It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


BREAKING: Possible Anouncement Of Life Found On Mars...

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:39 AM
I hate to say it but where is the evidence, I need to see proof, not percentage, my god, scientis don't understand that they need to provide facts

So what does this prove, Martian exist
I believe in ET since I started to believe in GOD, so to me this is nothing new.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by nataylor
If you do a search for the author's name (Joop Houtkooper), you'll come across a bunch of articles by someone with that name in the "The Journal of Parapsychology." So he is, most likely, a full of crap nutjob.

I actually took the trouble to pull up some of his papers, and I can see why his initial announcement in January was widely ignored. He does have this image that Mars life MUST be hydrogen peroxide based (no, it wouldn't explode) and his announcement appears to be based on his tweaking the old data to attempt to strengthen his original hypothesis (which he came up with several years ago.)

He also owns (apparently) some sort of psychic research institute, which will further bias scientists against him since he doesn't seem to have any degrees in chemistry or a PhD in biochemistry.

I also don't know if he had access to the *complete* data from the Viking missions or if he was just going on publicly available material. He doesn't seem to have access to the more recent data (or didn't use it), and while his partner in this paper is a geologist, there's no evidence that he's one of the outstanding geologists around.

Soooo... I'm expecting another attempt by him to generate hype and fame for himself, but the background science appears to be pretty unconvincing and speculative.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:06 AM
I honestly dont see what all the excitments all about over microbial life.Its not as if we found intelligent life we can communicate with and learn from each other.I vaguely remember a news story of something alive found growing on a satellite.A late night comedian called it'space mold".

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:13 AM
Story got released on

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Xfile
I honestly dont see what all the excitments all about over microbial life.Its not as if we found intelligent life we can communicate with and learn from each other.I vaguely remember a news story of something alive found growing on a satellite.A late night comedian called it'space mold".

Well, there are people who say that if life developed independently on two planets in the same solar system, then that indicates life is likely to spring up anywhere it possibly can, and thus life is abundant throughout the universe -- one could say that life is a natural byproduct of the universe. And if life is abundant, then it is likely that somewhere, sometime, that life developed into another civilization. Right now, we only know of one place in the whole universe where life arose -- Earth. If this alledged Martian life is uses hydrogen peroxide as anitfreeze, I suppose that points to it as being independent life -- not life that got there from Earth (although I think this would be hard to prove).

I personally feel that life is abundant throughout the galaxy and universe, so if someday they do confirm that microbial life independently arose on Mars, I will not be shocked.

...and if 'space mold' was found on a satellite, then it most likely was found to have come from Earth. Otherwise it would have been a major event.

But I'll say this again...this is old news. These same scientists released a paper way back in January discussing this very same topic. I still haven't heard any new data or analysis that they didn't present back then that would help advance their theory. According to the OP, The Drudge Report said that more info will be released today. We shall see.


[edit on 8/24/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 8/24/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:35 AM
However, fact is, despite what certain people claim, there is no possibility of Mars ever having an atmosphere like Earth. Not in the Past and not in the Future. This is simply due to the fact that Mars doesn't have enough mass to build a sufficiently strong gravitational Field to hold an Atmosphere. Mars is incontinent.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by ZEV93

The simple fact is that we do not know.

It doesn't matter what you or I think or what we know based on "facts". Nothing is fact.

There is(was) a billion light-year gaping hole in the universe. None of us would have thought of that. (Someone pointed out that it's 6-10 billion light years away so it could be changed by now.)

Before any of us can say anything for certain (and it still would not be certain, for nothing is), we have to go to Mars ourselves. And, I mean, for me to know anything to be an absolute fact, I myself must actually be the one to observe it.

Those who are so quick to claim that anything they think is an absolute fact are no better than religious people who say if we don't believe in their god then we deserve to die.

