It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
You, yes You! Listen up! I remember years ago talking to a client of ours who is a top engineer in the aerospace industry about water on mars. He said that there was no way there was water on Mars and spouted all the current findings of that time. I said that it was clear there was ice on the poles of Mars, he said it wasn't ice made of water. I said it probably was water based due to Mar's close proximity to Earth. That the two planets probably shared some characteristics. He, with all his credentials said no, not so, smirk, laugh, isn't she cute, pat her on the head.
Well, I was right, he was wrong. If someone says to you that a rock is a relic don't be so fast to discount it, you will be soooo embarrassed when a future "new" discovery on Mars is announced. My guess is it will be, "Relics Found on Mars".
STM
originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: amazing
and if you search the Mars Anomaly threads you will see countless posts of simply "Rocks" or a long explanation of Perodilia -I didn't spell that right.
That's because of every Mars photo ever posted turns out to be a product of pareidolia. Where do you draw an equal 50% possibility of it being alien created if every photo has been shown to be a rock? The default answer is a rock unless there is overwhelming evidence to say otherwise. And that overwhelming evidence goes beyond "HEY, that looks like a squirrel!"
In order to give a serious 50% possibility of anything alien to any branch of this phenomena, there needs to be a past foundational basis for that 50% if the incident itself doesn't provide that evidence. One tiny smidgen of scientifically studied and scrutinized physical evidence in the 60+ year history and thousands upon thousands of claims is all it takes. That one past piece opens the door for a realistic and equal possibility to all of these other claims.
originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
You, yes You! Listen up! I remember years ago talking to a client of ours who is a top engineer in the aerospace industry about water on mars. He said that there was no way there was water on Mars and spouted all the current findings of that time. I said that it was clear there was ice on the poles of Mars, he said it wasn't ice made of water. I said it probably was water based due to Mar's close proximity to Earth. That the two planets probably shared some characteristics. He, with all his credentials said no, not so, smirk, laugh, isn't she cute, pat her on the head.
Well, I was right, he was wrong. If someone says to you that a rock is a relic don't be so fast to discount it, you will be soooo embarrassed when a future "new" discovery on Mars is announced. My guess is it will be, "Relics Found on Mars".
STM
Sure life could have evolved. But how long did intelligent life take to evolve on Earth? And how long did Mars have a viable ecosystem where intelligent life could have possibly evolved? How much shorter was that compared to the time it took on Earth? You need to figure in these facts into your probability estimates, and when you do, you should find the probability goes way down, not to a level of impossibility, but to a level which is far less likely to duplicate what happened on Earth due to the shorter times involved.
originally posted by: amazing
Common sense tells me that it is possible that life could have evolved in the billions of years in the history of mars, especially with evidence of past water.