surface dust, but no one ever bought that BS. Tornados don’t appear part way down sheer cliffs, and travel the same path fluid would follow.

    While I believe this theory is likely true, it’s STILL just a theory. Nothing has changed, and no experiments can possibly have been done, since we still haven’t been there. This announcement is as timely and informative as if Ken Starr released a report today, telling us Bill Clinton really did “have sexual relations with that woman.” The timing of this could only have been for political or fundraising purposes, because there simply hasn’t been any new science on it in years. The media circus around this 20th century observation says some very sad things about the current state of scientific knowledge in this country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *