Life on Mars

reply to post by RFBurns


Burns, I think we are in total agreement here.

Like I said a few pages ago, I could name a few local meteorologists who could do a better job if the question is of the planet's internal temperature.

Hell, if I had a hankering to, *I* could do a better job, and I just might. But for now, I'm off, I think.

I'm going to shoot some pool. This should be fun, because I've already had a couple of beers and I'm sure to have some more when I get there. I have a tendancy to gamble, under these circumstances...
(Don't preach at me, you bastards, I do well.)

reply to post by infinite

Political and religious institutions would have to be altered if sophisticated and intelligent life was discovered.

Yes, but the question is; why not NOW?

It's fairly obvious that NASA can easily confirm the existence of life on Mars. Why the drip drip of information. What makes them think that people will overreact now more so than the future?

IMO, they're slowly trying to incorporate this information into the world's religions as not to have priests and clerics lose their religious control and power. Governments religious or otherwise are always in fear of losing control or power over the populace.

[edit on 16/1/09 by Majorion]

I don't understand how so many individuals who claim to be scientists can dismiss this evidence out of hand, as they did the scientific results from the Viking landers, simply because it challenges their dogmatic view that life couldn't possibly exist outside of our own little sphere.

We know that liquid water once existed on Mars in abundance. As Mars 'died' and liquid water became more scarce and seasonal, it's not unconscionable to theorize that the life that had arisen there, even if they are tiny microbes akin to earth's "Water Bears," took to living beneath the surface, explaining the methane seeping from below.

As I've said before, I don't think anything more advanced than, say, a particularly hardy insect here on earth could current survive on the Red Planet, but finding even the smallest and most mundane organism outside of our own planet would be perhaps the greatest discovery of the century.

These are exiting times to live in, from being on the brink of being able to create life ourselves in the lab, to also being on the brink of finding life on another planet has me all abuzz with anticipation.

Once we deprovincialize the notion of life, humanity will have taken a huge step forward in it's journey of understanding.

Originally posted by alienesque
reply to post by Novastar824

 

i cant honestly see why this is so important...anyone who thinks about this subject seriously for 2 minutes will say there has to be life all throughout the universe..we know of very few planets and we know one of them has got advanced life on it.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Hal9000]

Science is about discovery. It's easy to sit here and dream of life on Mars and beyond, but to actually discover it, to make it tangible, it the very essence of science in my humble opinion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the official release of evidence of life on Mars, however unsubstantial, will change the way people look up at the sky from that point forward.

It's wonderful to think about the possibility of life existing outside of the Earth, but to KNOW it exists - that's the holy grail.

A few days ago, NASA announced that there was a possibility of bacterial life on Mars due to the presence of both water in the ground and methane in the atmosphere. This information has been around since 2005; why would NASA release information now?

The head of NASA left this week, around the same time of the announcement. Obviously these factors are interrelated. Could it be that NASA is feeling threatened by the new administration? Earlier in this thread, someone said that Obama was going to cut NASA’s funding, so they are releasing small bits to titillate the public thus ensuring their ongoing wastefulness, secrecy, and power.

I’m going to make a parallel here that I know seems off the wall and would never happen. But look, our auto industry is facing economic ruin and with the collateral damage of their failure, ancillary businesses will follow.

What if we looked at this as an opportunity? We have the infrastructure mostly in place to manufacture things other than cars. What if this opportunity was for us to grow as a civilization, to get everyone behind a common cause? We, not only as Americans, but as a planet, work best when we’re united for a cause…wars, pestilence, disease…we turn away from our petty differences for a moment and work together. Do you remember the way we were on September 12, 2001, the day after 9/11? We were united, united in anger, but motivated by a common feeling nevertheless.

Imagine: Obama announces there’s life, civilized life, on Mars and we’re going there to meet them. Hopefully we are motivated to go in peace and common understanding. In order to get there, we need to improve our technology and get everyone behind the idea of manufacturing space vehicles, and in order to do that, we need to work as a society. Millions of jobs could be saved/created. This would be a government project (like the Conservation Corps) but using business contractors, very much like NASA does now, but under a new space agency administered by civilian and university scientists. Yes, there would be bureaucracy, infighting, corruption and power fights, just like now. But it could focus us on a cause; only in a healthy way.

It could save Ford, in fact they might even be able to keep the Thunderbird name, only this time on a rocket.

