NASA has imaged the entire planet of Mars. The entire database, not just the composite imagery but the raw data, is available. Start with this university database.

http://www.mars.asu.edu/data/

I suspect you have been thinking of various conspiracy theories based on old data from decades in the past.

If you have doubts, you can look into that data and prove or disprove whatever you have doubts about.



 Gravity of Phobos is 0.0057 m/s, about 1/1800 of that on Earth. You would weigh a couple ounces on Phobos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)

Dimensions   27 × 22 × 18 km[1]
Mean radius
11.2667 km
(1.76941 mEarths)
Surface area
1548.3 km2[1]
(3.03545 µEarths)
Volume   5783.61 km3
(5.33933 nEarths)
Mass   1.0659×1016 kg[1]
(1.78477 nEarths)
Mean density
1.876 g/cm3[1]
Surface gravity
0.0057 m/s2[1]
(581.4 µ g)

That's exactly what they think they deserve to be able to do.

Compare this to the rape accusations against Bill Clinton, I have to say that it's the pattern of accusations that's troubling more than any single allegation. The pattern shaping up in the case of Christine Ford is very different, and shows she remembers things differently than everyone else.

Not only did rank and file Democrats support Bill Clinton, but they were okay when his wife, who had helped him suppress and cover up those allegations, ran for President. And just plain crushed when she didn't win. They thought she DESERVED TO WIN!


https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-sexual-assault-allegations-against-bill-clinton-2017-11#leslie-millwee-4

Juanita Broaddrick - violently raped in 1978. Reported in 1999.
Two people close to Broaddrick said she described the rape at the time.

Kathleen Willey - sexually assaulted in 1993, reported in 1999.
Willey says she was "friends" with Clinton and confided in him during the meeting that she and her husband were having financial troubles. She asked him for a promotion from her volunteer position to a paying job and says that Clinton was sympathetic and asked to talk with her in a small room off of the Oval Office. Willey says Clinton cornered and assaulted her in that room.

Paula Jones - in 1991, reported in 1994
at a government quality-management conference that Clinton attended, she was approached by the state police and told that Clinton, then the governor, wanted to meet with her. Jones said that a police officer escorted her to Clinton's hotel room in Little Rock and that Clinton then propositioned her for sex and exposed his genitals to her.
Jones said the state police officer was standing just outside the hotel room during the encounter. Jones made her allegations public in 1994 and brought a sexual-harassment lawsuit against Clinton. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 1998 on the grounds that Jones didn't prove that she was harmed, either personally or in her career, by the incident, and Jones appealed the ruling.Clinton ultimately paid Jones $850,000.

Leslie Millwee, assaulted in 1980, reported in 2016
a former television reporter, came forward publicly for the first time in October 2016 to accuse Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980.

"He followed me into an editing room," Millwee told the far-right website Breitbart News in an October 2016 interview. "It was very small. There was a chair. I was sitting in a chair. He came up behind me and started rubbing my shoulders and running his hands down toward my breasts. And I was just stunned. I froze. I asked him to stop. He laughed."

She said of a second incident: "He came in behind me. Started hunching me to the point that he had an orgasm. He's trying to touch my breasts. And I'm just sitting there very stiffly, just waiting for him to leave me alone. And I'm asking him the whole time, 'Please do not do this. Do not touch me. Do not hunch me. I do not want this.'"

She recalled a third time in which, she said, she wasn't aware Clinton was in the building when he found her in the editing room.

How about that. We've had some really disgusting people in American politics, haven't we?

Okay.

Mars has been imaged and the surface photography is accurate down to about a half meter. The entire planet has been digitized. All that is available from NASA's websites.

Phobos 2. Spacecraft failed.

Monolith on Phobos. Interesting.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090726210713/http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/phobos2/phobos2.htm

Keep in mind though that gravity on Phobos is very, very low. Things like a big rock sticking straight up is possible naturally in such conditions, where it would not be possible under Earth's gravity.

This is total garbage by a scientist who is a crackpot.

There is nothing remarkable about past nuclear fission on planets, this has certainly occurred on Earth and likely on the Moon. Natural uranium deposits undergo natural fission.

Here is a Wikipedia reference on this rather interesting phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

The media would present it that way, but that's not the way real people think.

Check this out.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/when_the_puppets_wont_cooperate_cnn_surprised_by_womens_reaction_to_kavanaugh_case.html

"Cannot be proven he was over 18" means directly "cannot be proven he committed a crime."

Because juvenile offenses are not considered CRIMES. They are handled completely differently.

The things that have been said regarding no statute of limitations for sexual assault do not apply here, those apply for adults. So why are you and I not getting told this? More fake news?


