Mars the anomalies The moon too., part II

[lsbd]

You sure do have a purty mouth boy!

 

[dfrank]

Now we getting down to the good part.<br /><br /><br />Dfrank

 

[MeteorWayne]

Seems unlikely, since you never answer any questions addressed to you.<br />You seem to serve no useful purpose, just posting gibberish, and not responding to anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Meteorwayne,<br /><br />A useful purpose is just another opinion. This is the Mars anomaliy thread. I do not know what kind of useful thing can come out of here. What sounds like gibberish to you is an attempt at communication. Comprehension from your perspective seems difficult.<br /><br />In our brief exchange in another thread your contention was that I was more right. I let it go because you have no way of comprehending you were just wrong. That was Earth science. If you do not know what is going on here it would be hard to apply these principles on other worlds.<br /><br />You will have some comet dust to watch this weekend, grab some chips and enjoy.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[dfrank]

something to lighten the mood.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiGH9QNiU0<br /><br />Dfrank

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Dfrank<br /><br />Rather than attempt to "lighten the mood", I strongly counsel you to address the questions asked of you, and unsubstantiated charges made by you, as outlined in my previous post.<br /><br />You should urgently make this the next order of business if wish to remain as a contributor to this Forum, as your continued obfuscation is unlikely to be viewed favourably by the Moderator Panel.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br /><br />SpaceKiwi<br />Mission Control Team <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[pierround]

Ya and squealing like a pig is useful. A reference to perversions.<br />Why don't you get off of his back he is entitled to his opinions?<br /><br />At least you could have respect for your elders and the children who read these posts..<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

He may be entitled to his opinions, but he has been questioned on items he stated as facts, and has refused to respond to them<br /><br />That is not permitted By the TOS and UP&G), a lesson which you should take to heart, because you do the same thing.<br /><br />So far you've gotten away with it, but the time may well come where you will have to answer the questions you have refused to so far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dfrank]

I have noticed if you don’t get the answers you want you consider the questions un answered.<br /><br /> The perverted remarks say a lot about the poster. <br /><br />I am not here to argue past science. You jumped on the color and I have not heard a response to the image I posted of liquid signatures on the surface of Meridiani by the rover. We have talked about a lot of stuff be not much about that anomaly. Wonder why?<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">pierround - Why don't you get off of his back he is entitled to his opinions? </font><br /><br />Certainly he is entitled to his opinions. I don't think thats the issue though. I certainly do not mind seeing other's opinions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">At least you could have respect for your elders and the children who read these posts.. </font><br /><br />I agree that comment may have been somewhat unwarranted and inappropriate. I also want to address something you've alluded to here:<br /><br />I have been on this board for several years now. There is one supreme and guiding principle I have applied to my interactions on SDC. Each and every post should be judged based on the merit of the post itself. In other words, I don't look at the originator of the post and make a judgment based on what I know of them, their opinion or their knowledge level. I judge every post on its own merit and have always encouraged others to do the same. Over the years, I have learned who is knowledgeable in certain areas and who is not. So, I will concede that I defer to some posters in certain areas based on past experience. Yet, they attained this level of trust within the same process I use for everyone: Merit.<br /><br />I respect everyone, irregardless of age. However, a claim made by a poster is not fact unless it is substantiated. Now, I would be the last person to desire anyone try to substantiate personal claims. I don't think that revealing personal information is a wise practice on the internet unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences. That's why I don't have a habit of making personal claims regarding my experience, education, current position, etc.. However, if you make personal claims that are pivotal points in your argument and fail to support them, you can't substantiate them as fact can you? So, you have a choice: Either substantiate those claims or withdraw them and build a case based on evidence other <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Galileo would have run out of this forum. Poor soul could not have proven anything. We can clearly see everything moving around the Earth. He has nothing to prove his claim. Lock him in his house.<br /><br />The people that know do not seem to have changed much over the years, still like to wear robes.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[datalor]

People are simply asking for your credentials, I don't really understand the problem here. If I posted something in the Animal World forum claiming to be a Marine Biologist, and the best one that ever lived, and someone asked me to prove who I was based on arguments I was making, they would be entitled to an anwer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">dfrank - Galileo would have run out of this forum. Poor soul could not have proven anything. We can clearly see everything moving around the Earth. He has nothing to prove his claim. Lock him in his house.<br /><br />The people that know do not seem to have changed much over the years, still like to wear robes. </font><br /><br />But, if people told Galileo they would listen to his evidence for his assertions, he would have gladly presented it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Actually, I have no desire to see anyone's credentials. This isn't a professional board where credentials are verified before membership is given. So, I don't think we have to demand someone's credentials. However, if they can't demonstrate a basic understanding of the field they claim to be an expert in, well then, that's a horse of a different color... At that point, further claims of esoteric knowledge must be seriously questioned. If they wish to support their claim, something other than "Because I said so." becomes necessary.<br /><br />That's one thing that JonClarke does extremely well - He provides an explanation along with evidence and even background information if it becomes necessary. Most, if not all, the people on SDC respect his demonstrated abilities well enough to take his word at face value on anything to do with "rocks." <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But, he still goes the extra distance to provide as much information as possible so each point is substantiated within it's own framework. He will answer challenges with source material and evidence even if the subject matter is common knowledge amongst professionals in his discipline. He takes the time to explain it if necessary. Jon never just says "Because I said so."<br /><br />But, irregardless of credentials or personal claims, evidence and assertions must be able to withstand proper challenges or they are not credible. Refusing to answer to challenges and rebuttals while still claiming "fact" is something like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalal" over and over... It wastes the time of board members. I think that is what most people are getting at. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