Originally posted by Phage
It is not an ongoing process. It is seasonal.

Where did you get that from?

Earthquakes (marsquakes) are not required. There are proposed geological processes which can account for it just as there are biological processes that can account for it.

So why give the proposed geological processes so much credence while ignoring the obvious biological explanations? Why is it so hard to concentrate on what's more likely?

There is no evidence to completely disallow either geologic or biologic origins of the methane.

It could be both but at this point it's pretty clear that current life is responsible for the majority as it is here on Earth.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude either a biological or geologic origin for the methane.

Isn't it funny how there is always insufficient evidence for scientist to abandon a favored conventional model right up until the point where everyone unanimously accept that something was always the way the mavericks claimed it was? Isn't it funny how the majorities that are so consistently wrong always seem to get away with their credentials intact while the mavericks who managed to figure out the truth rarely get any credit for braving the ridicule that accompanies being ahead of the consistently inaccurate 'consensessus'?


Isn't that odd?

Odds are that i am going to be hang around here in one capacity or another for a long time to come and i wont forget to save all these 'objections' to places where i can readily find it to throw in your face. Good luck on trying to defend a vast becoming untenable position. I wont be surprised to later find you claiming that you always knew there were life on Mars.

Stellar

reply to post by Monger


"It's wonderful to think about the possibility of life existing outside of the Earth, but to KNOW it exists - that's the holy grail."

I concurr.

The ultimate achievement in this regard would be not to analyze and detect life remotely with a robot on mars, but to detect life and also send a sample back to earth, where it can be analyzed. This would finally give us the 'tangible' thing which is required to cement this new concept into our sciences.

It would be wonderful to have some martian soil - even if all the lifeforms in died on the trip to earth.

(By detecting the life and imaging it on the surface of Mars, we can effectively obtain a 'control sample', so as to preclude any confusion resulting from contamination, should it occur or be suspected)

It seems that it's all official now, but the true nature of the process creating that methane is still debated though.

Here is the APOD article of today, which shows a map of those emissions. Interesting...

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Phage
It is not an ongoing process. It is seasonal.

Where did you get that from?

From just about every article about the press conference. Here's one:

"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane," said Villanueva. "The plumes were emitted during the warmer seasons — spring and summer — perhaps because the permafrost blocking cracks and fissures vaporized, allowing methane to seep into the Martian air. Curiously, some plumes had water vapor while others did not," said Villanueva. The rate of release is about 1 pound per second or .6 kg per second.

Earthquakes (marsquakes) are not required. There are proposed geological processes which can account for it just as there are biological processes that can account for it.

So why give the proposed geological processes so much credence while ignoring the obvious biological explanations? Why is it so hard to concentrate on what's more likely?

The determination of what is more likely depends on the evidence.

There is no evidence to completely disallow either geologic or biologic origins of the methane.

It could be both but at this point it's pretty clear that current life is responsible for the majority as it is here on Earth.

Clear to you perhaps. It could be both but I kind of doubt it. I think it's one or the other.

Odds are that i am going to be hang around here in one capacity or another for a long time to come and i wont forget to save all these 'objections' to places where i can readily find it to throw in your face. Good luck on trying to defend a vast becoming untenable position. I wont be surprised to later find you claiming that you always knew there were life on Mars.

Stellar

I couldn't be happier if evidence confirms life on Mars. The scientists trying to find the evidence will be overjoyed. Nah, I won't claim I always knew it was there but I will say I thought the possibility was there. Can you point out somewhere I've said otherwise?

[edit on 1/19/2009 by Phage]

Yes, I know N has sometimes kept stuff from us, maybe for security reasons, I don't know.
this photo was gleaned from a N photo several years back and I think it is now deleted from their site. I also saw a photo get paintbrushed right on my computer while I was trying to send the photo to a friend who was a graffics expert. He indicated to me it was a real object with heat and light signatures.



This one is ok, since it also was posted on the Citizens Briefing Book that will be handed to B.O. tomorrow in the topics about UFO disclosure.

reply to post by RFBurns


I saw the posts about Martian colors and wanted to just say that for those who think that Mars really has a blue sky, that respectully, you do not understand false color photography and how it is being employed with the Martian imagery. I was a professional astronomer for years, which really only means I was paid to do it (ha ha) , but still it was my degree of choice and this involved planetary geology and atmospheres of course.

