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.
Microbial fossils in Meteorites
Professor Wickramasinghe, 74, claims microbes from outer space arrived on our planet from comets which then 'multiplied and seeded' to form our life. This SEM image from a two-inch wide piece of meteorite that was found near a village a few miles from the city of Polonnaruwa in Sri Lanka.
originally posted by: charlyv
One of the KEY instruments of science, that can virtually prove that microbial life would exist on Mars, is the SEM (Scanning Electronic Microscope). Why this instrument was never included on any Mars probe, is really puzzling, as it really removes any ambiguity from chemical tests that look for trace gases that would show life.
originally posted by: ArMaP
I may be wrong, but that was my understanding of what I read about the experiment, although I said that the second results were negative while they weren't, they were different (...)
Edited to add where I got the above data from, this page.
Levin is an old senile has been. And--unfortunately for ATS--none of hte claims of life on mars have survived scrutiny. There's no ground to suggest a conspiracy. NASA is earnest looking for evideicne but with a high degree of scientific assurance. And that means hard, very hard work, very unlike the knee jerk sensationalist imaginary realm of hte conspiracy theoris
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Levin is an old senile has been.
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: jeep3r
I have seen so many photos that the media has focused upon and then, so many so completely ignored.
This was called a 'rock'.
Right.
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: jeep3r
Okee dokee... let's do it this way:
Now then, please take your time and point out any distinct differences between the two images, besides one being sharper and one blurrier.
In the enhanced version, the lines seem to be connected to the central piece, whereas in the original version this is much less pronounced and it may well be separate smaller rocks and features which are unrelated to the piece in the center.