Mile-high Mars mounds built by wind and climate change

March 31, 2016, University of Texas at Austin
Gale Crater, the landing spot of the Mars rover Curiosity, has a three-mile-high mound at its center called Mount Sharp. The circle is the landing place of Curiosity. The blue line is its path. Credit: NASA/JPL

New research has found that wind carved massive mounds of more than a mile high on Mars over billions of years. Their location helps pin down when water on the Red Planet dried up during a global climate change event.

The research was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, on March 31.

The findings show the importance of in shaping the Martian landscape, a force that, on Earth, is overpowered by other processes, said lead author Mackenzie Day, a graduate student at The University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geosciences.

"On Mars there are no plate-tectonics, and there's no liquid water, so you don't have anything to overprint that signature and over billions of years you get these mounds, which speaks to how much geomorphic change you can really instigate with just wind," Day said. "Wind could never do this on Earth because water acts so much faster, and tectonics act so much faster."

Day conducted the research with Jackson School researchers Gary Kocurek and David Mohrig of the Department of Geological Sciences and University of Texas at Dallas researcher William Anderson.

First spotted during NASA's Viking program in the 1970s, the mounds are at the bottom of craters. Recent analysis by the Mars rover Curiosity of Mount Sharp, a mound over three miles high inside Gale Crater, has revealed that the thickest ones are made of sedimentary rock, with bottoms made of sediments carried by water that used to flow into the crater and tops made of sediments deposited by wind. However, how the mounds formed inside craters that were once full of sediments was an open question.

Sediment-filled craters on Mars (top) in different stages of erosion compared with results of a crater model in a wind tunnel experiment (bottom). Warm colors reflect high elevation, and cool colors low elevation. Credit: Mackenzie Day
"There's been a theory out there that these mounds formed from billions of years of , but no one had ever tested that before," Day said. "So the cool thing about our paper is we figured out the dynamics of how wind could actually do that."

To test whether wind could create a mound, the researchers built a miniature crater 30 centimeters wide and 4 centimeters deep, filled it with damp sand, and placed it in a wind tunnel. They tracked the elevation and the distribution of sand in the crater until all of it had blown away. The model's sediment was eroded into forms similar to those observed in Martian craters, forming a crescent-shaped moat that deepened and widened around the edges of the crater. Eventually all that was left of the sediment was a mound—which, in time, also eroded away.

"We went from a filled crater layer cake to this mounded shape that we see today," Day said.

The video file has four sections showing how topography and erosion rates evolve through time in the experiment. Plan-view digital elevation of the crater model (upper left) shows the crater interior going from filled to mounded to empty. A topographic profile of the crater (bottom left) accompanies this and gives the cross-sectional view. On the right are calculated erosion rates in plan view (upper right) and cross-section (lower right). These show how erosion is highest near the crater rim, which creates the moat and mound retreat. Credit: Mackenzie Day

To understand the wind dynamics, researchers also built a computer model that simulated how the wind flowed through the crater at different stages of erosion.

The mounds' structure helps link their formation to climate change on Mars, Kocurek said, with the bottom being built during a wet time, and the top built and mound shaped in a dry time.

"This sequence signals the change from a dominance of depositional processes by water during a wetter time, to wind reworking of these water-laid sediments with the onset of aridity, followed by wind erosion once these sediment supplies have been exhausted," he said. "Overall, we are seeing the complete remaking of the sedimentary cycle on Mars to the one that characterizes the planet today."

The research helped scientists home in on Mars' Noachian period, a geologic era that began about 3.7 billion years ago, as the period when Mars started to change from a wet world to a dry one. Scientists were able to link the to the Noachian by studying the location of more than 30 mounds and finding that sedimentary were only present on terrain that was exposed during that period.

Explore further: Video: Flying over Becquerel

More information: Geophysical Research Letters, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10 … 002/2016GL068011/pdf

Related Stories

Video: Flying over Becquerel

December 19, 2014

This latest release from the camera on ESA's Mars Express is a simulated flight over the Becquerel crater, showing large-scale deposits of sedimentary material.

A radiating beauty on Mars

September 6, 2013

(Phys.org) —Exceptional structures deposited and shaped by water and winds adorn these interlocking craters and sculpt radiating patterns in the sands of Mars.

Image: Alluvial fans in Saheki Crater, Mars

March 25, 2016

Alluvial fans are gently-sloping wedges of sediments deposited by flowing water. Some of the best-preserved alluvial fans on Mars are in Saheki Crater, an area that has been imaged many times previously.

Image: Mystery mounds on Mars

December 13, 2013

Intriguing mounds of light-toned layered deposits sit inside Juventae Chasma, surrounded by a bed of soft sand and dust.

Mars crater shows evidence for climate evolution

June 7, 2012

(Phys.org) -- ESA’s Mars Express has provided images of a remarkable crater on Mars that may show evidence that the planet underwent significant periodic fluctuations in its climate due to changes in its rotation axis.

Recommended for you

Making stars when the universe was half its age

January 18, 2019

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, and its stars are arguably its most momentous handiwork. Astronomers studying the intricacies of star formation across cosmic time are trying to understand whether stars and the ...

Saturn hasn't always had rings

January 17, 2019

One of the last acts of NASA's Cassini spacecraft before its death plunge into Saturn's hydrogen and helium atmosphere was to coast between the planet and its rings and let them tug it around, essentially acting as a gravity ...

40 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2016
This explanation does not even attempt to explain the observation on Mars of a pair of craters perfectly placed within the centers of these mounds within the craters. NASA and other academics still, to this day, ignore that edge case.

Neither does it make any mention of the fact that electrostatic discharge to hematite is observed within the laboratory to produce domed craters just like the ones shown in the above images.

It is likely that there is more than one way to create a crater, and our tendency to settle on the first explanation is simply a rejection of the edge cases which that first explanation cannot actually explain.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 31, 2016
and our tendency to settle on the first explanation
@ha
1- no one is saying that there is only one way to make a crater
2- no, the tendency is to settle on the simplest most probable explanation

we actually observe objects striking the Moon, Jupiter, Mars and other places whereas no one, not once, ever, has linked a paper demonstrating the observation of a plasma discharge creating a crater on any planet in the solar system
... not even Earth, where plasma discharge is found regularly

(funny note: lightning-aka plasma- also leaves other evidence that we can see & measure which is also not found on other worlds, etc)

so again, it is far more likely that said crater was formed by object impact than your plasma discharge

if you want to argue statistics or probability, first start with a hypothesis that isn't pseudoscience like eu

btb101
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2016
Climate Change.. Does this mean we will be taxed for this planet as well?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2016
Climate Change.. Does this mean we will be taxed for this planet as well?

Naww. The accusations of Anthropo-caused global warming is only endemic to Earth-bound homo sapiens and cows farting Methane, plus breathing in and out. The only way that mankind will ever be accused of causing AGW on Mars is AFTER our astronauts/cosmonauts have landed on Mars and set up colonies. The exhaust systems in their domes that will remove excess CO2 from the domes to the outside will be blamed for ADDiNG to the CO2 already in the Mars atmosphere. In lieu of taxes, the first colonists will be required to commit to a communistic system where everyone works hard for the good of all, and where no one profits from their own work.
However, when others arrive on Mars, there will be a new system wrt "trade agreements" where Capitalism will take the place of the initial Communism. If there was life forms on Mars already, they will most likely be consumed by humans.
;)
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2016
Re: "we actually observe objects striking the Moon, Jupiter, Mars and other places whereas no one, not once, ever, has linked a paper demonstrating the observation of a plasma discharge creating a crater on any planet in the solar system
... not even Earth, where plasma discharge is found regularly"

What you are saying is that we've never ACCIDENTALLY observed such an event. But, in many of the observed impact events, there have indeed been anomalies which point to electrical interactions.

Scientists routinely study phenomena which they have never even seen take place.

