Watch Live: NASA Unveiling Mars Rover, Voyager Findings Today (12/03/12, Noon EST)

Originally posted by rocha123
I M STILL WAITING FOR THAT BIG ANNOUNCEMENT..........

Ok!! Go here!! Hurry before they take it down!! N O W H E A R T H I S enterprisemission.com... wheeew oooo !! Now this is real stuff! www.enterprisemission.com...

reply to post by SergeantTrammelant


i knew i remembered something that didn't gel, and you've put your finger on it
thanks, sarge!

the 'retraction' articles all go on at length about the untrustworthiness of the media hype machine and how they took the words they were given out of context and all that great plausible deniability stuff...
but in the original article Grotzinger was quoted saying the sample looks very promising and we will know more about it in a few weeks, it certainly seemed he was talking about something quite specific, as opposed to some general positivity about the mission as a whole...
now i know journalists can write whatever they want
and i see no reason for nasa to lie
but something just doesn't fit right. and that's a sentence i've been using and hearing far too much over recent years. hmm.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum

Originally posted by Jason88

UPDATE:
Mars rover finds complex chemicals but no organic compounds ... yet

Although NASA's Curiosity rover hasn't yet confirmed the detection of organic compounds on Mars, it's already seeing that the Red Planet's soil contains complex chemicals — including signs of an intriguing compound called perchlorate.

source:cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

***************************************************************
Edit to add, updating as it happens (wrapped up)

Main lede: Complex chemicals found, possibly organic compounds but more science needed. Carbon, oxygen and chlorine methane as perchlorates broke up and reacted with carbon (NASA doesn't know where the carbon is coming from). Water is present. NASA needs to do more science... not enough organic compounds found to be "really interesting." NASA looking for a more "rich organic environment for the rover."

hmmmmm????? strange.

was this not already common knowledge?

In June 2008, the Wet Chemistry Laboratory (WCL) on board the 2007 Phoenix Mars Lander performed the first wet chemical analysis of martian soil. The analyses on three samples, two from the surface and one from 5 cm depth, revealed a slightly alkaline soil and low levels of salts typically found on Earth. Most unexpected though was the presence of ~ 0.6 wt % perchlorate (ClO4-), most likely as a Mg(ClO4)2 phase.[30]

en.wikipedia.org...


(anyway it seems it a component of rocket fuel , so the aliens probably left the traces of it when they were setting up our earth colony.

)

What they're saying is the perchlorate reacted with organic (carbon containing) material, but they arent sure if the organic material came from mars because they havent found conclusive evidence of organic material in the soil.. so the carbon that was involved in the reaction may have come from mars, or it may be contaminant (either from asteroids, rovers, whatever)


So they will look for a site that hopefully has a higher likelihood of containing organic material in the soil itself, to determine if there is terrestrial (I mean, from mars, not earth.. is that still the right word?) organic material on mars.


Dont confuse organic material with 'material of life' .. It was given its name because carbon is the basis of life, but in chemistry, organic material is any carbon-based molecule really

reply to post by cartesia


Solid points regarding organic material versus the building blocks for life. Thanks.

In taking notes (my OP) I can say for certain that NASA did a great job confusing the audience; they even had a hard time describing the organic material, the carbon, where it came from, why it matters. Sure NASA scientists knew what they found, but even they contradicted each other as more information came to light. (Maybe contradict is too harsh of a word, other scientists corrected others while adding more detail that at times further confused the discussion).

And to be fair, these guys aren't communications professionals, but maybe they should take some classes since the public wants to hear from them directly.

Anyways, toward the end of the conference they crystallized their message, but it took several scientists to nail it. I've cleaned up my OP substantially so it's readable in a timeline - but while taking notes it was a mess trying to follow these guys.

reply to post by Jason88


I don't get it.

This is the same # phoenix found on mars back in 2008.

faeces on mars?

If anything, this is confirmation something is #ting all over the mars surface

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by Jason88

 

I don't get it.

This is the same # phoenix found on mars back in 2008.

faeces on mars?

If anything, this is confirmation something is #ting all over the mars surface

Turns out it's rat droppings

reply to post by reject


I know. This rover more or less confirmed the 2008 finding. I believe the MSM got this wrong. Headlines should have taken another angle like: "Curiosity Landed On Ancient Riverbed" ... I have plenty of questions about that statement, yet no reporter followed up with NASA during the conference. Maybe it's old news and I missed it.

reply to post by draknoir2


That was a fun thread - that first picture is just too good.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by cartesia

 

Solid points regarding organic material versus the building blocks for life. Thanks.

In taking notes (my OP) I can say for certain that NASA did a great job confusing the audience; they even had a hard time describing the organic material, the carbon, where it came from, why it matters. Sure NASA scientists knew what they found, but even they contradicted each other as more information came to light. (Maybe contradict is too harsh of a word, other scientists corrected others while adding more detail that at times further confused the discussion).

And to be fair, these guys aren't communications professionals, but maybe they should take some classes since the public wants to hear from them directly.