If you are familiar with planetary geology and also how atmosphere is generated/recycled on a planet, you would understand that Mars cannot keep a thick atmosphere. There are a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Mars has gravity that is too weak to retain the lighter gases, and the cold makes it difficult for some gases to remain ... well... gaseous. What this has to do with the topic of true Martian color however is that there is not enough atmosphere on Mars to generate a 'blue' sky on Mars to put it in layman's terms. More technically, the blue sky is due to what many here already know: Rayleigh Scattering, which basically is separation and scattering in all directions of the shorter wavelength or bluer light in full sunlight spectrum by the atmospheric molecular Oxygen and Nitrogen ...
Mars has only trace amounts of Nitrogen and Oxygen (2.7%N, 0.13% O) and so Rayleigh Scattering does not occur in any great amount. Oddly the only 'blue' sky is seen when looking at Martian Sunset when the Sun, on the horizon is being viewed through a relatively thicker atmosphere along the limb of the planet. In this case, a FAINT blue glow around the Sun in fact is visible. That is what it takes to produce a blue sky on Mars. The sky is Salmon colored, and the rocks do not have a bluish cast. That is a false color image used to assist in separating DUST from ROCK visually.
Im sorry to rain on that parade but this is the science behind your speculation.
Thanks,
Marc D'Antonio

It could well be that the outgassing fields look like trees from above,and stain the ground surrounding them like oil geysers.That would account for some seasonal changes in coloring bands in the warmer climates for centuries observed from Earth.There are living beings on Mars like us,and these findings of outgassing could be an argument aginst large life like us present there now.If we are told that only bacteria is there now,then the vast majority will be satified and move on with their lives never knowing the truth. This was found by LoneQWolf from www.disclosetv.com a six inch Mars ALIVE being looking at Opportunity rover a week ago. The difference between this lone (male I assume) is that mostly the Mars animals travel in large packs of diverse species,especially at Spirit rover sites where they seem much more active and abundant.*Note i made the bulging eyes creature slimmer in my top 2 shots for emphasis by squeezing detail horizontally for comparison and detail differentiation.The center black dot is his nose and nose shadow.

Nasa has already stated Publicly that the Soil Samples examined by the Rovers are "Toxic to humans". This tells me...


1. pathogenic microbes could exist in the Martian Soil

2. we don't want to go there an try to live if that is the case

3. we need to be very careful about bringing any soil samples back to earth
in our Rich life hospitable environment, this could be a catastrophic event
should any "accidental" leaks occur, i don't need to say anymore about
the Martian Microbe Leak Scenario which hasn't happened yet

4. so the conclusion is that Mars is Toxic to Human Life

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Monger

 

"It's wonderful to think about the possibility of life existing outside of the Earth, but to KNOW it exists - that's the holy grail."

I concurr.

The ultimate achievement in this regard would be not to analyze and detect life remotely with a robot on mars, but to detect life and also send a sample back to earth, where it can be analyzed. This would finally give us the 'tangible' thing which is required to cement this new concept into our sciences.

It would be wonderful to have some martian soil - even if all the lifeforms in died on the trip to earth.

(By detecting the life and imaging it on the surface of Mars, we can effectively obtain a 'control sample', so as to preclude any confusion resulting from contamination, should it occur or be suspected)

-Not really, all you'd need to really confirm life existing on another planet, is camera footage of something moving around under it's own power be it bipedal, quadrupedal, oceanic locomotion or flight...

reply to post by Brainiac



"-Not really, all you'd need to really confirm life existing on another planet,"

I didn't even mention confirmation ;-)

I did mentioned that 'This would finally give us the 'tangible' thing which is required to cement this new concept into our sciences. '

But even then, it would have already been confirmed before we launched the samples back towards earth....

*Please re- read the post you clearly misread, and please don't make things up and put words in my mouth. Thanks!

Cheers!

reply to post by StellarX


intelligent life on mars or any other planet is as plausible as evolution. both of these stupid fantasies will be exposed in the not to distant future.

Originally posted by Brainiac
Nasa has already stated Publicly that the Soil Samples examined by the Rovers are "Toxic to humans". This tells me...