The argument that since we have never accidentally seen it, then there is no need to ask questions about it and seek to test these ideas, exposes the purpose of the scientific community not as stewards of the planet, but as defenders of their preferred ideas. This is not the cautious approach one would expect on this topic of responsible people.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2016
What you are saying is that we've never ACCIDENTALLY observed such an event
@ha
no, that is not what i am saying. what i am saying is that, given the immense amount of knowledge of not only astrophysicists but also plasma physicists (like here: http://www.pppl.gov/ ) then we (and especially your own EE's who claim to be superior at this) should be able to predict given things like CME's or other plasma discharge... but there is *nothing*

and there has also never been any accidental observation

given your claims about the plasma physics and how the universe is outside the purview of MS science, it is even far more amazing that your own eu hasn't found a way to predict or observe this behaviour... at all... ever
But, in many of the observed impact events, there have indeed been anomalies which point to electrical interactions
if you're going to make a statement about evidence based observed impacts, please link a reputable science reference

thanks
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2016
@ha cont'd
The argument that since we have never accidentally seen it, then there is no need to ask questions about it and seek to test these ideas, exposes the purpose of the scientific community
1- i do not speak for the scientific community
2- quit being a moron and putting words in my mouth. also - re-read what i wrote
this time, quit putting your own agenda/transference issues into the interpretation and actually read it for what it says
defenders of their preferred ideas. This is not the cautious approach one would expect on this topic of responsible people
this, more than anything else, demonstrates you have no idea what the scientific method is all about
https://en.wikipe...c_method

it is based upon the free and open exchange of ideas, but also upon the evidence based conclusion, not the speculative proselytization of a fanatical faith in something

if you're not going to use the rational brain, why post here?
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2016
The argument that since we have never accidentally seen it, then there is no need to ask questions about it and seek to test these ideas, exposes the purpose of the scientific community


Science requires that ALL possibilities be examined, not just to advance their own theories and to exclude everything else.

1- i do not speak for the scientific community


Then you aren't a scientist, but only a "science groupie".

2- quit being a moron and putting words in my mouth.


It seems that it's YOU doing most of the talking.

quit putting your own agenda/transference issues


Transference into WHAT? If EU is found to be true, it will only benefit science.

it is based upon the free and open exchange of ideas,


Then why do you gripe at this exchange?

but also upon the evidence based conclusion, not the speculative proselytization of a fanatical faith in something


If it's found to be correct, then it isn't just based on faith

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2016
Then you aren't a scientist, but only a "science groupie"
@obutthead
no one scientists speaks for the scientific community
Then why do you gripe at this exchange?
Wow!
you really are illiterate, aren't you?
or is your translator/reading software f*cked up?

try reading this whole line again
it is based upon the free and open exchange of ideas, but also upon the evidence based conclusion, not the speculative proselytization of a fanatical faith in something
the keywords actually come right after that comma you ignored
, but also upon the evidence based conclusion, not the speculative proselytization of a fanatical faith in something
if you want to talk BS religious talk, go post to yari's science mystic site cassiopaea
they would love your bollocks
and you don't need evidence like in science

this isn't a religious site, however, so your soliloquy on unfounded faith based religion is considerably stupid
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2016
...you aren't a scientist, only a "science groupie"


no one scientists speaks for the scientific community


Then why did you say, (in first person singular), "1- i do not speak for the scientific community", referring to yourself, while interjecting your emotional blather into your own soliluquy?

Then why do you gripe at this exchange?


try reading this whole line again
it is based upon the free and open exchange of ideas, but also upon the evidence based conclusion, not the speculative proselytization of a fanatical faith in something


Still NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that EU is any less than all other speculation

if you want to talk BS religious talk,


WHERE in this thread did you read any religious talk? Obviously ONLY in your demented mind.

this isn't a religious site, however, so your soliloquy on unfounded faith based religion is considerably stupid


I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read any religious talk?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2016
...you aren't a scientist, only a "science groupie"


no one scientists speaks for the scientific community


Then why did you say, (in first person singular), "1- i do not speak for the scientific community", referring to yourself, while interjecting your emotional blather into your own soliluquy?

First you said, "1- i do not speak for the scientific community"
And then you said, "no one scientists speaks for the scientific community"
Therefore, it appears that YOU regard YOURSELF as a part OF the scientific community, when all you are, in reality, is a science GROUPIE - a scientist WANNABE - a protector of the faith in the RELIGION OF SCIENCE - a vampire of scientific research for your OWN sake so that you will be highly thought of by the mindless.
YOU are a phony

I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read ANY religious talk?
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2016
...you aren't a scientist, only a "science groupie"


no one scientists speaks for the scientific community


Then why did you say, (in first person singular), "1- i do not speak for the scientific community", referring to yourself, while interjecting your emotional blather into your own soliluquy?

