We would be able to know quite a bit actually. If NASA and the science workers didn’t have so many articles of faith/baggage they keep carrying around.
On Mars there are river-beds still in good condition. So what does this tell us? It tells us that Mars had a thicker atmosphere not long ago. Because only with a thicker atmosphere can you hold liquid water. But it tells us something else as well.
Mars used to have an orbit that was closer to the sun. Or else it would not have had liquid water. So Mars was closer to the sun, which means closer to us, and with a reasonably thick atmosphere and liquid water. So already we know that Mars was closer to the sun, with an atmosphere and liquid water and now we know that Mars is further from the sun, without much of an atmosphere and with no liquid water.
Well what does this tell us? It would tell us quite a lot if the conclusions that come straight out of the above were not considered verbotten by NASA and the science worker/public servants.
Obviously something happened to Mars to:
1. Rob it of most of its atmosphere
2. Boot it out of its current orbit and send it further from the sun.
3. After it was robbed of its atmosphere the water that didn’t freeze under some ground cover evaporated off.
Consequently there will be enormous amounts of water on Mars. But NASA and the public servants don’t want to know. They send a probe to the highlands to look for water and another to the North Pole to look for life remnants. Are they the stupidest people in the world or are they relying on the rest of us to be stupid?
What can cause a planet to be kicked out of its orbit and its atmosphere sucked away? The answer to that is very clear. Only a comet with a nucleus bigger than Mars could have done this. And it had to have happened thousands, rather than millions of years ago or the river beds would not now be in pristine condition.
Every year there are at least two planet-wide windstorms on Mars. This happens because the solid CO2 at each Pole sublimates. Its a really big deal. Particularly the South Pole sublimation. So much friction is created that the temperature of the whole planet briefly warms. There could be dormant plant life that could briefly spring to life under those conditions.
Apart from the bi-yearly windstorms pretty much everything I’m saying goes against the NASA/public servant sacred cows. Real science is interesting and vital to know. Public service science is both boring and suicidal. What do the windstorms tell us?
The windstorms tell us that the most recent trauma that Mars went through is very recent or the river beds would not now be visible.
All the above is clear enough apriori. But to add to that the traumatic events were witnessed and reported to us BY THE ANCIENTS as told to us by Immanuel Velikovsky. Its pretty much an open and shut case.
But NASA and science worker opinion tells us that nothing happens in the solar system apart from asteroids crashing. NASA tells us that comets are snowballs, which is not true and cannot be true. So when we hear about the snowball earth it occurs to no-one that the earth may also have been kicked into a more distant orbit. When we hear about the heat maximum of 55 million years ago it doesn’t occur to anyone that we may have been closer to the sun at one time. The latter occurrence is not so drastic to evade other explanations. But nonetheless it ought to be clear that our orbit does not stay the same all the time. Nor does that of all the other planets except perhaps for Jupiter. Nor was there ever any reason to believe in the NASA/public servant view of the tame solar system.
Mars really does seem to have been through the wars though. Its not a planet that has had just the one recent traumatic event. I would speculate that its violent history has to do with it being close to Jupiter. Thats where all the action is because Jupiters gravitational force means that many of the larger comets coming into the solar system are going to interact with Jupiter. And Mars being a close neighbor is going to cop more than its fair share of trouble.
Other signs of earlier trouble are the fact that one of its sides is more heavily cratered than the other. Couple this fact with the existence of the asteroid belt and we see that Mars was probably the moon of a big planet that exploded a long time ago with its remnant forming the asteroid belt. No other explanation comes close to explaining the cratered side of Mars and the asteroid belt. But the idea of an exploding planet is another idea that NASA and the public servants don’t wish to believe. Or don’t wish the rest of us to believe.
Actually the reality of liquid water on Mars gives us only two options. Mars was closer in and/or mars was the moon of a planet like Saturn. That is to say a planet that gives off vastly more energy than it receives. Other explanations for Mars having liquid water are not available. Much as I would like there to be three or more paradigms to judge in parallel they are just not there to judge.
Van Flandern put the explosion of the planet that Mars used to be a moon of at 65 million years ago. I don’t know how he came up with that. But I suspect it was because of a couple of big asteroids that hit earth during this time period. And thats a pretty reasonable assumption to be making. But its the pristine nature of the river beds that tell us that the latest violence to Mars was very recent.
The record is clear then. All physical evidence on Mars and Venus tells us that Velikovsky was right. And that Carl Sagan, NASA, and those other unscientific pratts were wrong. The ancients reported that a big comet came on in with a companion, interacted with Mars, and also with Earth (on two occasions) and then went on to become the planet Venus.
And this tells us that our species has to get rid of its big governments, its fractional reserve practices, its wars, and its parasitical big-corporatism …………… and we have to start preparing for the next nasty comet that comes through. Or for other disasters. All this also tells us that we have to conquer space in a very big way if we don’t wish to go extinct.
Because while we don’t face quite the hazards that Mars likely faces, still one day we will be caught out. We need our buildings to be stronger on earth. We need to be in more of a survival mode as if we were geared up to face nuclear war by purely defensive means. And we need to have a great deal of our populations in space. Turns out this is easier than we thought. Because there is an immense amount of electrical energy in space which would allow human life to thrive out there.
Also now that we know that Mars had a closer orbit, had water, and had a substantial atmosphere not that long ago, there is really no longer the need to look the other way when we see such clear evidence of our former colonisation of Mars. (Or someone elses former colonisation of Mars.) It wasn’t that very far away. There is no need to pretend that what we see on Mars isn’t the remnants of industrial outposts. Thats what it looks like and we ought to accept the evidence as it stands.
But then thats another idea that NASA and the public servants have an irrational and dogmatic fatwah against.