Is NASA Running Away From Life on Mars

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You beat me to it, that's also the way I understood it. There may be a general misunderstanding about the control experiment (devised by NASA), which confirmed the results by NOT replicating the bubbles (metabolism) since it heated the sample to 160° and thereby killed off all organic matter. That's exactly what it was supposed to do...

a reply to: ArMaP

Did you watch the video?

They performed 9 tests which included the control.

Each test gave them the results they were after.

You are wrong.

a reply to: jeep3r

if his words are anything to go by...he more or less confirms it. I didnt check this guy...but I guess he has credentials.

As far as I gathered from the interview...the only thing that is puzzling is lack of organic matter confirmation from the other tests.

He explains why that could be...they need a certain amount of organic matter in the soil for it to be detected. My mind is poisoned by Star Trek...I thought we had more sophisticated ways of testing for life.

After they did his test and results were confirmed to support the theory of life...then they went and doubled down about ultraviolet light activating the soil and thus producing the result. But I'm thinking...if that is possible...why would you do the test in the first place...surely any test results would be ultimately inconclusive and probably flawed.

Now I wonder...why is NASA performing that test for organics...if the calibration is such that only a certain amount of organic matter could be detected.

I so often find myself at odds with NASA thinking.

Anyway...super thread man.

a reply to: jeep3r

I can't say if they're running away but... Nasa never seems to have a straight answer.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I've looked pretty hard for physical traces of life in the photos, and I've never found anything conclusive.

conclusive is such a strong word. I found plenty of very possibles

I guess conclusive would be checking it out first hand.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: jeep3r

As far as I gathered from the interview...the only thing that is puzzling is lack of organic matter confirmation from the other tests.

I think that's what Levin criticized in the last part of the interview, but then in December 2014 JPL published that organic compounds have been found on the surface:

NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

Curiosity (...) detected different Martian organic chemicals in powder drilled from a rock dubbed Cumberland, the first definitive detection of organics in surface materials of Mars. These Martian organics could either have formed on Mars or been delivered to Mars by meteorites.

In a way this would more or less substantiate Levin's claims, I guess...

I just want to add one bit that made me smile.

Once the test confirmed the results and the theory itself...this is what NASA essentially concluded.

"It's not life, it's probably a chemical reaction that pretends to be 'life'...even though we tried our best to reproduce such reaction in our labs but were unsuccessful"

They call it healthy scientific skepticism

a reply to: jeep3r

In a way this would more or less substantiate Levin's claims, I guess...

Indeed it would. I think I missed this announcement

Why arent we celebrating ?

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: jeep3r

You might be interested in the interview with ex-NASA, biologist/astrobiologist Richard Hoover, the theme is the same, Nasa would not confirm his findings on certain meteorites, while he maintains they didn't listen properly, or just didn't understand. He also claims that he recognises a crinoid fossil in one of the pictures, while that particular fossil was obliterated. It's all in the interview. A keyword in the whole conversation is Nitrogen.

You should know the Huff at one time, (same reporter.. Spiegel is the interviewer in the video) did a hit piece on Hoover over the meteorites and scoffed then. The outcome here is very different. Levin had other problems to deal with I think.

I watched this yesterday and was deeply impressed by what he has to say, thanks for posting it!

Hoover really makes a strong case for life on Mars (or extraterrestrial life in general) and his credentials are, well, quite respectable I would say.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: jeep3r

Indeed it would. I think I missed this announcement

Why arent we celebrating ?

Yeah, we probably should. When looking at 40+ years of Mars exploration in time-lapse mode, we suddenly find a lot that would substantiate the thought of life on Mars.

I think they need "definitive" confirmation that these organic compounds actually formed something that we call "life", and not just some random chemical brew or soup.

a reply to: jeep3r

So here we have an ex NASA heavyweight employee...inventor of the year...46 years on the job...essentially saying in gloves...a NASA cover up.

Nice piece of info.

