Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dark_Convoy, Jun 13, 2007.
Ah man, I was gonna splash in them mofos too.
I love that panoramic scene of Mars. It feels larger than life, and quite probably closer to me than I'll ever be to it in my lifespan.
And you know somewhere someone has pinned this to global warming.
That same person blames it on Manbearpig.
Good, they're covering it up.
For those of you who don't work in the government, there aren't any puddles on Mars.
...and they're all weather balloons. Go home.
Looking at the pictures in the article, how the hell did the “water” end up blue in the close up when in the wide shot it’s darker brown then the rock around it?
No, you're thinking of the Mars face. These "puddles" are just bubbles of swamp gas. From the swamps on Mars that don't exist.
Color correction is a tricky thing to get right, and the guy who did the "blue" close-up is notorious for insisting that Mars is more grey than ochre, with a near-blue sky, and that everyone else is doing the color correction wrong.
He's most likely not right about that.
And this is good. Lame would have been New Scientist continuing to trumpet the "water on Mars" line when even untrained but interested amateurs were writing them and saying, "No, you've got it wrong, water doesn't sit flat on a steep hill like that."
So what is it? It looks like it could be mud of some sort.
I think it was like D_C was saying in the other thread - fine dust or sand. It doesn't say in the retraction, though.
stupid dry non-life bearing planet.
It is from the Decepticons leaking oil after landing on Mars before Earth. Just read the movie prequel novel to see what I mean! It's oil!
Actually, it looks more like some form of liquid metal, like mercury, then anything else to me.
It's so weird how the surface of Mars doesn't look as alien as it really is.
Its a pity these researchers don't do a little more research into where they're looking before jumping to conclusions over what they're looking at huh?
The conclusion-jumper was one researcher, already known for having mildly crackpot ideas about Mars (albeit not Richard Hoagland-level crackpottery). The magazine is as much to blame for running the story without adequate fact-checking, although it's to their credit that they've issued a retraction.
Separate names with a comma.