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.

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.

 

Do you believe NASA would hide data from other satellites?

So, the solar wind jumps. I see. Your point here would be what?

It would be nice if you explained that graph.

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?

Maybe they lost sattelite tracking! Radio contact! Whatever, but if a lot of them had the same problem, I would be hearing about it.

Solar Flare?

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.

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'.

NASA doesn't own all the sattelites, you know. How could they alone cover all it up?

If they were going to cover something up, they'd hardly put damning evidence on their web site.

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

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

 

You're just begging to be confined to the pseudoscience forum...

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 ?

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

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

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.