Thanks Smurfy...thanks jeepers.

My bias was right all along

a reply to: jeep3r

I think they need "definitive" confirmation that these organic compounds actually formed something that we call "life", and not just some random chemical brew or soup.

Oh how I wish that were the motive. Listening to Hoover...do you come to that conclusion ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

No, when listening to Hoover it all comes down to this: they either didn't read his papers or simply don't understand...

His position is pretty clear, and especially his take on ET organisms trapped in meteorites doesn't leave much room for speculation. I think for him the case is closed: ET life exits.

a reply to: jeep3r

No, when listening to Hoover it all comes down to this: they either didn't read his papers or simply don't understand...

or...they didnt want to understand. Fear.

I doubt they dont understand. His are standard scientific principles that explain the circumstances of his findings. Even I understood him. And I'm no scientist.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: jeep3r

We do in fact run away from life on mars. I recall reading an article on this a while back and seem to remember part of an excerpt where there is some sort of concensus we should not approach life on mars directly as not to interfere with it or something. This doesnt mean aliens of course -- It could be simple organisms. If I can find the article I will link it.

Isn't that the Star Trek prime directive?

We don't seem overly concerned with protecting life on this planet, whether it happens to be vegetable, animal or even Human, so quite why Martian microbes would be somehow sacrosanct and mean a no-go for a manned mission to Mars is bizarre.

Another comment was raised about the viability of microbial or other forms of life on Mars in the presence of it's harsh environment, chiefly being bombarded with high levels of radiation, and how likely would it be that microbes could prosper...the answer again, to anyone that knows about microbial life is frankly very well indeed.

There are many forms of life on Earth that not only are able to tolerate radiation, but actually use it for their metabolic processes...we have bacteria and types of fungus that eat radioactive waste as part of their life cycle, from nuclear reactors for example and they thrive...the radiation levels of nuclear waste are far higher than that of the surface of Mars.

The question of radiation tolerant Martian bugs, seems to be moot...if life is detected, obviously - like our earth based bugs and fungus, their Martian counterparts must have adapted to thrive in a radioactive environment, or else they would not exist in such circumstances.

The main reason to delay a manned mission, regarding microbial Martian life, would be the potential for contamination of Earths biosphere when a crew returns home after being exposed...there are endless possibilities for the effects of being contaminated by Martian bugs..not least of which, and perhaps the scariest, would be if the bugs appear to have no effect at all on the Human crew, but unbeknownst to anyone, could be incubating inside us...for years, possibly decades even before wreaking havoc on our biology, and that of the Earth. HIV is an example of such a bug, which can lay 'dormant' for years before any symptoms of infection are revealed.

If there was microbes there, and we brought them back here...it could literally mean the end for all of us...or do nothing at all.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

NASA has created a very clear pattern of playing down discoveries on Mars, and even the moon where they announced the found water there...Twice.

Yes, and curiously only appeared to become open about the discovery AFTER the Indian mission, Chandrayaan-1 launched back in 2008 discovered water themselves and made the official announcement..prior to that, it was all quite quiet from NASA, at the very least, extremely low-key.

A lie by omission, is still a lie.

a reply to: MysterX

The question of radiation tolerant Martian bugs, seems to be moot

I dont even want to talk about these things...my stance is...life adapts...not the other way around.

Earths biosphere when a crew returns home after being expose

again my star trek mind...shouldnt that be easy to determine...? just take all the readings and crew bio before the trip...and readings after the trip (before landing...plenty of time). Analyze the difference....and presto.

if we're sciency as we think we are...we should be ok.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The Viking missions of twin landers and twin orbiters to Mars was an impetuous, not carefully thought out mistake that allowed science to do its thing without a careful thought about what would be the ramifications of the result. The scientific questions answered were not really not what was expected and has lead to a masterful hiding of the real data ever since.

