NASA scientist says he is 95% sure there is life on Mars!

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by Arken

 

they should explore the mars hole or the south polar regions

Hellas Basin....

In particular "Falls in Hellas Basin" image (rotate on SE)

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arken
An amazing statement from Professor Joseph Miller, who's been working on NASA space projects for 30 years admits that there is a 95% probability of Life on Mars. They have found liquid water right now on Mars and this is the key for Life as we know it.
Is there an hidden war inside NASA and /or other Intel/Military Agencies to hide the truth?

The evidence is accumulating for some sort of active biology below the surface on Mars -- and other potential microbial hanitats elsewhere in the Solar System.

It's an exciting trend, and has been gathering strength for decades.

Nobody is hiding any 'truth', and if it's a surprise to you, perhaps you lurk too long in darkness.

BTW -- Where's this supposed finding of liquid water on Mars NOW?

Did you just misread some report, or did you find some story the rest of us hadn't?

I'd give the odds of the former at maybe 99 to 1, in favor.

Please clear this up.

Your excessive self esteem, as usual, Jimmy.

Dr. Ken Edgett, NASA Senior Research Scientist announcement at 1.18 mark in NASA 2006 conference.

Video in the Opening Post.

"Today we are talking about LIQUID WATER that is present on Mars right now..."

Who is Ken Edgett: www.msss.com...

edit on 16-11-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Take a look at the entire video and read the March 2012, PDf. document Research and tests on Viking's Mars Samples.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arken
Scientists against scientists.... hmmm: suspicious and pesky....

Suspicious? Why, would be more "natural" if it was (or is it if it were) scientists against plumbers?

In the Pdf. research published there are proofs of the tests, and protocols and data utilized in perfect line with the Biological evidence.

That data is (probably, I haven't read it) the same as the one presented 30 years ago.

"Your" scientists claim that they are inconclusive...... Why? Where are the proof of this?

Where are their scientific publications on this?

Look for it, this has been public for more than 30 years.

Also, if that PDF has real proof, why is he only 95% sure?

PS: I notice that you haven't answered my first question, where can I see evidence that "They have found liquid water right now on Mars"?

The Pdf. research published and i've posted is from March 2012!
You can find the NASA annoucement about Liquid Water on Mars in the video conference of 2006. Six years ago...

Busy and lazy, ArMaP....

Who are those scientists that thought that they were inconclusive?
Data, or any research published? Their names?

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arken
Scientists against scientists.... hmmm: suspicious and pesky....

Suspicious? Why, would be more "natural" if it was (or is it if it were) scientists against plumbers?

In the Pdf. research published there are proofs of the tests, and protocols and data utilized in perfect line with the Biological evidence.

That data is (probably, I haven't read it) the same as the one presented 30 years ago.

"Your" scientists claim that they are inconclusive...... Why? Where are the proof of this?

Where are their scientific publications on this?

Look for it, this has been public for more than 30 years.

Also, if that PDF has real proof, why is he only 95% sure?

PS: I notice that you haven't answered my first question, where can I see evidence that "They have found liquid water right now on Mars"?

The Pdf. research published and i've posted is from March 2012!
You can find the NASA annoucement about Liquid Water on Mars in the video conference of 2006. Six years ago...

Busy and lazy, ArMaP....

Who are those scientists that thought that they were inconclusive?
Data, or any research published? Their names?

edit on 16-11-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)

I am not sure you understand the water findings. Allow me to explain. There is no liquid water on the surface of Mars.

The atmosphere of Mars is so thin and the temperature so cold that liquid water cannot persist at the surface. It would rapidly evaporate or freeze. Researchers propose that water could remain liquid long enough, after breaking out from an underground source, to carry debris downslope before totally freezing.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Still, there is serious talk of very brief episodes of liquid water on the surface, that quickly vanishes -- but the claim is being seriously made that it happens once and a great while, 'now' in the sense of modern times, but not 'now' in the sense of 'today and tomorrow'. We both stand corrected, and modified. Thanks!

I have no doubts there is some water on Mars....maybe not on the surface but below the surface.

As for microscoptic life....sure, anything is possible if they have found it on space junk fallen to Earth so why not Mars?

Originally posted by Arken
The Pdf. research published and i've posted is from March 2012!

Yes, and it was posted on ATS at the time, but it's based on the same old data.
And don't forget that this is talking about one of three experiments, this was the only one that returned results that could possibly mean life. They also say that "active soils exhibited rapid, substantial gas release. The gas was probably CO2", so they do not even know what gas was released.

You can find the NASA annoucement about Liquid Water on Mars in the video conference of 2006. Six years ago...

That's why I didn't noticed, as I didn't watch the video (most videos are a waste of time), and no, that's not a NASSA announcement about liquid water on Mars, much less now. Although they use the word "water" most of the time they also say that it could have been other liquid, they do not have data to know what really was flowing down the crater walls.

But I also think that it was most likely water, I just don't see something that lasts seconds and happens once in five years as "water flowing".

Busy and lazy, ArMaP....

Yes.

Who are those scientists that thought that they were inconclusive?
Data, or any research published? Their names?

Look for it, I'm busy and lazy.

reply to post by ArMaP

it was posted on ATS at the time, but it's based on the same old data.

Researched in ATS but I do not find this.....
Link or source for this?

