Reply
Recent blog posts
- Tennessee Beats Memphis 56-28
- 11/5/09 Belvoir Christian Academy Pre-K and K!
- 11/4/09 Dade Elementary 4th Grade!!
- JOE FRUGAL: FREE Precious Places DVD & Pre Black Friday Deals Begin
- 110/3/09 Davis Elementary Kindergarten!!
- JOE FRUGAL: Free First of the Month Grocery Coupons
- Halloween Treat: Vols Mash Gamecocks
- 10/30/09 This Week's Garden of the Week!
- What Do We Know About South Carolina Football?
- 10/29/09 Naomi Elementary 3rd Grade!!!
AP News Video
Recent comments
- I agree with you. I knew the
1 day 8 hours ago - WOW! What a buch of pervs!
1 day 8 hours ago - Some more sour grapes from
1 day 8 hours ago - East Ridge DUMP
1 day 8 hours ago - Typical Genius
1 day 9 hours ago - I like the way you three
1 day 9 hours ago - morality
1 day 10 hours ago - I'm sure they were all
1 day 12 hours ago - i agree with the first
1 day 12 hours ago - Guns in a city park? Say it ain't so Mr. Mayor.
1 day 12 hours ago




















what are you talking about?
well, the previous statement hardly made any sense. First, this is a still photo. The video is merely a cut zoomed in. So to say the figure is motionless is only an uneducated guess. Nasa first stated that the resolution of this image was too poor for any definite answer. They later stated that the image was only a rock formed by harsh weather conditions. These tactics have been used many times throughout the history of Nasa (when it comes to Alien Life). Without being a petrographer It is quite obvious that this rock formation is astonishingly different from any other around it. The craziest thing to me is how quick they discounted this image without either explaining their findings or posting another image that was taken. For people who desire so greatly in finding other life forms and the grand unified theory, they're sure quick to discount things like this. Or are they only discounting this from the public eye?