JSouthworth wrote:

What do you mean specifically by "alleged alien technology"? What technology are you referring to, and can you cite even a single example of the practical application of this technology by the USAF? Somehow I don't think so.

All I'm asking for here is a straightforward answer to a simple question.

It's quite interesting how this stuff we hear about "alleged alien technology" all relies on the crass assumption, still made by many people that all military technology is highly classified and so inaccessible that for all we know it might be from another planet.

In reality, very little of US military technology is classified to the point where it's past or present existence is secret.

JSouthworth wrote:

All I'm asking for here is a straightforward answer to a simple question.

It's quite interesting how this stuff we hear about "alleged alien technology" all relies on the crass assumption, still made by many people that all military technology is highly classified and so inaccessible that for all we know it might be from another planet.

In reality, very little of US military technology is classified to the point where it's past or present existence is secret.

" What technology are you referring to, and can you cite even a single example of the practical application of this technology by the USAF?"

Old chap, I am not claiming any such thing. YOU claimed the USAF was promulgating rumors of "alien technology" to encourage recruitment. Preposterous. YOU explain it.

" ...the crass assumption, still made by many people that all military technology is highly classified and so inaccessible that for all we know it might be from another planet."

WHAT are you talking about? Who is saying  "all military technology is highly classified?" No one, which makes, "and so inaccessible that for all we know it might be from another planet" absolutely ridiculous. Who claims inaccessible military technology must be of alien origin? WHO? WTF ARE you going on about?

"..In reality, very little of US military technology is classified to the point where its past or present existence is secret."

How would a civilian amateur Wikipedia ferret  possibly know that? Spoiler....would not. Alien technology may or may not exist, but an alien illogic obviously thrives.

Here's your "straightforward answer."

The as yet unproven  POSSIBILITY exists that alien technology may be in the covert possession of the US military as some whistleblowers claim. That's it. Straightforward enough?

Focuspuller wrote:
Very possible. As there recently seems to be movement by the government in the direction of releasing certain episodes to the public, possibly grooming the world for some revelations long held secret. Maybe.

So what do you call this?

"certain episodes" is obviously a reference to the famous Roswell Incident in 1947, which became the centre of a conspiracy theory in the late 1970s;

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

JSouthworth wrote:

So what do you call this?

"certain episodes" is obviously a reference to the famous Roswell Incident in 1947, which became the centre of a conspiracy theory in the late 1970s;

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

Like you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Roswell? What has the government or military released about "Roswell"?

In fact, I was referring to the release by the military of videos showing unexplained aerial phenomena.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1uLwUTDA0
And also the establishment of  the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the purpose of which to
"Minimize technical and intelligence surprise by synchronizing scientific, intelligence, and operational detection identification, attribution, and mitigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the vicinity of national security areas."

"PENTAGON UNVEILS NEW UFO WEBSITE THAT WILL BE A 'ONE-STOP' SHOP FOR DECLASSIFIED INFO"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 736792007/

Focuspuller wrote:
Very possible. As there recently seems to be movement by the government in the direction of releasing certain episodes to the public, possibly grooming the world for some revelations long held secret. Maybe.

And what exactly are these "revelations long held secret" that you refer to? Nothing to do with aliens obviously....

JSouthworth wrote:

And what exactly are these "revelations long held secret" that you refer to? Nothing to do with aliens obviously....

Since you don't seem to understand plain English, let me rephrase at your level:

"Moving pictures of not normal actions by objects now told to all of us after long time hidden may mean there is more."

rxz wrote:
I kind of believe what the planetary scientists are suggesting.  As our planet was forming and congealing into a spherical form and cooling, no organic material from the constant bombardment could have survived the first half billion years due to the heat and lack of liquid water.  Eventually the planet was cool enough that water vapor in our atmosphere cooled to liquid water and as the meteors and comets that continued to land on the planet, some fell in liquid water where the organic material that seemed to survive in absolute zero temps, survived, thawed, grew, reproduced, and evolved.  So I feel all life on the planet is alien.  If more intelligent life has been visiting our planet in in more recent times, so be it.  We are still here.  Are there more recent aliens among us?  That would be cool.

An interesting theory. The action of electrical storms in the primitive atmosphere has also been used to explain the origin of life on Earth.

