My water images were speculation.
But apparently NASA is somehow remiss for not addressing that speculation, no matter how farfetched it may be. Explain how that works. Yes, people may form conspiracy theories around it based on their inexperience or prejudice, but why is that anything but those people's problem?
The problem is not that you speculated, but that you seem to want that speculation to be taken for something more than what it is.
The argument I am hearing is it can not be water...
No, one such argument was made. Most everyone else seems to be wondering why some regular guy's knee jerk reaction should have any legitimate bearing on the operation of a space mission being conducted by well-trained operators and qualified scientists.
...we do know the conditions that it can exist.
The conditions also allow for the presence of ice cream. So if I speculate that it's a puddle of Cherry Garcia and provide no other evidence, is NASA acting strangely for not stopping the rover to see?
There are other reasons for rejecting the puddle-of-water interpretation.
This thread was started to express my opinion on how conspiracy theories start.
Agreed. But you implied that the reasons for which they arise ought to be addressed by NASA. If uninformed people get the wrong idea from their intuition and decide to base an accusation upon it, why is that anything more than an unfounded, speculative accusation? Why does that create an obligation for someone else.
Just because you were fooled into thinking that might be water doesn't mean the operators of the spacecraft don't have a better means of making that determination and have more experience observing these special photographs, and thus made the right decision to move on.
|