Did NASA just ADMIT to extraterrestrial life?

The phrase, directly quoted from Dr. McKay, is: 'from what we know' *not* 'for what we know', as given by the poster. The latter may be an idiomatic phrase equivalent to ' for all we know'. It is not at all clear that the former is. I do not find 'from what we know' in lists of idiomatic phrases. Dr. McKay simply seems to be saying that we know that Mars once did have life. Some sort of misquote is conceivable, which is why I have made an inquiry on this point to Discover magazine. By the way-- the larger quote is as follows: 'From what we know, Mars did have life, and oceans, and a thick atmosphere, and we could bring that back'. The context was a part of the article that spoke about terraforming Mars so that humans could live on it. It clearly means life in the normal biological sense, not a metaphor for some form of geological activity on the Red Planet. Ross

reply to post by omnis


I would have to say someone as distinguished as mckay does not mince words. These type of people demand perfection in their work at this level.

I believe if that is what he meant, he would of said "geologically active".

Can you imagine when NASA actually presents the evidence? What would that mean to religion? I think the discovery of alien life will bring religion to the ground

Do you all really need NASA to come forward to make it real ?

Whatever one may personally believe about other life in the universe, the demonstrated existence of such life is not and will not be a settled matter until the scientific community agrees that it is. That one of NASA's top scientists is apparently willing to state that life is known to have existed on Mars is conceivably a development of great importance. Ross

They could of settled it already if they got their heads out of their probes . It was right in front of them all this time , no need for fungus to make their point .

Has it occurred to anyone to just ask McKay? He works at NASA-Ames. I've known him since 1979, he's a real specialist on extreme Earth environments [eg, Antarctic dry valleys] and like me as been a 'Mars nut' all his life. And a straight shooter.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Has it occurred to anyone to just ask McKay?

I would say yes... it occured to and was mentioned in the OP

Originally posted by VonDoomen
I have emailed Mr.Mckay, lets see if he replies!

I've known him since 1979,

Kewl... then you should be able to get a statement from him real easy

Both Von Doomen and I have tried to contact Dr. McKay by email. We each received back automated replies, stating that he was traveling and would be out of email contact through the end of December. I'm hoping he will answer one or the other of us on or after Monday, January 2, 2012. Ross

Originally posted by Ross 54
Both Von Doomen and I have tried to contact Dr. McKay by email. We each received back automated replies, stating that he was traveling and would be out of email contact through the end of December. I'm hoping he will answer one or the other of us on or after Monday, January 2, 2012. Ross

He spends a lot of summers in Antartica, so this could be it.

reply to post by VonDoomen


I love it...how typically hypocritical of some of the posters on this site..all clamoring to claim they knew all along life existed on Mars, yet any time we more open minded mentioned it in threads, we were ridiculed beyond belief, 'open your mind, but not so far your brains fall out' type of parroting was the order of the day.

How does the saying go: At first a truth is ignored, then it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as being self evident?

Then the opposers scurry and collect all your research and ideas from way back and present them as their own...classic.

For the record UFO's and intelligent ETs are very real, and have been here forever.

Any of the newly Martian microbe 'self evident crowd' care to stick your necks out...and bearing in mind the Internet archive has a long memory.

Cheers OP, well spotted on the article thing. Hopefully you'll get a reply from the other bunch of deniers / turned 'of course there was life on Mars' crowd.

That Mars rock sure looked like it contained fossilized Microbes. This debate will continue until we get an advanced rover with better digging skills. NASA knows alot more than they let on....and it is curious how shortly after their release of the microbial info....it seemed as if alot of debunking was going on....and I think someone down at NASA made a decision to release the information before being properly cleared to do so.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
That Mars rock sure looked like it contained fossilized Microbes. This debate will continue until we get an advanced rover with better digging skills. NASA knows alot more than they let on....and it is curious how shortly after their release of the microbial info....it seemed as if alot of debunking was going on....and I think someone down at NASA made a decision to release the information before being properly cleared to do so.

Split Infinity

Budget cuts will motivate people to do some unusual releases perhaps . In more ways than one . What's that phrase " Pay back is a &^$@ " .

reply to post by VonDoomen


Ive always heard they talk about the fact that water was on the planet but not life. Maybe they mean that because there was water they assume they must have been life.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Rafe_

 

Thank you!

I mentioned that earlier as well, but a few certain people chose to ignore the fact!
NASA officially said no, even though, personally, I believe they have a very high chance of actually being microfossils.