A meteorite that contained organic material would presumably have to be a fragment from a planet with life that was destroyed by an impact with another body, not a theoretical impossibility. However, no organic matter has ever been found in a meteorite.

JSouthworth wrote:
An interesting theory. The action of electrical storms in the primitive atmosphere has also been used to explain the origin of life on Earth.

Ah yes, Mary Shelley wrote a novel about that, Frankenstein.  The heat from a lightning strike tends to kill organic matter, not create it.

JSouthworth wrote:
A meteorite that contained organic material would presumably have to be a fragment from a planet with life that was destroyed by an impact with another body, not a theoretical impossibility. However, no organic matter has ever been found in a meteorite.

Not true.  You haven't kept up with recent fossil hunter finds found in ancient rocks.

rxz wrote:

Ah yes, Mary Shelley wrote a novel about that, Frankenstein.  The heat from a lightning strike tends to kill organic matter, not create it.


Not true.  You haven't kept up with recent fossil hunter finds found in ancient rocks.

An ancient rock is one thing. A meteorite is another

JSouthworth wrote:
However, no organic matter has ever been found in a meteorite.

For anyone that is NOT named JSouthworth that DOES care about FACTS...

Please look up the famous Maribo meteorite that fell in Denmark in 2009.

WITH some of the oldest intergalactic organic matter ever found, and it's quite unique, both in composition and how the organic materials are bonded.

As they say, "This meteorite is taking us all the way back to time zero. It's a link to the starting organic materials in our solar system".

There are MANY examples, but the organic material found in this meteorite was particularly unique / important.

Once again, just ignore JSouthworth's posts and claims (including this bullsh*t claim that "no organic matter has ever been found in a meteorite").  And ignore his (most likely) next posts where he will try and dispute the stunningly obvious facts.

rxz wrote:
Ah yes, Mary Shelley wrote a novel about that, Frankenstein.  The heat from a lightning strike tends to kill organic matter, not create it..

Not quite.

MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT,

"The experiment—the results of which were published in the journal Science as “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions”—documented the production of amino acids and other organic molecules, thereby demonstrating that chemical evolution (that is, the formation of complex chemicals from simple ones) is possible. The Miller-Urey experiment is used as evidence to support hypotheses about the origins of life."

https://www.britannica.com/science/Mill … experiment

LightDreams wrote:
For anyone that is NOT named JSouthworth that DOES care about FACTS...

Please look up the famous Maribo meteorite that fell in Denmark in 2009.

WITH some of the oldest intergalactic organic matter ever found, and it's quite unique, both in composition and how the organic materials are bonded.

As they say, "This meteorite is taking us all the way back to time zero. It's a link to the starting organic materials in our solar system".

There are MANY examples, but the organic material found in this meteorite was particularly unique / important.

I stand corrected on the Maribo meteorite. But organic compounds are not necessarily derived from living matter. The word organic, in a technical sense applies to a class of chemical compounds which contain carbon, hydrogen and often oxygen or nitrogen. They can be gases, liquids or solids.

https://www.britannica.com/science/organic-compound

No meteorite has ever been found to contain any living organic material or organisms, or even anything that was alive, that's really the point.

JSouthworth wrote:
No meteorite has ever been found to contain any living organic material or organisms, OR EVEN ANYTHING THAT WAS ALIVE, that's really the point.

(Note:  Capitalization added above)

JSouthworth's bullsh*t claims just NEVER stop...

---

"In 1996, a team of scientists led by David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Flight Center announced that they had discovered evidence for microscopic fossil life in a meteorite from Mars. Martian meteorite ALH84001, recovered in Antarctica."

Source:  NASA

---

You know, the stuff that anyone could easily check within a few seconds on Google...

LightDreams wrote:

JSouthworth wrote:
"In 1996, a team of scientists led by David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Flight Center announced that they had discovered evidence for microscopic fossil life in a meteorite from Mars. Martian meteorite ALH84001, recovered in Antarctica."

Source:  NASA

Sounds like total crap, but you can understand why NASA would put something like that about.

The consensus of scientific opinion is that this and other meteorites were contaminated by earthly lifeforms before they were found. Microorganisms are present everywhere, Antarctica included.

JSouthworth wrote:
Sounds like total crap, but you can understand why NASA would put something like that about.

The consensus of scientific opinion is that this and other meteorites were contaminated by earthly lifeforms before they were found. Microorganisms are present everywhere, Antarctica included.