1. pathogenic microbes could exist in the Martian Soil

2. we don't want to go there an try to live if that is the case

3. we need to be very careful about bringing any soil samples back to earth
in our Rich life hospitable environment, this could be a catastrophic event
should any "accidental" leaks occur, i don't need to say anymore about
the Martian Microbe Leak Scenario which hasn't happened yet

4. so the conclusion is that Mars is Toxic to Human Life

Perchlorate salts (not pathogenic microbes) were found by the Phoenix lander (not a rover) in the north polar region. Perchlorate salts are found naturally on Earth. Humans (and other lifeforms) seem to be doing OK. Perchlorates are not necessarily highly toxic but it probably wouldn't be a good idea to eat the dirt of Mars.

The presence of perchlorate salts in no way affects our ability to survive on Mars.

It will be a very long time before any Martian soil is returned to Earth but when it is very strong precautions will be taken. Mars is in more danger of contamination from Earth than vice versa.

Mars is a difficult place for humans to survive but there is no indication that it is "toxic to human life".

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Mars is a difficult place for humans to survive but there is no indication that it is "toxic to human life".

I'd go one step further than this even. Although I'm only talking of several hundreds of millions of years ahead, the sun is gradually getting hotter and bigger, and that will eventually lead to an earth that will be too hot for humans to survive. Mars would then be in the life zone of that expanding star.

The sun is expanding and getting roughly 10% hotter per billion of years, so it is quite likely that in 1 or 2 billions of years, we will have to move to the 4th planet! I greatly suspect that if human life makes it to that point in time, we will have the means to do that, and perhaps even go out of the solar system with little or no effort, who knows?

Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. I realize people believe that life has only been on Earth a few thousand years like the bible says,and humans are the most advance intelligence in the universe ,EVER.So why do the scientists lie to us and show us pics of FACES on Mars. Are they playing tricks? I see dead ones and live ones on Mars.

Originally posted by Phage
rom just about every article about the press conference. Here's one:

"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane," said Villanueva. "The plumes were emitted during the warmer seasons — spring and summer — perhaps because the permafrost blocking cracks and fissures vaporized, allowing methane to seep into the Martian air. Curiously, some plumes had water vapor while others did not," said Villanueva. The rate of release is about 1 pound per second or .6 kg per second.

Right so here's another showing that it's seasonal VARIATIONS meaning that either geological or biological activities are changing in quite short periods.

The scientists said they have detected seasonal variations of methane emissions over some locations on Mars, but remain uncertain about the source of the gas.

www.marsdaily.com...

The find is intriguing especially because the researchers say they have detected seasonal variations of methane emissions over specific locations on the planet.

www.sciencefriday.com...

You may perhaps understand how different the implications are now that i have corrected your partial summary?

The determination of what is more likely depends on the evidence.

Where you feel more comfortable ignoring biology and expending energy coming with geological explanations, right?

Clear to you perhaps. It could be both but I kind of doubt it. I think it's one or the other.

Better to be wrong about just one thing instead of everything? Does your reasoning focus exclusively on doing damage control or are you in fact trying to learn something when i'm not looking?

I couldn't be happier if evidence confirms life on Mars.

But until then you will happily dismiss all evidence indicative of coming to the conclusion of extant lift before the rest of the scientific community does? Is that shear cowardice ( i will accept a great deal of caution if your daily bread depends on it) or do you just take pleasure in playing it safe?

The scientists trying to find the evidence will be overjoyed.

Can you point me to scientist who works for NASA that are assigned to these missions or assigned to inspect the data in their search for life on Mars? I am not aware that NASA in fact employs exo-biologist or if they are assigned to inspect the data coming from Mars. Perhaps you can show that NASA is in fact paying someone that will benefit by finding the evidence?

Nah, I won't claim I always knew it was there but I will say I thought the possibility was there.

Good, i mean you don't want to overextend yourself by commiting to something.

Can you point out somewhere I've said otherwise?

No, but i didn't really look. Since i haven't given you the benefit of doubt thus far perhaps i can do it here and save myself some searching?
Your main disagreement seems to in the fact that you believe it to be 'scientific' to ignore 'mounting' ( never enough until it's blatantly obvious thought ) evidence until all those who most seriously denied it tells you it's ok to admit it. Why we have to 'prove' that there is life on Mars when there never was such proof that there isn't is perhaps a more interesting question. Perhaps it isn't strange to you that only those who attempt to 'prove' something has to jump trough multiple hoops while large sections of the professional scientist can distort and misrepresent both what we know and what we don't yet know? Why the bias in favor of slowing down research?

Stellar