Bacteria from Mars found inside ancient meteorite

reply to post by Mr Mask

Two answers, one post:

I think it is highly likely that there is/was life elsewhere.

There is far more evidence of evolution than there is of life on Mars. This is good evidence but it is far from proof.


I haven't yet seen a statement from NASA or any scientist saying that the magnetite crystals are "most likely" fossilized bacteria or "probably fossilized bacteria".

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Two answers, one post:

I think it is highly likely that there is/was life elsewhere.

There is far more evidence of evolution than there is of life on Mars. This is good evidence but it is far from proof.


I haven't yet seen a statement from NASA or any scientist saying that the magnetite crystals are "most likely" fossilized bacteria or "probably fossilized bacteria".

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Phage]

Quote-
Astrobiologist Kathie Thomas-Keprta: “I consider that this is a proof of an ancient form of life on Mars” comments the astrobiologist Kathie Thomas-Keprta, than public her search on the Acts of the National Academy of Sciences USA. For the astrobiologist, "the magnetite is only formed by bacteria".

The crystal, in short, can be formed only from a bacterium and that bacterium would be the trace of the form of more ancient life never recorded.

In the 1996 the investigators of the Johnson Space Center said that the rock ALH84001 contained traces of microscopic life of the past, but their discovery was considered not sure by the majority of the researchers. Thomas-Keprta says that the new study gives again credibility to those affirmations, and can also indicate us "that it is still life on Mars".
“If it has existed a time, would have to exist today also”, she asserts.

reply to post by Imagir

Please provide your source.


[edit on 12/1/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Some sources, Phage.

I hope in your correctness.

www.universetoday.com...

www.mail-archive.com...@meteoritecentral.com/msg79794.html

meetingorganizer.copernicus.org...

www.nasa.gov...

www.uga.edu...

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Imagir]

reply to post by Imagir


I was asking for the sources for these statements:

Astrobiologist Kathie Thomas-Keprta: “I consider that this is a proof of an ancient form of life on Mars”

The crystal, in short, can be formed only from a bacterium and that bacterium would be the trace of the form of more ancient life never recorded.

Thomas-Keprta says that the new study gives again credibility to those affirmations, and can also indicate us "that it is still life on Mars".
“If it has existed a time, would have to exist today also”, she asserts.

I don't see any of those quotes in those links. If you did not make them up, I would like to see the sources of those quotes.

I see nothing in those links about ALH84001 containing proof of life on Mars.


[edit on 12/1/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage



www.pnas.org...


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

However that declaration is from Kathie Thomas-Keprta and E. lmre Friedmann (Ames Research).



[edit on 1-12-2009 by Imagir]

reply to post by Imagir

I can open the link. It's the paper from 2001. Your quotes are not present and the word proof is not used but it does say this;

Unless there is an unknown and unexplained inorganic process on Mars that is conspicuously absent on the Earth and forms truncated hexa-octahedral magnetites, we suggest that these magnetite crystals in the Martian meteorite ALH84001 were likely produced by a biogenic process. As such, these crystals are interpreted as Martian magnetofossils and constitute evidence of the oldest life yet found.

The new, refined data makes one suggested inorganic process (the impact) very unlikely. It still does not rule out an "unknown and unexplained" process. "Unknown and unexplained" is not the same as not possible, it means it's something we don't know about. We have already discovered processes which occur on Mars (and the the Moon, for that matter) that we didn't know about. There is no doubt we will discover more.

The meteorite does not provide proof. Pretty good evidence but not proof. I think proof will have to be found on Mars. ALH84001 gives us a better idea of what to look for.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I think that soon we will have “official” news from NASA also on ALH 84001, however I am in agreement with you: only MARS will give the definitive proof.

Originally posted by TheComte
In all honesty, though, if it's bacterial life that is the subject of disclosure, who really cares? Not Joe Blow on the street. But if it's the disclosure of the exopolitical kind, then way bigger deal.

Maybe those with "tabloid" brains don't care. But anyone with a modicum of intelligence will be able to work out that such a disclosure means the possibility of life outside our solar system shoots up enormously. And therefore, the possibility of intelligent life also becomes far far higher. A lot of religious "we are unique" preachers can also be dismissed, Hurrah!

reply to post by Phage

Thanks for the answers Phage.