Personaly i hope this was a slip up and they did actually confirm to have found simple life in these rocks but for people to be like "Doh they confirmed this years ago" now that is just downright silly.Granted they did say they may have possibly be in the rocks they brought back but shortly afterwards they concluded otherwise (officially).But nowhere did they ever sy they did,indeed.

Originally posted by Rafe_
Personaly i hope this was a slip up and they did actually confirm to have found simple life in these rocks but for people to be like "Doh they confirmed this years ago" now that is just downright silly.Granted they did say they may have possibly be in the rocks they brought back but shortly afterwards they concluded otherwise (officially).But nowhere did they ever sy they did,indeed.

I missed the mission where they brought back rocks from Mars. ;-)

These were meteorites blasted off Mars' surface by impacts, and some of them drift through space and fall to Earth.

The NASA team in Houston announced in 1997 that they had found indicators consistent with microbial life fossils in one meteorite, found in Antarctica. There was a lot of skeptical reaction, as there always should be, but over the years they kept answering criticisms and I've always thought they made a good case. 'Consensus' remains unconvinced, but gradually getting open minded.

The more that newer rovers detect the mineralogical traces of the action of liquid water below the permafrost on Mars, the more likely the existence of a habitable [by microbes] subsurface biosphere in the past and -- no reason why not -- still today.

It's been an exciting scientific debate and discovery process. It's good to expose folks here to how the process does work.

Good discussion, kudos, guys.

I think it's been a long time acknowledgment that there is extraterrestrial life. From the science community to religious sector however.....the word they're (purposefully?) omitting is 'intelligent' life.

Microorganism life is one thing. Having a eyes, legs and hands to pilot a craft... is another.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I think it's been a long time acknowledgment that there is extraterrestrial life. From the science community to religious sector however.....the word they're (purposefully?) omitting is 'intelligent' life.

Microorganism life is one thing. Having a eyes, legs and hands to pilot a craft... is another.

edit on 21-12-2011 by Human_Alien because: grammar

The mentioning of it starting out at the smallest level . Keeps it all in tune for them when they make it acceptable for the press to release it . When anyone else can bump it up past that level who is not of the science circle jerk team . It is ignored about taking that proof to the press .

reply to post by jonnywhite

This is the man making the claim:
en.wikipedia.org...

Take note of this:

Hoover is best known for having claimed three times (1997,[2] 2007,[3] and 2011[4]) the discovery of extraterrestrial microfossils in a collection of select meteorites. However, NASA officially distanced itself from Hoover's claim and his lack of expert peer reviews.

I remember reading these links (among others) when this came out earlier this year:
newsfeed.time.com ...

Other scientists, like biologist and blogger P.Z. Myers, have been quick to refute Dr. Hoover’s claims, saying that the Journal of Cosmology is nothing but “the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics.” Read more: newsfeed.time.com...

www.space.com ...

"If you look at the microscope photos, they are certainly suggestive – looking like photos made of various terrestrial bacteria," Shostak told SPACE.com. "But then again, while intriguing, that's hardly proof. If similarity in appearance were all it took to prove similarity in kind, then it would be pretty easy for me to demonstrate that there are big animals living in the sky, because I see clouds that look like them."

THIS was why I forgot about it. I just assumed the guy was too fanatical.

But if somebody that's more reliable comes out and confirms it then I'll change my mind.

Similarly, this man:
www.ndtv.com ...

The problem is he also has a alternative to the big bang theory and claims we're all extra-terrestrials and he has a buddhist-type philosophy that pushes him in the direction of panspermia (as an explanation for everything). So, in conclusion, it's hard to trust people when there're so few reliable people to back them up. It seems they always avoid mainstream peer-review.

You can see evidence of this here (i'm glad that you doubt me - stay that way):
questional.com ...

Another influence in my early life was Buddhism. Buddhist temples are everywhere in the island, and the influence of Buddhism is hard to escape. I read a lot about science in my early teens and I absorbed a lot of Buddhist philosophy too. Buddhism – not a religion really, more a philosophy – exhorts people to find out things for themselves. It leaves unanswered the questions that other religions answer with confidence – whether or not there is a god, was the universe created or was it always there, and so on. I was impressed by certain Buddhist writings which described the Universe in distinctly post-Copernican terms. The existence of planets going round the sun, of galaxies and so on. These writings go back a couple of thousand years, when the Earth centered Universe was the accepted dogma of the West. All this played some part in my thinking and my scientific development in later years.

The 1997 NASA team involved with the 'Mars meteorite' involved Dr. Everett Gibson and others -- highly respected full-time scientists.


Here's a link: en.wikipedia.org...