-
"[Y]ou can understand why NASA would put something like that about," is an empty statement.  Why don't you explain what it is you are talking about?  And, support it with citations?

If this is "the consensus of scientific opinion," that that would indicate you read that somewhere.  Cite it and link it.  It has been demonstrated often enough that what you state as fact is "total crap."

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
As someone who recently made a big deal about being misquoted, don't you think it is about time that you should learn how to properly use the quote code and get the quotes right?


-
"[Y]ou can understand why NASA would put something like that about," is an empty statement.  Why don't you explain what it is you are talking about?  And, support it with citations?

If this is "the consensus of scientific opinion," that that would indicate you read that somewhere.  Cite it and link it.

Obviously, NASA would like people to think (wrongly) that there might be life on Mars so as to give them a (marginally) better chance of getting funding for a manned mission to Mars. If you really want to put your economy down the toilet, this is how you do it.

In the meantime, try reading this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_m … 0biofilms.

Note in particular this passage;

Among these, the famous specimen Allan Hills 84001 has a different rock type from other Martian meteorites: it is an orthopyroxenite (an igneous rock dominantly composed of orthopyroxene). For this reason it is classified within its own group, the "OPX Martian meteorites". This meteorite received much attention after an electron microscope revealed structures that were considered to be the fossilized remains of bacteria-like lifeforms. As of 2005, scientific consensus was that the microfossils were not indicative of Martian life, but of contamination by earthly biofilms. ALH 84001 is as old as the basaltic and intermediate shergottite groups – i.e., 4.1 billion years old.[citation needed]

JSouthworth wrote:
Obviously, NASA would like people to think (wrongly) that there might be life on Mars so as to give them a (marginally) better chance of getting funding for a manned mission to Mars.

Once again, JSouthworth claims that he is "right" (according to him) and the NASA scientists are completely "wrong" and/or "lying" (according to him) when it comes to science and astronomical matters.   Presumably the results from the Mars Rover that is consistent with the findings from the Mars meteorite is ALSO part of the false NASA "conspiracy"!

JSouthworth is (apparently) the ONLY source that MATTERS!

THIS is why JSouthworth has his, rather remarkable, reputation...

HAH!   Great stuff, you honestly can't make this sh*t up!!!

---

JSouthworth.  The problem with being a troll is that, one day, you'll find yourself in court on some matter or other, and all of your claims will be brought up against you.  And you'll find yourself trying to prove that you are not in need of any sort of an "assessment" but that you were just deliberately, repeatedly and constantly, making all sorts of ridiculous sh*t up.

Watching you trying to explain all of that, would make for some truly interesting viewing...

JSouthworth wrote:
Obviously, NASA would like people to think (wrongly) that there might be life on Mars so as to give them a (marginally) better chance of getting funding for a manned mission to Mars. If you really want to put your economy down the toilet, this is how you do it.

Adding exobiologist to your self-declared CV is pretty laughable, considering the upending of the scientific method you continually employ here and elsewhere - starting with a biased opinion, then cherry picking one-off, false, or otherwise dubious references...or any at all.

"...NASA would like people to think (wrongly) that there might be life on Mars..." is a lie attached to a biased opinion, quite a feat to pull off...and you don't. No one is claiming there IS life on Mars, but that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN life on Mars, the vestiges of which may even have made its way to earth. That possibility is indisputable and not disproven at all, despite your nonexistent expertise supporting your erroneous conclusion, and what is "obvious" to you about the integrity of NASA and its motivations of course is completely undocumented except in the logical hellscape of your fantasy world.

Focuspuller wrote:
No one is claiming there IS life on Mars, but that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN life on Mars, the vestiges of which may even have made its way to earth. That possibility is indisputable and not disproven at all, despite your nonexistent expertise supporting your erroneous conclusion, and what is "obvious" to you about the integrity of NASA and its motivations of course is completely undocumented except in the logical hellscape of your fantasy world.

Thanks for catching the part where he falsely suggested that NASA was claiming that there is CURRENTLY life on Mars.  As opposed to scientific discoveries that seem to suggest past forms of life (at least at a very basic level) on Mars.  Presumably going back to when "one fifth of Mars was covered by water" (NASA).

I completely missed that distinction in his claim.