First you said, "1- i do not speak for the scientific community"
And then you said, "no one scientists speaks for the scientific community"

Therefore, it appears that YOU regard YOURSELF as a part OF the scientific community, when all you are, in reality, is a science GROUPIE - a scientist WANNABE - a protector of the faith in the RELIGION OF SCIENCE - a vampire of scientific research for your OWN sake so that you will be highly thought of by the mindless.
YOU are a phony. Your posts are worthless since you want to EXCLUDE all other science research that run counter your own opinions.

I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read ANY religious talk?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
Still NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that EU is any less than all other speculation
@obutthead
the most accurate description would be debunked pseudoscience stupidity

if you can't find at least one real astrophysicist debunking it with your search engine then i feel sorry for you

if you want to believe it, fine... problem is, it mixes some actual plasma physics with conjecture and speculation and faith based inference, so, by definition, it is pseudoscience
Then why did you say
because i can teach people to think critically by pointing out the flaws of a pseudoscience argument that has no actual evidence
especially when the claims made are more from faith/religion than from argument from evidence &/or Science

toBcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2016
I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read ANY religious talk?
@obutthead
when you make an argument from belief, you can call it a "faith based argument" and perhaps opinion or conjecture, right?

but when you continually repeat lies that are debunked by scientific evidence, or are known to be false (especially the blatantly false) then it is a need to force someone to believe like you, ergo it is a religion using repetition as it's only means of establishing anything
proof:
NASA and other academics still, to this day, ignore that edge case

the purpose of the scientific community not as stewards of the planet, but as defenders of their preferred ideas

cows farting Methane
in case you're wondering why i put the last one
more methane is generated orally - http://extension....airy-cow

science works, byotches!
learn 2 science
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
@CaptainShithead

I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read ANY religious talk?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2016
Trumpy likes to make ridiculous charges but cannot PROVE any of it, except by bending the truth. I have caught him too many times to count. It is some kind of emotional release for him to denigrate others who have done more in life than he.

He claims to be a "truck captain", whatever that is, but cannot PROVE it. I think it has to do with the County Sanitation Department.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
I repeat: WHERE in this thread did you read ANY religious talk?
@obuttsqueegie
you mean besides what i actually quoted to you as requested?
you know, those light grey words in my post above?

here are some links you need:
http://www.litera...literacy

http://www.readingbear.org/

.

.

.

I have caught him too many times to count
@liar-beni-kam
not posted, quoted or linked
whereas i've actually proven in various threads you are a liar, along with others
http://phys.org/n...age.html

http://phys.org/n...ess.html

there are more, but those should be adequate for anyone seeking to determine your qualifications and credibility

you post a lot like Ryggy, it seems
continue to yell until you believe what you say

so Let's stop with the personal attacks, sniping, character assassination and unsubstantiated false claims which you can't prove, beni-kam

Estevan57
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
"learn 2 science" - Captain Stumpy Ha Ha Ha. You're killing me Smalls! Nice one.

Is gkam still trying to get you to give your personal info?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2016
You're killing me Smalls!
@Estevan57
good movie... LOL

Is gkam still trying to get you to give your personal info?
Yep
funny thing is... i am not anonymous, so any ten year old with even stunted internet skill could dox me

so that actually makes his stupidity even funnier, IMHO

.

.

.

If I ever get serious about music and put together a rock and roll band, I'll name it "Electric Universe"
@richardwenzel987
reminds me of the Muppet's band (Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem)

i fully expected the eu folk to be more like that at first...
except that Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem are considerably more intelligent, wires and all
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
LOL

LMAO

LSMFT

There, did I finally reach Trumpy and Ira with their own vocabulary? Did they get incandescent?

Are those silly letters supposed to make us sad or angry? They make us laugh, instead. Kid stuff. No professional in my generation would be so silly or shallow.

When are we going to rid ourselves of these irrelevant snipers?
Estevan57
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
"No professional in my generation would be so silly or shallow." - gkam

Pretty funny stuff considering one of the original meanings of LSMFT is "Lord, save me from Truman". - http://www.urband...rm=LSMFT

There must be a hidden requirement of professionals of your generation to remain stodgy and never learn new things. Is this true?

