Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Your menu is empty or not selected! How to config a menu

Mars Rover finds water on Mars?

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.

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?