I suggest people should think before they post.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by TarzanBeta]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:57 AM
This universe is following certain laws, one is the law of Gravity, and it doesn't care about what certain crackpots like or not. Take it or leave it.
If you want to deny that 1+1=2, it's your decision. But the laugh is on you.
Truth never minds stepping on a few toes.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by ZEV93

i can see your point, but who's to say that ALL life needs an atmosphere like ours...the life on THIS planet thrives in this atmospheric cocktail, but as we've never found any extraterrestrial life, we have no idea what it needs to survive. and just like life on this planet evolving to adapt to its environment (galapagos turtles anyone?) we have no idea what life would evolve to survive any other conditions.

so in my mind, after 1000's of years of assuming that life on earth was the ONLY life in the universe, if we find that THAT assumption is wrong, who's to say that we are the only INTELLIGENT life? now, i wont jump to the conclusion that said intelligent life HAS already visited us (though i have my own reasons to believe it has) who's to say it couldnt? or that someday we'd go visit them?

its just another opportunity for us to learn that mayabe what we think we know isnt 100% accurate.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:09 AM
For clarity : All I have stated is that Mars cannot hold an Earth-like Atmosphere.
I have never said there is no other life in the Universe.
And, yes, maybe there is life that doesn't need an Atmosphere. Some even speculated that UFOs maybe an Energy-based Lifeform.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:16 AM
we dont have to be as desperate as to hang on to the straw of some microorganisms possibly, maybe, perhaps found 25 years ago in order to acknowledge and enjoy the high probability of alien life.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:26 AM
:O :O
If you need a proof of how ignorant people can be and how easily everyone believes anything posted on forums and some twisted stories by media, you just need to read this thread.

Guys, there is a lot of difference between fact and speculation. As I said in my last post here, which is now buried in all ahhhs & oohs of gullibles. Read the "news" carefully again, I'm highlighting the stuff to which most of you are blind :

Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany, said on Friday the spacecraft may in fact have found signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the subfreezing, arid Martian surface.

His analysis of one of the experiments carried out by the Viking spacecraft suggests that 0.1 percent of the Martian soil could be of biological origin.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:29 AM
I have always believed that there could be some form of life on Mars. There has to be. After all, the environment isn’t too far removed from that prevailing in the Arctic Circle and Antarctica.

Some believe that biological organic life as we know it cannot exist on Mars due to hostile conditions. However, survival is sometimes a function of the organism's abilities and not necessarily dictated by the severity of the conditions.

The official position is that Mars is supposed to be freezing cold with temperature extremes as low as –225º F. (–143º C.), an over 95% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmosphere with only trace amounts of oxygen, no liquid surface water, and extremely dry dusty conditions. As many of you know from my previous reports based on evidence drawn directly from the official science data, certain evidence does not agree with this position and, in fact, it has prompted suspicion that the essential parts of it are intentionally fabricated by a secrecy agenda in control of the USA space programs.

Mars could be ‘alive’! And by the way, if it’s proved that microbes do indeed exist on Mars, then they must have been in existence for millions of years (maybe billions). Then wouldn’t natural evolution have resulted in them evolving into slightly more advanced life forms……such as Martian critters?

Arthur C Clarke had said, "I'm pretty convinced from some of the recent images that Mars does not just harbor life, it's infested. We better be careful where we land." (Arthur C. Clarke)


posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:35 AM
Wasn't this from the movie "Red Planet"??? I remember the astronauts go to Mars and find out its oxygenated, and some weird moss that is part of the soil is growing in some areas creating oxygen.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:37 AM
Folks if you can listen to C2C AM's broadcast last night that featured Richard C. Hoagland during the first hour commenting on yesterday's news posted by the OP, I highly recommend that you do it. Apparently yesterday's news was a preview to a major announcement due sometime today. Both George Noory and Hoagland said so. If NASA doesn't get to the scientist first, we could be in for some very interesting and exciting news. I'm listening to the broadcast right now. Later I'll post transcriptions of what I think are the most exciting parts Hoagland's commentary. He's said some pretty impressive stuff already. Go listen to it if you can!

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:35 PM

originally posted by Xfile

Its not as if we found intelligent life we can communicate with and learn from each other.