Who is this "we" or that "us" you keep talking about? No-one stands with you, or supports your outing of everyone on the comments section. Imagine the chaos...

@richardwenzel987 - count me in for the band if you need a bass player. Electric bass, that is.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
LSMFT is "Lord, save me from Truman"
@Estevan57
Hey cool... i didn't know that... i thought it meant Liposclerosing Myxofibrous Tumor
http://radiopaedi...s-tumour

i guess it all depends upon your age and background, really?
@richardwenzel987 - count me in for the band if you need a bass player. Electric bass, that is
i have a dulcimer and i can install some electric pickups...
but i can also play a mean drum (bass or snare, fair Trap Set player)

i don't think you would want a Bass Clarinetist, would you?

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
"Pretty funny stuff considering one of the original meanings of LSMFT is "Lord, save me from Truman":"

Uh, . . no, it was a cigarette advertising slogan meaning Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco, later modified to Loose Straps Make Floppy Tits, and other fun stuff.
Estevan57
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2016
@Captain Stumpy - Bass clarinet or dulcimer is fine, they can both run through a super groovy purple sparkle envelope filter and a wha wha pedal to get that super funky Clarinet/Dulcimer sound.

Electric Universe - The Best Band Ever, But We Can't Prove It! Damn that's funny.
It might even be original...

And Truman is more my grandfathers age. Have a good night.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
If I ever get serious about music and put together a rock and roll band, I'll name it "Electric Universe".
I'm in for 6- and 12-string guitar and backing vocals.
yep
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2016
Your first song ought to be Electric Side Of The Moon!
http://phys.org/n...cle.html
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2016
LOL

LMAO

LSMFT

There, did I finally reach Trumpy and Ira with their own vocabulary?
Not me Cher, I have trouble keeping up with the texting short words.

Kid stuff. No professional in my generation would be so silly or shallow.


That's what I was thinking too Cher, especially when I read this one day.

Thang kew.
But apparently that one is something meant to instill confidence in the peoples who come to get some professional consulting done by a professional engineer wearing a silly looking pointy cap. With the stars and moons on him no less.

Either that or it was written by a hypocrite goober who thinks what he writes is off limits and what everybody else writes is not up to the high standards of the physorg and needs to whine about it.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
While you make fun of the Wizard's hat, I can see those without education on their mud boats, poling their way upstream, thinkin' fourth grade was useless anyway, . . Yeah, that cartoon wizard was drawn by one of my customers for being able to solve what others could not.

Sorry about your envy.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
While you make fun of the Wizard's hat, I can see those without education on their mud boats, poling their way upstream, thinkin' fourth grade was useless anyway, . . Yeah, that cartoon wizard was drawn by one of my customers for being able to solve what others could not.

Sorry about your envy.


Envy Cher? Okayeei if it makes you feel better to say so. But I really would not wear a silly looking pointy cap like that to do consulting with the engineers. I might wear him at the Mardi Gras parade, but I already got a more silly looking purple top hat for that. Wizard hat you call him? I thought he was one of the silly looking pointy dunce caps like I pass out.

But where you learn the "professional in my generation" smart talking like
Thang kew
at? You criticize the Captain-Skippy and the Estevan-Skippy for the text type letter short cuts for being childish, so I guess "Thang kew" is senior engineer consulting talk, eh?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2016
is senior engineer consulting talk, eh?

Ya know, Ira...at this point I really think he has had all the jobs he claims to have had...because the only way he could have had so many is to talk his way in and get fired immediately because people found out in short order that he wasn't any good at what he claimed.
That would explain the 'quality' of his posts.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
I am really sorry that you folk got stuck in one field. Really. Do you think I also fabricated that newspaper front page? How about the studies and reports for NASA? The work on BWRs? My Power Quality seminars nationwide?

Was it the three military websites with my name and picture on them? Is that what makes you think I was a loser? Did you read my performance reports? Ask Stumpy what the Commander insisted, and the Avionics Officer pronounced.

Do we really have to go through all this becauseyou got irritated?

This started with Ira and otto and Grumpy challenging some references I made. It was not bragging, but a revelation from someone actually in the business, with actual experience. I expected them to ask about the NF-104A, such as what was the thrust of the rocket engine? How high did it go to train the Apollo Astronauts? How did they guide it if there was insufficient air for the control surfaces?