Levy has made his case for the fact that his experiments, while limited and aimed slightly off of the mark, were conclusive enough to allow possibilities of life having existed on the little planet. But that those results were nothing compared to what was really found on Phobos.

The Viking orbiters found that the many grooves on Phobos that totally defied explanation. Various conventional explanations have been tried over the years to explain them, but all fail to one degree or another to simply make good sense. These days, discussions of the grooves are non-existent, taboo as are the finding of a decent map of the grooves. To understand the markings, a person needs to allow that they may be unnatural. Pondering that avenue, the question becomes how were they made unnaturally. The only explanation that fits the observable, verified data is that the grooves were made by positioning the Phobos body, a former asteroid, into its unnatural, low-orbit position around Mars. In the huge but delicate process of this maneuvering, the loose material residing on the surface of the body was sloughted off. Gravity on the body is almost non-existent. Any movement of the main body would have disturbed the resting place of the debris on the surface and it would tend to "slide" off, resisting the movement of the body. Only a brief nudge would be enough for much of that debris to lose its resting place and slide along the fine-grained ragolith of the surface and escape from the surface due to the low gravity.

One of the best images found to represent the mysterious aspects of the grooves is Vol_249A03 of NASA's Mission to Mars, Viking Orbiter Images of Mars images 214A01 to 272A36. That image clearly shows right angle intersections of grooves that fully reveal how the debris was "thrown" during the manipulation of the body into its low orbit. Good luck finding it in the NASA libraries.

In effect, the Viking missions were astounding successes, finding far more than expected. As stated, Levy's experiment were indicative of life having been on Mars. The grooves of sliding debris on Phobos proves that life on Mars was more than mere bugs in the dirt.

Given that the nature of the creation of the grooves on Phobos are still unknown (supposedly) by the United States Geological Survey which was in charge of the data for Phobos, I have attempted to alert them to the possibilities I've briefly mentioned here which also solves some of the other mysteries of Phobos such as the precise orbit and knowledge of it having a much lighter mass than expected, suggesting a hollowness.

For anybody wanting a partial answer to the UFO question, you just read it.

a reply to: jeep3r
So he saw something that looked like fossilized microorganisms or formations of biological origin. However, morphological comparisons make for very feeble evidence, considering that many non-biological formations mimic the look of biological ones. We've seen many of those on Mars and even on Earth (Google "pseudofossils").

Would you agree that actually finding and confirming traces of past or present extraterrestrial life is more important than guessing and surmising? Just because something in a rock looks like a fossil or a biological formation doesn't necessarily mean it is.

Like I said, can't blame NASA or other scientific organisations for taking things step-by-step and avoiding rushed and poorly-founded anouncements. They better get it right, or they will lose a lot of credibility.

a reply to: wildespace

Well, 40+ years of science experiments can't be called "rushing". I agree with you about the step-by-step logic and letting the data speak, but we still ought to remain open that there may be a cover-up.

Morphology alone is a weak form of evidence, true, but if you have something that looks like a crinoid fossil (incl. branching/segmentation and other typical features), then what's the best way to go about? Grinding the feature to dust? Well, that's what they did, apparently hoping to find carbonates inside (which they didn't, but according to Hoover that doesn't prove anything, fossil hunters know this).

So they destroyed the potential fossil almost immediately AFTER the first image was acquired. Not very scientific! They could have at least taken some extra shots from different perspectives to get a better impression (e.g. regarding the surface textures and topology, stereo view etc).

Levin's experiment, on the other hand, was completely unrelated to morphology. It was designed to detect metabolism, something inside the soil that feeds on nutrients, creating bubbles in the process (which can be measured and occurs on Earth as well when looking at bacteria contaminating drinking water). Then heat the soil sample up to 160°, repeat the experiment and look if you have killed off something. This was indeed the case, so something must have been alive inside the soil sample (according to Levin and others).

The majority of the science community still maintains that chemistry was responsible (not biology), after 40 years. How much longer will we have to wait for a definitive answer?