Eerily reminiscent of David Kay’s WMD reports, SpaceDaily covers NASA’s blockbuster announcement:

NASA’s Opportunity rover has found convincing evidence that large quantities of water were once present in at least one location on Mars. “The rocks here were once soaked in liquid water,” said Steve Squyres, principle investigator for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission, referring to the bedrock outcrop near the rover’s landing site in Meridiani Planum.

So that means there’s no water on Mars.

Did NASA lie? Think of the good all that money could have done if not wasted on such an obviously insane mission to a dry, dusty, hostile land. Don’t we have a big enough deficit the way it is, folks? And they just told us there’s no water on Mars.

Evidence suggests that, at some point in Mars’s past, water was present in sufficient quantity to make the region “capable of supporting life as we know it.”

I mean, we know there was water there once. But you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that there isn’t any water there now. Maybe there was in the past. Could be wrong about that too, you know. I mean, it’s not like they trucked it off to Jupiter before the rovers landed. It’s very clear. This report says that there’s no water on Mars.

If the space program mattered to the voters, all the headlines would say NO WATER ON MARS.

“Hey! Did you see the pictures last night from the rovers?” “Nope. But I heard there’s no water on Mars.”


  1. I agree. There is no water on Mars. As I look at a THEMIS image of Kasei Valles on the surface of Mars, from the January 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine, I see that the arrowhead shape in the middle of the picture, exactly fits the coastline on either side. So, a fluvial scour did not create the gully on either side of this plateau. It was caused by an expansion. Mars expanded. No water pouring into a basin. Simply a hole created by continental drift. It happened here on Earth, too.

  2. Water on Mars? Of course not. But what about those ‘riverine valleys’? Of course, it lines NASA’s over-stuffed pockets to describe the rilles and grooves etched out on the Martian surface as ‘river valleys.’ I mean, pop-sci mags, like Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, need such fare to support their fantasy-ridden subscribers and, above all, ‘scope advertisers. That such hyping about extraterrestrial ‘water’ or ETL has nothing to do with hard science should be obvious. Anyone who has ever seen pix of flowing lava (or magma) knows that such flows carve out ‘gulches’ and grooves (as can be seen, for instance, on Venus or on our Moon). It has become self-serving, not only for those NASA PR heads but for newspaper science writers, to hype nonexistence signs of life in our Solar System. I once myself worked on a national magazine’s Science Desk. One of my jobs was to weed out PR news releases from institutions that wanted to see their names in print no matter what. It’s really a shame that we have allowed such self-serving PR and the science writers who publicize such PR stuff as ‘sceince’ put out by NASA in order to seize public attention and thereby fetch more public monies–including even White House support–for vast, future ‘interplanetary exploration.’ Is this really money that is well-spent? Or does it merely serve the fantasies of (mediocre) scientists on NASA and JPL payrolls whose living depends on such exaggeration? It is high time for sensible Solons in the Congress to fix a critical eye on this expensive nonsense. Dr. Albert L. Weeks