I tend to enjoy/value your "matter-of-fact" attention to detail. It is a rare thing around these boards.

Again, I am no scientist, and doing my best to process this information "correctly" as it comes out.

reply to post by Mr Mask


I also like phage but he sits on the fence a lot.

I did ask him one simple question

Do you think there is life outside of planet earth. Now if he says Yes then what proof do you need? if he says no and we are all alone then he proves my point using math.

Anyone who has no grasp of logic or math will tell you 2 things

1) I think there is life outside of planet earth but we have no proof they have visted earth

2) We are alone in the universe because the distance is far to grate with out current understanding of partical physics

Both are lies

Why?

infinity
Reality

and the fear of god and looking stupid in a world full of missguided sheep.

the world is only flat when you look at your feet.

reply to post by 13579

If you call not jumping to conclusions sitting on the fence that's up to you, I call it something else.

I answered your question previously, perhaps you weren't paying attention.

The question of whether or not Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials is irrelevant to this thread. There are plenty of other threads where you can discuss that.

I am going to agree with Phage on that. I think it is better to assess all of the possibilities of something and not jump to conclusions, because doing so is ignorant, and we are supposed to "deny ignorance".

reply to post by 13579

"fence sitting" is the inability to make choices when it is "proper" for you to do so.

There is no evidence to lead any "learned" man/woman on choosing any side on "aliens", only speculation.

Forgive a man for choosing not to throw his credibility and reputation down the toilet just so he can "make a decision" where no proof warrants one.

What you call "fence sitting" is what I call "being rational".

What I call "being rational" you call "fence sitting".

See?

If it matters...those who "jump to unsupported conclusions" are usually not offered serious positions within avenues of serious debate.

Come with facts...not tid-bits and snacks, or else you may be dubbed a wack-o or a quack.




[edit on 1-12-2009 by Mr Mask]

This has been known for a long time please check for other posts on this subject or pay attention to years old news articles.

-Just curious why is this story making a come back, this has been known for a while, unless I am psychic (Then I may be posting on the wrong board!)

-ATC AN

Originally posted by atcwatcher
This has been known for a long time please check for other posts on this subject or pay attention to years old news articles.

-Just curious why is this story making a come back, this has been known for a while, unless I am psychic (Then I may be posting on the wrong board!)

-ATC AN

Well...if you actually read the article and the information now coming out, you would see this is "new data" supporting/delivering "new insights".

So...what you are calling "old news" is in fact, new news that you failed to understand as new.

Its ok...some people don't read before they post, or just overlook the important details.

I hope I cleared this up for you.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Well sir you are quite articulate and very good at making one look like an @$$. Good for you! However, this article does not deliver any new news on the subject not reported 2 months ago when some of the original posts were made. Maybe you need to look at more than one source then maybe you will truly be knowledgeable and not look like an idiot to those of us who must be privy to this fact. Congratulations on making yourself feel important, and smart!

-ATC AN

[edit on 1-12-2009 by atcwatcher]

reply to post by atcwatcher

Actually, no one can "make you look like anything"...you appear as you appear. Don't thank me for that.

Secondly, the news was released two days ago...making you wrong...yet again.

I wonder who is "not paying attention here".

Me?

You?

Dunno...alls I know is Nov 30th this news was dropped and you are saying it is years old (now you say months old). It is actually "days" old and a huge announcement to the world. I simply pointed to your mistake. If that bothers you, I fear for whatever relations we may have once you REALLY get to know what I think of you.

Sigh...but hey...go on...go be wrong and proud of it, then return to retort in defense of your own mistake...I am sure its a hobby of yours.

I will coin the sentence you used to address all of us keeping on eye on this new "breaking story" from NASA, and say-

"where have you been"?

lol...man...just don't get upset when you are wrong...it will make you appear more "stable" in your "posting".






[edit on 2-12-2009 by Mr Mask]

reply to post by Mr Mask


Which are the tests about the hypothesis of Martian ALH84001 captured in the orbit around the sun for 16 million years?