Focuspuller wrote:

Adding exobiologist to your self-declared CV is pretty laughable, considering the upending of the scientific method you continually employ here and elsewhere - starting with a biased opinion, then cherry picking one-off, false, or otherwise dubious references...or any at all.

"...NASA would like people to think (wrongly) that there might be life on Mars..." is a lie attached to a biased opinion, quite a feat to pull off...and you don't. No one is claiming there IS life on Mars, but that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN life on Mars, the vestiges of which may even have made its way to earth. That possibility is indisputable and not disproven at all, despite your nonexistent expertise supporting your erroneous conclusion, and what is "obvious" to you about the integrity of NASA and its motivations of course is completely undocumented except in the logical hellscape of your fantasy world.

If NASA could even convince people that there might have life on Mars at one time, that would be better than nothing, but they can't even do that with any credibility. The indications are of a totally barren planet with no water and not much atmosphere.

JSouthworth wrote:
If NASA could even convince people that there might have life on Mars at one time, that would be better than nothing, but they can't even do that with any credibility. The indications are of a totally barren planet with no water and not much atmosphere.

Your ignorant pronouncements notwithstanding, to date NASA has made NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER about life on Mars, other than evidence exists which MIGHT indicate life existed on Mars at one time.  The Perseverance Rover mission is SEARCHING for evidence of life on Mars, now or in the past. Samples are being collected from a likely location and await recovery and return to earth in a future mission. Your flip judgement is misinformed and premature.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/ … e-on-mars/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … tian-life/

Focuspuller wrote:
The Perseverance Rover mission is SEARCHING for evidence of life on Mars, now or in the past.

If they can do the job with robots then there probably isn't much point in a very costly manned mission to Mars.

There have been a number of unmanned missions to Mars over the decades, none have found life or any definite indications thereof.

JSouthworth wrote:

If they can do the job with robots then there probably isn't much point in a very costly manned mission to Mars.

There have been a number of unmanned missions to Mars over the decades, none have found life or any definite indications thereof.

Since you apparently did not bother to read my references:

"If life ever existed on Mars, we may already have the answer at hand. In January NASA’s Perseverance rover deposited 10 tubes on the surface of Mars. Each contains a sample of Martian rock that was carefully selected for its potential to clarify chapters of the planet’s still-murky history. Those tubes “are capable of telling us whether Mars was habitable,” says Mitch Schulte, Perseverance’s program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. “We see evidence of particular minerals that tell us there was water. Some of these minerals indicate there was organic material.”

And whether manned or robotic exploration of the universe is preferable is totally off topic, despite your incessant habit of driving threads into the dark corridors of your personal obsessions, relevant or not.

Focuspuller wrote:

The bottom line is that the chances of finding anything remotely resembling life on Mars were, and still are about as good as those of finding intelligent life in the Trump White House.

If there was water on Mars, but there isn't any now then where did it go? That doesn't really make much sense to me. Our own planet is not losing much water to space.

Organic compounds can be manufactured without using water, methane for example can be produced by the reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. So the presence of organic compounds on Mars does not necessarily indicate the presence of water.

JSouthworth wrote:
The bottom line is that the chances of finding anything remotely resembling life on Mars were, and still are about as good as those of finding intelligent life in the Trump White House.

If there was water on Mars, but there isn't any now then where did it go? That doesn't really make much sense to me. Our own planet is not losing much water to space.

Organic compounds can be manufactured without using water, methane for example can be produced by the reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. So the presence of organic compounds on Mars does not necessarily indicate the presence of water.

-
That you do not understand something is a far cry from something being a scientific uncertainty.  If you want to consider why or why not Mars lost its atmosphere by making comparisons to Earth, you should consider the differences in Earth and Mars before displaying your ignorance in public.  There is a wonderful thing called a search engine at your fingertips where you could you find the answers to your doubts.  Of course, it would also require you to read beyond finding the comment that represents the point you want to make and for you to consider evidence that goes against your steadfast notions of what makes sense to you.