dfrank, <br /><br />I'd like to ask you why you were unable to successfully answer a basic question that should be within your realm of knowledge if all your claims are true. Of course, I'd like more to have such a question answered.<br /><br />I don't care what your claims to accreditation are nor how old your are. Neither have any bearing on the subject of this thread. But, making claims of "fact" while refusing to answer to challenges doesn't make it appear that you have any real desire to discuss anything substantive at all. If that is the case, what is your purpose for posting on this thread? So far, I can't see any purpose to your participation other than to tell everyone how old you are and to let people know you believe you're the best atmospheric scientist/meteorologist the world has ever seen. Since both of those claims are, apparently, not evident as factual in your posts and you don't appear to wish to engage in actively discussing the subject matter here, what is your purpose in continuing to post in this thread? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[dfrank]

Packet<br /><br />Around and around we go, where we stop no body knows. I can not remember a question about weather. The sky color of mars is a photographic issue sense no human has been there. I stated true color is an opinion and nothing more. What is visible to the human eye would be a physiology question not atmospheric. I said look and see remember.<br /><br />If you have a weather question fire away. I said I was the greatest IMHO, That to is an opinion. Now ask yourself if it is this much trouble trying to walk you through these simple responses, what we going to do with answers that require thought? <br /><br />My personal information is private and will remain so. I posted some images and hoped we would talk about water on the surface. The visible data suggest resent activity. This would have implications for possible biological activity at the surface and subsurface. <br /><br />The repose I got was we all know water is on the surface of Mars. Along with a condescending attitude. I don’t like bullies and I don’t like know it alls. I really don’t like people that think they are smart and can not understand basic English.<br /><br />Dfrank<br /><br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually, your images showed no real evidence of water at all. If they did to you, can you explain in what way they did?<br /><br />You have been asked this question repeatedly, and the serious people here are getting rather tired of your refusal to address the question.<br /><br />Your time is running out, old man. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">dfrank - Around and around we go, where we stop no body knows. I can not remember a question about weather. </font><br /><br />You said you were an atmospheric scientist. I assumed that meant you would have knowledge concerning basic atmospheric effects. Rayleigh Scattering is one of those and, moreover, is made popular due to the much remarked upon question "Why is the sky blue." Should I have not expected this?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The sky color of mars is a photographic issue sense no human has been there. I stated true color is an opinion and nothing more. </font><br /><br />You seem to assert the sky on Mars is blue. Further, you have asserted that NASA is somehow attempting to obfuscate this by demonstrating some weakly linked personal knowledge regarding Viking.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What is visible to the human eye would be a physiology question not atmospheric. I said look and see remember.</font><br /><br />What is "visible" to the human eye is a self-defining statement. However, it most certainly is an atmospheric question in that the human eye, if present on the ground, can only see within a limited spectrum. It does not also have the ability to see wavelengths of visible light that are not present in the first place. That is where physics comes into play and where an "atmospheric scientist" should, at least, be able to explain how certain EM wavelengths interact with our atmosphere.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">My personal information is private and will remain so.</font><br /><br />I agree. I would never suggest posting such information nor would I demand it in a case like this. You are entitled to your anonymity. However, because of this, you can not make personal claims and then use them to substantiate evidence as "fact." By preserving your anonymity, you are forced to rely more heavily on verifiable evidence for your claims. That is something you have failed to p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[dfrank]

I am going to miss you guys. It has always been a joy to read your post and great insite. It will be a great loss but i will recover.<br /><br />Dfrank

 

[MeteorWayne]

If you leave, I doubt you will be missed. Your posts haven't added any insight, and you are too evasive to ever actually repond to a question. <br /><br />If you changed either of those things, you would be missed.<br /><br />However, whoever you really are, I suspect you've been here before and will be back again. Time will tell. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">MeteorWayne - However, whoever you really are, I suspect you've been here before and will be back again. Time will tell.</font><br /><br />I concur with that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[billslugg]

I claim dfrank is an impostor. <br /><br />Any native English speaker, 97 years old, college graduate, meteorologist, veteran of the space program would certainly have figured out the difference between "too" and "to" as well as "insight" and "insite". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[pierround]

http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Machu+Picchu&ie=UTF8&ll=-13.16335,-72.546179&spn=0.002977,0.004828&t=k&z=17&om=0<br /><br /><br /><br />Chichén itzá<br />http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=21.199617,-88.784122&spn=0.045613,0.077248&t=k&z=13&om=0<br /><br />Streak clouds on Mars;<br /><br />http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA09290.jpg<br /><br /><br />Fatter clouds, looks like rain clouds I wonder what color the sky is?<br />Clouds look white?<br /><br />http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA09295.jpg<br /><br /><br />I got to wonder?<br /><br />Then I found this,<br />http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA09478.jpg<br /><br /><br />

 

[pierround]

There's a couple of other spots in that one that are suspect.

 

[dfrank]

Pierround,<br /><br />One of the reasons I get so upset about grayscale is because we can not tell what is atmospheric condensation and what is dust. I think the official explanation was dust.<br /><br />It would have serious implications on water availability. What are you looking at in the MRO images?<br /><br />Dfrank<br /><br /><br />