Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :They have been stripped of their context and legends, so you can expect a lot of people to just skip over them. ...like I did. I think NASA is not terraforming Mars, just look at their budget. Edit: Oops, I didn't see the second page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArchAngel432 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 There are many different translations of this, and I chose that specific one for the reasons you point out considering the many connotations of those words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArchAngel432 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Do you believe NASA would hide data from other satellites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 So, the solar wind jumps. I see. Your point here would be what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 It would be nice if you explained that graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArchAngel432 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 It would be nice if you explained that graph. This should explain it The point is it seems as if data has been cut out at a specific point. What if data were missing from other satellites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Maybe they lost sattelite tracking! Radio contact! Whatever, but if a lot of them had the same problem, I would be hearing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Solar Flare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 That's what the images are showing, solar flair in June 2000. Apparently we must link the measurement of a solar flare to the loss of data from unrelated satellites. So, um, good luck with that. You see it 'cuts out' before the flair occurs and kicks in when it starts, which presumably we assume is because of lost data and not because the solar flair had not begun. I think that is the basis of the theory, it's not too clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArchAngel432 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I think that is the basis of the theory, it's not too clear. It is almost all the data available. That there was a large solar flare, and CME makes it difficult to see exactly what else happened if there were anything. There is little chance to see much more considering that the sun stood between Earth an Mars at the time. We would have to trust that NASA is not hiding, or modifying data, and that what is available is 'normal'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 NASA doesn't own all the sattelites, you know. How could they alone cover all it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 If they were going to cover something up, they'd hardly put damning evidence on their web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 and solar activity peaks every 11 years (roughly) year 2000 was one such year also gathering the little bits I can of the textual info, there seems nothing at all to suport the idea of "Nukes" or otherwise in use, as for nostodamus refs, I`m just a little more convinced this should spend some time in the Pseudoscince ward for a little Ehem "Therapy" )) no seriously, your graphs and pictures look pretty, I`m just kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraSense Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 Terraforming Mars would be a Galaxy crime. It would wipe out all the present life on Mars! And possibly present Civilization of Mars! Take it from the Mars Lamb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 You're just begging to be confined to the pseudoscience forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Why does this forum attract all of the ****ing psycos ? arent there other forums where they can argue amongst themselves about their stupid conspiracy theories ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraSense Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Some call other people's thoughts "conspiracy theories", and own profanity a scientific approach. Most often, these are the ones who are not able to contribute to the discussion in a meaninful way. Nothing new there. ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Some call other people's thoughts "conspiracy theories"' date=' and own profanity a scientific approach. Most often, these are the ones who are not able to contribute to the discussion in a meaninful way. Nothing new there. ES[/quote'] ya, you being the prime example. unlike everybody else on this site, you have provided no background or educational info on yourself. while 'these other's you speak have far more scientific knowledge and not just using a bunch of 'scientific words' or making 'edumaticated guesses' about things. in responce to graphs provided by ArchAngel432 It would be nice if you explained that graph. uhm, he can't that's why he told you to go and dig out the info for yourself. also, i don't know about (all) the rules on this forums, but on all the previous ones i've been on, Reviving an Old thread was a No No, unless something drastically happened, enough to warrant such a reincarnation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 also' date=' i don't know about (all) the rules on this forums, but on all the previous ones i've been on, Reviving an Old thread was a No No, unless something drastically happened, enough to warrant such a reincarnation [/quote'] good point I see nothing worth resurrecting this thread for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts