There is still hope.
And hope is not evidence. You're clearly grasping at straws to support your desired claim. That's not science, nor does it generate appropriate expectations against which suspicion of meaningful anomaly can be measured.
You don't get it. You start off by saying NASA is remarkably remiss in passing up this enormously evident opportunity to investigate liquid water. Yet after pages of discussion and many days of heated controversy, you can't substantiate the obvious nature of it. Your claim works only if there is overwhelming evidence that your liquid-water interpretation of this photo is plausible. It doesn't work if all you can show is the briefest interval in which atmospheric conditions are momentarily suitable for liquid water.
In short, your straw-grasping is already the indication of your failure. NASA is not remiss. You hold out hope that your claim may yet be vindicated, but vindication must be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which just ain't there.
|