2 ms·
Yes, the article explains the "blueberres"[0] literally halfway through (but evidently there was more hurry to put a downvote on me than to read an article alre
by __void 5y ago
Yes, the article explains the "blueberres"[0] literally halfway through (but evidently there was more hurry to put a downvote on me than to read an article already published in March 2019 and easily found with little searching)
I would like to reiterate this: the author has already 'published' this 'paper' in the past in (vanity)newspapers of dubious reputation and has already been debunked (by nasa, esa, scholars and ordinary geologists) several times. They don't even fall for it on reddit anymore, and that's saying something.
[0] a.k.a. iron oxide/hematite
- koheripbal 5y agoNo. It explains the "blueberries", but it does not explain them ON THE END OF STEMS. Please look at the photo I'm talking about before you downvote and ignore what I'm saying.
- __void 5y agoI can't even downvote. Having said that: if you are a such a believer, there is no one in the world who can convince you otherwise: for every oddball argument that gets taken apart, three more will pop up to work on. If it's not the tinyballs it's the stems and if it's not the stems it's the nuances of something else. I don't have the preparation, time or patience to argue with a believer: so yes, those are definitely mushrooms, Have a nice day.