Anyways, toward the end of the conference they crystallized their message, but it took several scientists to nail it. I've cleaned up my OP substantially so it's readable in a timeline - but while taking notes it was a mess trying to follow these guys.

edit on 5-12-2012 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

Very true.
The problem is that if they let the comunication in hands of "comunication professionals" they end with headlines made from a pure "marketing" POV, which tends to lack in scientific accuracy.

The perfect solution would be to have a more educated audience but, yeah, good luck with that....


Cheers

Ok. NASA will not do it. So I will. Life confirmed on Mars. Yes I said it first. And yes I said confirmed as it was first shown in the 70's.

xxx

So did these experiments detect life? Well, if they had it would be all over the news and would probably have saved NASA a lot of money as no other probes to search for life would have been needed. They may have sent probes to bring back microbes but this would have been much more interesting than the present rover missions and worth a little cash. Unfortunately the tests revealed that Mars has a very chemically active surface as all the experiments yielded results. Unfortunately the results were and still are controversial and still open to interpretation at both ends of the scale. Some scientists still believe there is life and some do not.

Bottom line. If life on Mars is proven there is no need for future funding as the one big question would have been answered. therefore no sold proof will come out just tantalizing stuff so further study would be needed. more study means more funding.

Originally posted by cartesia

Dont confuse organic material with 'material of life' .. It was given its name because carbon is the basis of life, but in chemistry, organic material is any carbon-based molecule really

edit on 5-12-2012 by cartesia because: explained more

That's just not true. Organic material specifically means material that came from an organism, i.e., something once alive.

reply to post by Jason88


You put a lot of work into this - thank you!

S&F!

I dont trust NASA.

They originally said it was "groundbreaking" then went back on it and said its not so ground breaking after all?

I remain weary of what they tell us

NASA = Lindsey Williams of Space

NASA: "We have something groundbreaking, one for the history books we tell ya, are you listening to us people..fund us....Its the only way you can learn this amazing and OMG are you listening to us people, 44 years ago we were fortunate enough to go to the moon and do you know what we found there?...omg omg people please listen just fund us, we are begging you....You wont be sorry it will affect you and your family forever we promise.

Lindsey Williams: "Folks, I have something so groundbreaking, one for the history books I tell ya, are you listening to me people..Buy my DVDs...Its the only way you can learn this amazing and OMG are you listening to me people? 44 years ago I was fortunate enough to live and work side by side with the ELITE, and do you know what my ELITE friend told me?...omg omg people please listen, just buy my DVDs, I'm begging you....You wont be sorry, it will affect you and your families "dinna" table foreva I promise. ohhhh ohhhhhhhhhh (cowardly lion sounds)


Snake oil salesmen need new tricks. Maybe NASA could resort to selling space age topical ointments that promote the growth of mustaches for men wanting to look more manly..I here that's a recent thing in the middle east. They can just say in contains ground breaking organic compounds.

NASA = Lindsey Williams of Space

Look it's all very simple...

Q: Nasa, Is there life on Mars?"
A: "Err...we'd like to say 'yes' but the big bad man in the corner, he say'no'."

Remember there 2 governing principles on Earth that stand good in any circumstance.
A) Competitive Advantage
and
B) Need to know.

So in general terms, USofA Inc would like to keep A) and are you going to Mars anytime soon? Didn't think so, so B applies.

reply to post by Drazyhaze


You shouldn't trust bad journalists either...

reply to post by Jason88


Seems like NASA keeps doing this to hide the real story that there is a river flowing at the spot where curiosity has landed. That is what the following picture suggests...at least to me besides all the fossils and artifacts I have uncovered.

Close up shot of River.


Long shot of River.


Original Source for Images

Originally posted by 0pass
reply to post by Jason88

 

Seems like NASA keeps doing this to hide the real story that there is a river flowing at the spot where curiosity has landed. That is what the following picture suggests...at least to me besides all the fossils and artifacts I have uncovered.

Close up shot of River.


Long shot of River.


Original Source for Images

Nope.
That's precisely the reason why they chose that place.
We all knew that even before MSL was launched to space.
There are evidence suggesting either past flowing water, or the presence of a lake bed, or both.
Cheers.

Originally posted by 0pass
reply to post by Jason88

 

Seems like NASA keeps doing this to hide the real story that there is a river flowing at the spot where curiosity has landed. That is what the following picture suggests...at least to me besides all the fossils and artifacts I have uncovered.

Close up shot of River.


Long shot of River.


Original Source for Images

I have to say that looking at that picture at full resolution very closely appears to show clear evidence that the rover is indeed in a "wet" location as the evidence of mud around the rover where it has disturbed the top soil is compelling.

In fact once you zoom the original image, you will see a lot more interesting stuff. Maybe it is just my imagination running wild.

Like footprints....



Rusting Motors. Not one but two.



Something with a cylindrical handle



A humanoid shaped figure with a house near by with even a chimney. Maybe it is just a toy.



A rat shaped rock..or fossil with another odd artifact.



Skulls and carcass



Cylindrical shaped body or like a fish



A light in the distance below the mountain...meaning it is not a star



Cut out or excavated structure.



A paw and possibly a foot.



This one looks like a rotting carcas



Another odd rock that looks like a fish



A pair of fish fossil that was crushed by the wheels of the lander



Skeletons