It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple proof there is no life on Mars

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Man...not all the dark patches are shadows!!!! I NEVER said that. If I did, show me where!!!!
I analysed the picture without knowing the sun azimuth angle and said that based on what we can see from the cliff shadows, the light is coming from the bottom right corner! And that was consistent with the data provided on the official site.



You said


The shadow of the tower is very dark and correct

I used the pick color tool in MS Paint to see wich one is darker. And it seems that the "tower" is darker than its shadow. And the cliff shadow is even darker!!! So why "the tower shadow is very dark and correct" and yet the cliff shadow is just a dark patch on the soil???

edited to add:
And at least 3 points that you show are just shadows!!! (the lowest one, the second to the lowest one and the upper one)

[edit on 18/9/06 by Apass]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
(bold mine)
Exact. And that's prior knowledge needed to interpret the picture. Without some prior knowledge your brain can play tricks on you. Like saying an asteroid is a potato.


I think one's brain can play tricks on you whatever you know or do not know. We see all the signs of life on Mars ( methane, Formaldehyde ,ammonia, CHLOROPHYLL) and plenty of evidence of liquid water so why not let our brains do do some math? Your problem here is that you have decided ( based on NASA lies) that it can not be life so closed your mind to that possibility and are thus forced to assume ever more unlikely explanations for things your mind would under other circumstances have no problem indentifying. Here are some pictures of what i believe to be standing water so that there can be no further defense that life is not possible without liquid water even if that is lie anyways.

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com... ***

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com... ( Long loading time)

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

qt.exploratorium.edu...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.esa.int...

www.msss.com...

esamultimedia.esa.int...

www.msss.com...

I think i have provided sufficient evidence previously that the other gases have in fact been dectected in the martian atmosphere


My brain wants me to go to the mountains or biking or dream of electric sheap (thanks to Ph. K. Dick) or see happy faces in the clouds or gazing at stars (through a telescope).


It seems that you are just about as unhappy with reality as he was but i do hope you at least handle women better than he managed.
We all see strange things in the clouds ( i dont really have that kinda time to waste but i hear you can see strange things) but what does that really have to do with tress and shrub like growths on Mars?


And I do pretty much all of that. But also, my brain wants me to believe that these lines are not straight and parallel.


This is not a question of what i want to believe but what i have come to believe based on observation and study. If you have not come to the same conclusions it means that your either ignorant of the facts or have just decided to deny reality in this instance.


So because of that, if I want to understand an image, I want to know all that is available on that image. And everybody should do that when presenting such images as evidence.


Then pick a image and find it's data. I have supplied you the image strips you may or may not want additional data for but your the one that is turning this into a personal trust and credibility issue. If you save all your trust for NASA and government sources that is strictly not my problem and i am getting kinda sick of dealing with a mind that is suspicious only of those sources that disagree with his prior held beliefs.


Yes, but this is NOT my job. It is not me who is presenting these images as evidence. It is you.


Well i have led you to the water and if you refuse to drink i will stand around while you slowly and foolishly destroy your own credibility on this issue. Whatever my motives may be i have never avoided alternative points of view or attacked others simply because i was too lazy/self involved/arrogant to check out their claims to the best of my abilities.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
When dealing with another planet, there are no simple proofs, infact there are none, only evidence for and against. The evidence suggests that there may have been life on mars at some point and may still be thriving in some places under the desert. The Methane emissions alone are not confirmation, neither are the Ammonia emissions as well(they can be produced by totally chemical processes though the potential mechanism at work is a mystery to me).

If we should find life on Mars, Europa or Titan, it would be the greatest discovery evar! Phisophers and Theologins will be working overtime to work that into their worldviews. But most importantly, it will give us a chance to compare life on Earth with that of another planet. What can that teach us? Well for one thing we can see how different the two are. If they are extremely similiar to earth bacteria that would be a bad thing because then people will be claiming cross-contamination. If we find a lifeform with a triple or quadruple helix structure, then it's quite obvious that it isn't from this earth(same goes for a Silcon based lifeform too).



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
When dealing with another planet, there are no simple proofs, infact there are none, only evidence for and against.


Based on what form of logic and reasoning? Do you understand the basic premise of GR or even Newton's laws?


The evidence suggests that there may have been life on mars at some point and may still be thriving in some places under the desert.