Instead I got nasty responses.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
I proved what I have done. What have you done?

You folk got angry because I am real, and not afraid to take you on. I saw lots of ego-driven goobers who have to hide and snipe to be "equal" to real people.

AA, if you want to throw your hat in with the snipers and character assassins, it is up to you.

Or, you could be more mature and accept the reality of the situation.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
This started with Ira and otto and Grumpy challenging some references I made
I guess that is one way of saying. I would say "This started because I made over three dozens of references to my being six different kinds of engineer, in ONE article the day I showed up."

You folk got angry because I am real,
You keep saying that over and over and some more overs. But I never get angry, I have big fun with you Cher. The only time I ever got a little bit bothered with something you wrote was when you referred to Mrs-Ira-Skippette's people as "Tribes of Cockroaches". After I realized you were just being stupid and careless with the flow of that conversation I got over it.

I expected them to ask,,,,
You begged us to ask. Over and over and some more overs. When nobody would ask, you decided that everybody must be too busy to ask and told everybody over and over and some more overs. (Most often on topics that was not even in the day's articles.)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
Or, you could be more mature and,,,


,,, learn to say really professional smart things like,,,,

Thang kew
,,,,, while wearing a silly looking pointy cap (with stars and moons on him.)

What have you done?
Probably more than troll the interweb spreading joy everywhere with scientifical and technical stuffs like,,,, https://disqus.com/by/gkam/
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
"Tribes of roaches"????

Give it up, Ira.

This is not Twitter. Your silly and erroneous charges are invented by you. And you are not real, but an invented name and someone cowering behind it, too SCARED to take responsibility for his own words.

Please take your personal attacks back to high school.

Thanks.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
"Tribes of roaches"?
That is what you said when were talking about the Mardi Gras Indians.

Give it up, Ira.
I got nothing to give you.

This is not Twitter.
Says the hypocrite that is know all over the interweb for posting up his Sarah Palin like stuffs,,,,, https://disqus.com/by/gkam/ ,,,, and that is from just the last two years.

Your silly and erroneous charges are invented by you.
That's a good try Skippy, except you forget that everything you wrote here, is still here for anybody to look-e-loo at.

And you are not real,
Maybe you should see a mental conditions specialist about that. You sure spend a lot of time fooling around with a not real person.

an invented name and someone cowering behind it, too SCARED to take responsibility for his own words.
My name is Ira. I don't understand what the "responsibility" means, but I want the credit for my words, why I would not?

Thanks.
De rien Cher. Non problem.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2016
Your first song ought to be Electric Side Of The Moon!
@Yep
wasn't sure if you were being funny or serious, but it actually is a good idea, IMHO

we can do a parody made to Floyd's dark side of the moon (renamed as above, mind you) and ridicule the eu with that song!

*nice*!!
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2016
Your first song ought to be Electric Side Of The Moon!
@Yep
wasn't sure if you were being funny or serious, but it actually is a good idea, IMHO
we can do a parody made to Floyd's dark side of the moon (renamed as above, mind you) and ridicule the eu with that song!
*nice*!!

Figures that Hyperion shocking the Cassini spacecraft with the equivalent of two hundred volts from 1200 miles away would go completely over your head. You boys can ridicule all you like you're already on the wrong side of history and the data. Have fun with your boy band.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2016
would go completely over your head
@nope
didn't go over my head
it is just irrelevant and doesn't mean what you think it means, and that is obvious in your continued bs like this
you're already on the wrong side of history and the data
if science advances on the data and evidence, then how can we be on the wrong side of it?
LMFAO

the problem is that you've already made up your own mind about the evidence, so you make comments and think that visiting an eu site will give you evidence but you end up getting bullsh*t instead of real science because you're learning from someone who doesn't know WTF is going on

it's called a scam (or religion - those are often interchangeable terms)

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2016
Says the dumbest fuck alive trying to teach the forum.
you shouldn't denigrate yourself and cd like that, full-of-bs

you aren't all that stupid... you just got caught up in a religion of hate

maybe this will help you
http://www.litera...literacy

http://www.readingbear.org/

when you're done, you will understand this more:
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.