Study: "Martian lifeforms detected 40 years ago"

Yup, it's the Viking Landers again. Space-boffins have crunched some numbers and drawn some fancy diagrams and decided that those controversial soil experiments really did find microbes after all.

So, there we have it. I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens. Maybe. Little ones.

a reply to: audubon

It's the same Boffins.

The new paper:

The purpose of this article is to consider recent findings about martian water, methane, and organics that impact the case for extant life on Mars. Further, the biological explanation of the LR and recent nonbiological hypotheses are evaluated. It is concluded that extant life is a strong possibility, that abiotic interpretations of the LR data are not conclusive, and that, even setting our conclusion aside, biology should still be considered as an explanation for the LR experiment.

online.liebertpub.com...

Levin really thinks he's right. But he can't be sure.

Nothing i wouldn't have expected, were always kept in the dark till info is given to us, nice thread OP.

a reply to: DarkvsLight29

Nice OP, this lie was told right around the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Well time heals all wounds, I guess.

Presently we are getting all the truth we can handle, right?

a reply to: audubon

I'm sure there will be more info to come, we can bet that. Great post! Thanks

a reply to: audubon

Here is my post on the ongoing effort of Gil Levin to stand by his claim from June of this year on another ATS thread.

ATS: Past Life on Mars: Potential Fossilized Algae Imaged by Curiosity.

You have to hand it to him! The guy has persistence!

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: DarkvsLight29

Nice OP, this lie was told right around the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Well time heals all wounds, I guess.

Presently we are getting all the truth we can handle, right?

Or all the truth they think we can handle? = lies.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: audubon

Here is my post on the ongoing effort of Gil Levin to stand by his claim from June of this year on another ATS thread.

ATS: Past Life on Mars: Potential Fossilized Algae Imaged by Curiosity.

You have to hand it to him! The guy has persistence!

His persistence continues because he was always certain that his experiments had detected traces of former lifeforms in the soil and NASA overruled his determinations.

Few people understand the importance of the Viking missions. They found more than traces of life in the soil. Levin will be probably, eventually, get the credit he deserves.

Two Viking orbiters took thousands of pictures of Phobos. You have seen the more mundane and some carefully released dramatic ones but they gave no clue as to what the grooves on Phobos really represented. I've mentioned it before on ATS so I'll give a sentence or two of explanation and a couple of you can knock yourselves out denying the evidence.

Basically, the grooves on Phobos, a former asteroid, were caused by it being placed into low Mars orbit by an old Martian race that had that ability.

More specifically, the grooves were caused by debris that moved "against" the direction of motion imparted to the body and even slipped off the surface as it was maneuvered into position. Gravity is minimal on Phobos. Perhaps the massive crater Stickney was not a meteoric impact. Perhaps that cone is a design aspect of the power used to push the body from its original resting place to where it now resides.

Are people not reading the actual words used?

It says life shouldn't be ruled out as a cause of the results, not that there is life.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, which on reflection seldom works well on the internet, but I did put 'maybe' in the first post as a sort of 'wink'.

Science proceeds mainly by disproof. The disproof of martian life has been ruled out. And the authors say:

All in all, the results of the Viking LR experiment are consistent with a biological explanation.

That's a bit stronger than 'a biological explanation cannot be excluded'.

Obviously the title of the paper would be a bit (!) different if this were 100 per cent proof. But that's not actually possible without going to Mars and physically looking for it.

originally posted by: audubon
Science proceeds mainly by disproof. The disproof of martian life has been ruled out.

I'm pretty sure you can't prove a negative. Or disprove it.

#MonkeysFlyingOutMyButt

a reply to: Blue Shift

This is one of those debates that gets quickly tangled up in the nuances of language and requires a bit of unpacking now and then.

From the paper's abstract:

Further, the biological explanation of the LR and recent nonbiological hypotheses are evaluated. It is concluded that extant life is a strong possibility, that abiotic interpretations of the LR data are not conclusive, and that, even setting our conclusion aside, biology should still be considered as an explanation for the LR experiment.

So the supposed biological origin of the reactions was disproved. It now turns out that the disproof is not sustainable.

It's torturous, right enough, but it's logically sound.

##SendYourMonkeysBack