For instance, above you quoted an article regarding the scientific consensus that a meteorite is considered to be so different that "it is classified within its own group."  While you found the quote that supported your previous uncited statement, the article you referenced goes on: "Many studies disputed the validity of the fossils.[38][39] For example, it was found that most of the organic matter in the meteorite was of terrestrial origin.[40] But, a recent study suggests that magnetite in the meteorite could have been produced by Martian microbes. The study, published in the journal of the Geochemical and Meteoritic Society, used more advanced high resolution electron microscopy than was possible in 1996.[41] A serious difficulty with the claims for a biogenic origin of the magnetites is that the majority of them exhibit topotactic crystallographic relationships with the host carbonates (i.e., there are 3D orientation relationships between the magnetite and carbonate lattices), which is strongly indicative that the magnetites have grown in-situ by a physico-chemical mechanism.[42]" [1] You willing admit that you do not understand how Mars lost its water.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude you are not capable of understanding the entirety of the article.  You are not, after all, a scientist or in anyway involved in any of the many fields that research such things.

You have also demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the concept of organic compounds- confusing chemicals and organic matter that is the result of life.  You now further demonstrate cognitive constructs by listing a single organic molecule that can form without water to be evidence that water did not previously exist on Mars, without listing the remaining of the organic compounds found or presumed to be on Mars and discussing the relationships of those molecules with water.  Your extrapolation doesn't hold water.  Nor have you addressed the geological evidence existing on Mars that is directly related to the presence of water while concluding that water hasn't existed on Mars because you do not understand how Mars lost its water.  Perhaps you would also cite a reliable source that there is scientific consensus that water never existed on Mars in volumes that were sufficient for one fifth of the planet's surface tobe covered with water?

You would have fit well into the trump Whitehouse.  It is not that intelligent people did not occupy the building, but there were many willing to ignore and explain away inconvenient facts.  That isn't a sign of a lack of intelligence.  It is disingenuous and unscrupulous, duplicitous behavior by intelligent people.  Your political statement in a non-political thread being another attestation of the quality of your conclusions and your representations of science in this thread.  Please revisit the OP and make an effort to get on topic.


[1] (your source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_m … 0biofilms.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
-
That you do not understand something is a far cry from something being a scientific uncertainty.  If you want to consider why or why not Mars lost its atmosphere by making comparisons to Earth, you should consider the differences in Earth and Mars...

It seems likely that Mars lost it's water, if it had any liquid water in the first place, and most of it's atmosphere at a time before life had evolved on Earth. I don't think there ever has been life on Mars.

Mean temperature on Mars is -110C which would be severely detrimental to most earthly life forms.

JSouthworth wrote:
It seems likely that Mars lost it's water, if it had any liquid water in the first place, and most of it's atmosphere at a time before life had evolved on Earth. I don't think there ever has been life on Mars.

Mean temperature on Mars is -110C which would be severely detrimental to most earthly life forms.

"It seems likely that Mars lost it's<sic> water, ...."  It is its.  "It's" is it is.  Otherwise, regarding your statement- Duh.

"if it had any liquid water in the first place, ...."  What evidence do you have to support your "thoughts"?  How do you explain away what scientist say which contradict you?  As I said before, explain the causation of geologic forms on Mars that are caused by water on Earth.

"and most of it's atmosphere at a time before life had evolved on Earth, ...."  What evidence do you have to support this contention?  Provide time lines.

"I don't think there ever has been life on Mars."  Your unsupported opinion is noted, again, and for what it is.  Those of us with open minds and whom are capable of reading and waiting for scientific discovery can disagree or withhold judgement until conclusive evidence from longterm experiments currently underway or further studies result in decisive conclusions.

"Mean temperature on Mars is -110C which would be severely detrimental to most earthly life forms."  Yet you have argued that a meteorite in Antartica is contaminated with life from earth.  Did it vacation in Sunny Florida before shooting over to the snowpack?  Furthermore, you are claiming what the temperature of Mars is now, not what it was when it had an atmosphere or a larger molten core.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

"It seems likely that Mars lost it's<sic> water, ...."  It is its.  "It's" is it is.

Now you're just writing gibberish. Reminds me a bit of a scene in The Deer Hunter..

JSouthworth wrote:
If there was water on Mars, but there isn't any now then where did it go? That doesn't really make much sense to me.

Just an FYI...

"There's plenty of ice at the Martian poles – mostly made of water, although carbon dioxide, or dry ice, can be found as well – but those regions are too cold for astronauts (or robots) to survive for long."

- Source:  NASA  (Oct 26, 2023)

---

Also there's this:

"Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it may mean that the planet is geothermally active."   - Sep 30, 2022

---

Just a very polite reminder about how useful search engines are for verifying basic facts.  At least when the results are from well-established reputable sources, especially scientific experts on a given topic.  They're quite useful sources of information.

JSouthworth wrote:
Now you're just writing gibberish. Reminds me a bit of a scene in The Deer Hunter..

-
I understand why you react in that manner.  As you have demonstrated a considerable number of times, through the words you use, that you do not fully comprehend them. Therefore, being called out on the misuse of the word "it's" and the simple distinction between the possessive form of the word it and the contraction of it is, you have declared that is gibberish and the two words remain beyond your grasp.   In contrast, it seems you want us to believe you understand the text in pedagogical scientific articles?  No. That is a stretch of the imagination that is too far.  Perhaps that is why you post based on what you think, rather than support your various contentions with opinions based in fact or from experts and why you cannot remain on the topic of a conversation. 

I remind you of your willingness to use spelling errors or typos against other posters when intellectual arguments elude you. Your use of such tactics, therefore, have given others permission to do the same for your benefit and improvement. 

I also remind you of your demand that people should make intelligent posts and suggest that you use some effort to do so yourself.

You also have demonstrated a propensity to do just as you did in the post I am addressing- where you capitulate the argument because the folly of your discussion points becomes so excessive as to burden your abilities.  You then express your anger and frustration, denying incontrovertible defeat, picking the most feeble argument you can find to use as a counter. Oddly, you use arguments such as the one above and when you acknowledged the effort for you to read burdens you, as if demeaning yourself gives you credibility.  If you want to portray yourself as erudite, which you undeniably want people to believe, then put the effort in because you are unconvincing now.  What you "think" is irrelevant if you can't provide reasonable evidence to support your hypothesis and/or conclusion.  If you can't support what you think, then you ought to expect to be challenged if you believe yourself to be intellectually astute.  If you can't confront being challenged, then stop with the idiotic nonsense- show your hypothesis can be tested and survive the applicable evidence or what you think is just the bullshit we know it to be.

That you are reminded of a scene in "The Deer Hunter" and that you chose to reference it, is another indication of how your life experiences are formed by fiction on the silver screen, rather than scientific and rigorous research.  No matter, there is no imperative to put a gun to your head- and just a word of caution if you do- semiautomatics are sure way to lose in Russian roulette.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

You don't know how to write in English correctly, that's the bottom line.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"  It is its.  "It's" is it is.

LightDreams wrote:
JSouthworth, I'm asking you nicely.  Please stop this silliness.

You made a simple english mistake that translates directly to (at least the way you mistakenly wrote it):  "It seems likely that Mars lost it is water".

This is what I wrote, in correct English;

It seems likely that Mars lost it's water, if it had any liquid water in the first place, and most of it's atmosphere at a time before life had evolved on Earth. I don't think there ever has been life on Mars.


Is there a more pathetic level of debate than inventing grammatical errors on the part of other people? If there is, you'd surely be the one to know about it.

JSouthworth wrote:

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

You don't know how to write in English correctly, that's the bottom line.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"  It is its.  "It's" is it is.

If I don't have a clue what you're trying to say, neither will extra-terrestrials so you don't need to hurry with that NASA job application.

JSouthworth wrote:
This is what I wrote, in correct English;

It seems likely that Mars lost it's water, if it had any liquid water in the first place, and most of it's atmosphere at a time before life had evolved on Earth. I don't think there ever has been life on Mars.


Is there a more pathetic level of debate than inventing grammatical errors on the part of other people? If there is, you'd surely be the one to know about it.

Source:  Mirriam Webster (along with every other major grammatical source)

"
it's is a CONTRACTION and should be used where a sentence would normally read it is. The apostrophe indicates that part of a word has been removed.

Its with no apostrophe, on the other hand, is the possessive word.

"

---

Are you finished yet?  Or are you determined to continue insulting everyone else and insisting that all the major dictionaries and grammatical sources are completely wrong about (what you call) "correct English"?

And to continue going on and on about it's and this latest, completely absurd, thread hijack of yours?

---

Or are you just trying to be a deliberate...  (on everything and anything possibly imaginable)?  As much as I've been trying to give you the opportunity in 2024, to see if maybe, just maybe, everyone might be wrong on that point (despite your remarkable efforts).