Actually we found life on Mars in 1976 with both Viking landers and the positive results have NEVER been duplicated by abiotic processes. The test was in the making for rather more than a decade and very many rather intelligent people agreed that a positive test result would be indicative of metabolism and thus life.

mars.spherix.com...

As to the best of our knowledge and scientific understanding we found life and to simply throw out the result ( without any meaningful argument against it) means that the later retraction of the 'there is life on Mars' was clearly political and not do with science at all.


The Methane emissions alone are not confirmation, neither are the Ammonia emissions as well(they can be produced by totally chemical processes though the potential mechanism at work is a mystery to me).


Here is why i think you should read more and stop just taking their word for the 'possibility' ( ask them for odds) that there is a better alternative explanation.


At the same meeting, NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, John Rummel, described the alternative explanations: "methane in the atmosphere...is a detection from the planetary Fourier spectrometer. ESA, the European Space Agency, has put out an announcement that it's been detected at 10 to 20 parts per billion. Well, methane in the atmosphere on Mars can mean one of three things: either vulcanism, possibly microbial life, or maybe cows. We haven't seen the cows yet. I doubt that we'll find them. But one of the other two would be a very interesting thing to find out."

www.astrobio.net...



Methane has been found in the Martian atmosphere which scientists say could be a sign that life exists today on Mars.
It was detected by telescopes on Earth and has recently been confirmed by instruments onboard the European Space Agency's orbiting Mars Express craft.

Methane lives for a short time in the Martian atmosphere so it must be being constantly replenished.
There are two possible sources: either active volcanoes, none of which have been found yet on Mars, or microbes.

news.bbc.co.uk...



What is important now, Foing added, is to identify what niches life on Mars could have retreated to and then survived within for the last three billion years.

Mars Express has found levels of methane in the planet’s atmosphere. These measurements are puzzling, Foing said, and could be interpreted as the possible signature of life on Mars today.

"We did not expect to have it," he said, "so it’s a discovery."

Another cause of the methane could be from the presence of active volcanism. Indeed, Mars Express is prodding scientists to consider currently active volcanism in terms of thermal vents that could serve as comfy niches for potential ecosystems.

"Because Mars has a large variety of potential habitats for life, there is need for follow-up measurement to better understand Mars globally and also locally," Foing said.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...



Krasnopolsky, standing by his methane detection, says winds should spread the trace amounts of methane around too. He believes the methane he detected is produced by bacteria that live in "oases" where liquid water can exist - however briefly - on the Martian surface, due to heating by sunlight or by a hydrothermal source.

He argues that a non-biological source of methane is unlikely because crater-counting methods suggest no surface lava on Mars is younger than 10 million years old.

But he will not rule out the possibility that underground bubbles of methane from ancient volcanism might somehow be brought to the surface to replenish the atmosphere.

www.newscientist.com...



Either it was released during volcanic or geological activity, or was created recently by living microbes.

A third option - that it was produced by some unknown chemical reaction - is possible, but unlikely, they say.

Prof Colin Pillinger, the Open University space scientist behind the Beagle 2 lander, said: "This may not say that there's life on Mars, but it doesn't half get close. Whether it is produced by organisms now or from volcanic activity, the primary source of methane is microbes.

"Most of the natural methane gas released during geological activity on the Earth originally comes from the decomposition of organic matter.

"On a planet like Mars, methane doesn't hang around so you have to find a way of constantly replenishing it. It is very difficult to produce except from a biological source."

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/03/30/wmars30.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/30/ixworld.html



This is a historic moment for Mars exploration when a previously neglected region reveals its secrets," Jan-Peter Muller of the University College London said in a statement today. "Speculations that this area might have water close to the surface have been shown to be correct."

The findings could be important for biology, Muller and his colleagues say.

"Higher levels of methane over the same area mean that primitive micro-organisms might survive on Mars today," the statement reads.

www.space.com...



A University of Michigan scientist is part of a European Space Agency team that has detected methane gas on Mars, the clearest indicator yet that there could be life there, said Sushil Atreya, professor and director of the Planetary Science Laboratory in the College of Engineering.

"Biologically produced methane is one of many possibilities," Atreya said. "Methane is a potential biomarker, if a planet has methane we begin to think of the possibility of life on the planet. On Earth, methane is almost entirely derived from biological sources."