Although they use the word "water" most of the time they also say that it could have been other liquid, they do not have data to know what really was flowing down the crater walls.

This is only your personal opinion.
The "word" for "other liquid" is LIQUID and not WATER.

Like Alchool or Liquid Methane or Oil etc...
Lazy also with the words.
joke.

reply to post by ArMaP


This is an interesting excerpt.

[...] controversy has reigned ever since over these findings. Until recently, chemical interpretation of the LR results has dominated but discoveries of Martian atmospheric methane [5, 6], sub-surface water ice
on Mars [7], drops of liquid water at the Phoenix landing site[8], and the incredible hardiness of terrestrial extremophiles [9] have all led to the re-examination of the possibility of extant Martian microbial life.[...]

And this:

M.T., Madsen, M.B., Markiewicz, W.J., Marshall, J., McKay,
C.P., Mellon, M.T., Ming, D.W., Morris, R.V., Pike, W.T., Renno,
N., Staufer, U., Stoker, C., Taylor, P., Whiteway, J.A., and Zent,
A.P., “H2O at the Phoenix landing site”, Science, Vol. 325,

H2O is the chemical formula of WATER...

New scientific protocols cast new light on that Viking's data....

2. New Approach
We now report a new methodological approach to these
data, complexity analysis. Due to the high order present in
biological systems [11] , time series of biological variables, with
their short- and long-range correlations, scale-invariance,
complex periodic cycles, quasi-periodicities, positive and
inverse “memory” and the like, exhibit behaviours that
are different from the complete unpredictability of pure
random physical processes (white noise). Moreover, they
are also distinguishable from the trivially smooth landscape
of a completely predictable deterministic process, often
manifesting themselves with flicker (pink) noise (temporal
scale statistical invariance) [12, 13]. We have now found that
a set of complexity measures (appendix#1 for definition)
unambiguously distinguishes the active LR experiments, or
portions thereof, from various abiotic controls (p

Originally posted by Arken
Researched in ATS but I do not find this.....
Link or source for this?

Here you have it, posted in April.

This is only your personal opinion.

It's my opinion, based on the fact that say that the gullies "suggest liquid water or some other fluidising agent similar to water", that "a liquid was involved", that the "consensus is liquid water", make me think that they do not really have evidence that what has flown was water.

The "word" for "other liquid" is LIQUID and not WATER.

I don't get it.

This is not "amazing". The probability of there being life in the universe other than us is EXTREMELY high. You are just programmed to think that this is amazing

I can't post three link right now,as i am on my phone, but Physorg has an article out today about water on mars.

well of course there is microscopic bacterial life of some form there. But there is no life as we know it on mars.

reply to post by Arken


How about you respond to my post about "water" on Mars. Or do you not like the truth?

reply to post by Quadrivium


Even if implied its not true. And even Arthur C Clarke said he was 99% certain there was life on earth and he was looking at trees. And where there are trees there are creatures and life.

Microbes are known to live in harsher conditions on earth than there would be on Mars. We know that bodies of water have flowed on Mars in the past. Whatever microbes that may have develop during that time could still have survived and be thriving still. Just need to find them where they might be probably close to the equator or trapped in pockets of water under the north caps. Like here on Earth places trapped like that for thousands even millions of years is like opening a time capsule with creatures never seen before.

reply to post by sean


Where are conditions on Earth harsher than the surface of Mars?

Originally posted by Arken
Researched in ATS but I do not find this.....
Link or source for this?

Here. From Mikes album...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also...


Heavy Frost, or Snow. Deposit at Viking Lander 2 Site (Viking Lander Image 211093).
Courtesy: Spherix Inc

And .....

In an unprecedented discovery, NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander has found snow falling from clouds on Mars, scientists said.

A laser instrument collecting data on how the atmosphere and surface interact on Mars detected snow from clouds about four kilometers (2.5 miles) above the spacecraft's landing site. The date found the snow vaporized before reaching the ground.

"Nothing like this view has ever been seen on Mars," said Jim Whiteway, of York University, Toronto, lead scientist for the Canadian-supplied Meteorological Station on Phoenix. "We'll be looking for signs that the snow may even reach the ground."

Spacecraft soil experiments also have provided dramatic evidence of past interaction between minerals and liquid water, processes that occur on Earth. Phoenix touched down in the Martian arctic on May 25.

Phoenix data also suggested the presence of calcium carbonate, the main composition of chalk, and particles that could be clay. Most carbonates and clays on Earth form only with water on hand.

And...


Snow?


afp.google.com...

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Here. From Mikes album...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's one of those other occasions in which Dr Gilbert V. Levin returned to the case, as he has done many times since the results came back from Mars.

Apparently, he is one those people that do not know how to wait for more information and keep on spamming everything with different presentations of the same data...

Snow?

No, just some image processing.

Edited to add that the above image shows not only image processing, it shows image processing to make things look like they wanted to look, not to get to the truth. That's the worst kind of image processing.


Edit the second: there's no way of getting the right colours from that image, as it was made with images from the ultraviolet, green and violet filters and not the ones from the red, green and blue.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I am pretty sure they are talking about micobial life. Don't get your hopes set on any kind of "intelligent" life.
But hey, microbial life is a good start

S&F, good find.

Yea well ..... martians are probably looking at the blue planet and telling their kids -- "We think there are are microbes up there but there is no intelligent life up there".