Well, she should just tell them she wants to bicycle across the country.

That would certainly show all those "old white men."

Wait...aren't we talking here about claims by an old white woman?


The virtue signaling .... thickest in the absence of virtue.

According to Wikipedia it happened in the summer of 1982, which would put Kavanaugh's age at the alleged event's time at 17. He was a juvenile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford
alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17.

For this to even be a crime, the DA would have had to plea to a judge to move it to criminal court, and to treat him as an adult.

Without that it's just an event for juvenile court, if anything.

Well, where does this stop?

Should we hear about something he did when he was 16?

15?

14?

13?

12?

8?

4?

Reflection of light occurs way up in the Venus atmosphere. The surface is 90x the pressure of Earth and very hot. Basic physics shows that pressure is related to temperature for a gas.

There are no bacteria, no life is possible on Venus.

This is very confused. (of course purposefully as you note).

Either it is a criminal complaint or it is not. If it is it goes to the state level not the FBI. They have NO INVOLVEMENT in state crimes.

Either you have a 30+ year old crime in a state with no statute of limitations or you don't. If you don't have a complaint that can be taken to the DA you don't have a crime. Period.

Except that's not what this is about and you know it. It's about stalling or stopping the Kavanaugh nomination. This requires creating doubt. That in turn does not require truth, only allegations. That's what we have here, unsubstantiated allegations for a reason completely other than justice for a past wrong.

So...

Is it right to be in with the witch hunt?

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

As I mentioned, those religions which are adaptable seem to prosper much better than those which are rigid. But I used "adaptable" in a very general sense, not just science vs religion.

Note that some religions historically utterly collapsed when people with advanced tech came into the picture. Why?

How did Cortez conquer 20,000 Aztec soldiers with 400 men? Read about this and you will see the collapse of the entire Aztec belief structure, not a story of a military victory. (caution, it's a pretty bloody and sordid story).

My point: Aztec religious beliefs WERE NOT ADAPTABLE.

An interesting aspect of this matter is the obvious ease with which this event slides into peoples' belief sets, one way or the other, and without hardly any facts they are ready to argue it. In a interesting turn, that the Dems have to go this far back and present a case that's this weak actually shows the good character of the nominee. They are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to find faults here.

In a better and wiser time and place the rule here would be "Let him who is without fault cast the first stone." But we're not in such a time and place. This is a pure and raw attempt to gain power and to not lose additional power.

It's an all out effort to prevent a 6-3 conservative to liberal Supreme Court.

I'm not so worried about that because the SC judges have shown that they don't vote and think as people thought they would. At least that's true of the supposedly conservative ones. Think - Roberts.

But it's clear that it would be very frightening to the so-called liberal. Of course that means he's been told this would be frightening and believed it, doesn't mean it would really be. It's not just a looming 6-3 but with Ginsburg on her way out, quite likely the court will go 7-2. And that's just the way it seems it will be. 30-50 years of a court that won't bow to the demands of "liberals" who in reality are pushing fascist and totalitarian, anti-constitutional agendas, often for corrupt interests or interests outside of the US.

In the upcoming mid terms, expect total corruption on the part of the Democrats. Fake ballot boxes being found everywhere, any and everything to be done to try to gain congressional and senate seats. As usual, Republicans to win have to win "above the bounds of stuffed and fraudulent ballots".

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

"Almost raped" sound a lot to me like "almost pregnant."

It is or it is not.

Frankly on this thread I have not seen much understanding either of the nature of science or religion. Although as you point out, the noise to signal ratio may be so high as to make it impossible.

++++

I would note in passing though, that when people categorize something as a medical "illness" or a "condition" or NOT, it has huge impacts on what insurance and government agencies pay and do not pay for.

Assume that there exists a capsule good for 7 days life support for one human. Assume there are rockets that will launch that capsule toward the Moon.

Then the capsule can go on a figure 8 type orbit around the Moon, and return to Earth. The capsule will have to be rated for a 36,000 foot per second re entry (normal low earth orbit capsules only have to endure 25,000). Four minutes at 6G during re entry.

It's cool for a private company to be talking about it, but it doesn't advance anything at all. I guess it would be interesting though.

More like a trip for a test pilot than a typical consumer.

Lesson: Go after the soft target with money, the Catholic Church. Not the distributed little Protestant churches or the distributed Muslim operations. Then pick non-Catholics for the jury.

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21].....

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden....

The scientific method[edit]
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method....

As an example, let's use our understanding of science to make a prediction. I will drop an apple, and it will fall. That is a prediction, not a fact. Yet it is the ability of science to accurately predict outcomes which is it's value.

EG cause and effect are verbs. Fact is a noun.