Mars resembles Earth more than any other planet in our solar system, and studying its atmosphere gives us a greater understanding of our own.

www.spacedaily.com...



Such biosynthesis leaves a ubiquitous signature of life even in specimens where there are no fossils visible.

Because researchers believe that methane can persist in the Martian atmosphere for less than 300 years, any methane they find can be assumed to arise from recent biological processes, produced, for example, by methane-producing bacteria. This close link gives methne its less scientific name of swamp gas.

The European Mars Express mission is capable of detecting methane in the martian atmosphere. As Agustin Chicarro, Mars Express Project Scientist said, these "investigations will provide clues as to why the north of the planet is so smooth and the south so rugged, how the Tharsis and Elysium mounds were lifted up and whether active volcanoes exist on Mars today."

www.spacedaily.com...



In scientific terms, the methane line detected is "very strong indeed," Mumma noted. Using the high-tech infrared spectrometers, spectra of six narrow longitudinal bands across the face of Mars were taken. Such spectra involve analyses of light broken into its rainbow of colors.

"Every one of these longitudes shows a very substantial enhancement in the equatorial zone," Mumma explained. "So this is a very intense source of methane on Mars in this region. It also requires a very rapid decay of methane … more rapid than photochemistry would allow."

On Mars, the photochemical lifetime of methane is very short — roughly 300 years. Therefore, any methane now lingering within the Martian atmosphere must have been released recently.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



If we should find life on Mars, Europa or Titan, it would be the greatest discovery evar!


Actually many ancient cultures and traditions ( the creation myths of at least many hundreds)assume life to have come from beyond the planet and if they could handle it i am sure we could too.


Phisophers and Theologins will be working overtime to work that into their worldviews.


Their almost always making up lies and general deceptive ideas so i am sure they will find a way to create illusions for those who require alternative realities.


But most importantly, it will give us a chance to compare life on Earth with that of another planet. What can that teach us? Well for one thing we can see how different the two are.


Actually we do not need others to come teach us as much as we need to work with what we already know. This planet could be turned into a paradise beyond your wildest imagination based exclusively on technologies that are a hundred years old.


If they are extremely similiar to earth bacteria that would be a bad thing because then people will be claiming cross-contamination.


What is so bad about that? Do you think life being radically different on Mars will enough to discourage those who want to believe we are special in some extraordinary way?


If we find a lifeform with a triple or quadruple helix structure, then it's quite obvious that it isn't from this earth(same goes for a Silcon based lifeform too).


The Earth has a very long geological history. I would not rule out the idea that it could still have started out here originally.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
What the hell do General Relativity and Newtons "laws" have to do with Life on Mars?


Oh, another thing. There are no proofs(simple or otherwise) in Science. There are proofs in Math. There is only evidence(for and against) and falsifiable theories(ei Theory that can be proven false, no theory can ever be Proven 100% correct, its not how science works)

Normally I'd tell someone to read up more on science, but I know how much you disdain textbooks.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
EDIT Some of my previous arguments on this topic can be found ..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some of the arguments Apass ( I do not agree with his method or conclusions but he put a great deal of work into it) have made that i have not gotten to fully addressing here..

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by sardion2000
What the hell do General Relativity and Newtons "laws" have to do with Life on Mars?


Until you read enough about the topics to discover the connection it's probably best you say no more.


Oh, another thing. There are no proofs(simple or otherwise) in Science. There are proofs in Math.


One of the dumbest arguments i have heard all week and if i read much less than the few books i do per week it would have been right up there as dumbest idea of the month.


There is only evidence(for and against) and falsifiable theories(ei Theory that can be proven false, no theory can ever be Proven 100% correct, its not how science works)


You do not have to prove something 100% correct ( whatever that means)for it to be functional and useful to humans on a daily basis. You should be telling the Western Science establishment how science work and leave me out of it as i am not the one suggesting that they understand anything as well as they could.


Normally I'd tell someone to read up more on science, but I know how much you disdain textbooks.


I am pretty confident i read more of them than you did and probably by a wide margin. I have no problem with someone founding their ideas in scientific methods but i think it's patently ludicrous if someone calls themselves well informed becuase they read the opinions and theories of others. What i say i can defend and until you are able to do so for whatever you believe there is no point talking about text books or those who take issue with them.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join