Thats from our viewpoint of what "intelligence" should encompass. There may well be life forms that dont build permanent structure's, store resources, rely on artificial energy supply's, have religion, conform to our normal social structures.
They may be able to "see" in other dimensions, communicate telepathically, compute mathematical equations instinctively.
What do you base "intelligence" on.
The human race.
Have a look around at the world we live in, you call that intelligent. Were half way on the road to destroying this ball of dirt were on now.
"Intelligent life" if it exists in this universe probably looks at our world as a primitive backwater.
"Intelligence" is more than just being able to build rocket ships or pump toxins into the atmosphere you depend upon to sustain life.
I would think that "Intelligence" would be being able to live in harmony with your enviroment and surviving, we havent proved ourselves as "Intelligent" yet!!

originally posted by ZEV93
However, fact is, despite what certain people claim, there is no possibility of Mars ever having an atmosphere like Earth. Not in the Past and not in the Future. This is simply due to the fact that Mars doesn't have enough mass to build a sufficiently strong gravitational Field to hold an Atmosphere. Mars is incontinent.

Why would you need an atmosphere to sustain life. Look outside the box.

Summary (Aug 21, 2007): Physicists have discovered life-like structures that form from inorganic substances in space. The findings hint at the possibility that life beyond Earth may not necessarily use carbon-based molecules as its building blocks.

This report is from the Institute of Physics, not some nut job.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:57 PM
'We' found life on Mars back in 1976 but 'they' just decided to retract their earlier announcement saying that it was all just a big mistake. Apparently no one checked the data twice and the panel of eminent scientist just broke the biggest story in modern human history without consulting whoever they should have; that at least is what we are being asked to believe.

Interestingly enough in the pre-mission specifications the GCMS test could not invalidate the result of the primary LR test yet this is exactly the means the establishment figures used to discredit the positive result obtained.

Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

In a scientific paper published in 1981, Levin and Straat demonstrated that in pre-flight-to-Mars testing of an Antarctic soil sample (#726), that their Viking Labeled Release experiment found microbial activity in the same sample of soil that was tested by the Viking GCMS.

The tests showed that the pre-flight Viking GCMS test model could not detect organic molecules in Antarctic soil sample that contained life. Yet this would be the instrument used to render the final verdict against any positive evidence of life on Mars that might have been found by the Viking biology instruments.

Strangely enough, one of the other Viking biology instruments known as the Pyrolytic Release experiment found traces of organic matter forming inside its test chamber. This occurred in seven out of nine PR tests.

Oddly enough the NASA scientific community at the time did not consider the matter seriously enough to warrant a full review, and Levin and Straat as a result became labeled as eccentric scientists for pursuing it.

With such a conflict it's interesting then that NASA continued it's exploration in the following way:

Not since the twin Viking Landers set down on the surface of Mars over 24 years ago, has NASA included a biologist, paleontologist, or ichnologist (study of trace fossils) on any of its missions.

Viking was unique as the first spacecraft to land and search for life on another planet. As such, the Viking program enlisted the talents of three Principal Biology Investigators, a Biology Team Leader and co-experimenters.

The Spirit rover, and its twin, Opportunity, which is scheduled to land later this month, cannot perform complex chemical or biological tests that could prove the presence of life. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration aims to tackle the hardest questions last, after years of geological spade work to see if Mars was, or still is, conducive to life. The robot geologists are to look mainly for traces of water, examine rocks, minerals and land forms for clues to the planet's watery past.

So maybe it was clear to them that if they were going to keep this a secret it would be best not to keep on rolling the die and achieving more positive results.

The claims i have so far made can be defended from almost any direction and i think the following shows that even the main stream scientist involved have now seen enough for many to risk their necks. This may have been a secret ballot so i don't know if they would be so brave about this claim in public.

PARIS — Three-quarters of the 250 Mars science experts meeting to analyze the results from U.S. and European Mars probes believe life could have existed on Mars in the past, and 25 percent think life could be there even now, according to a poll released Feb. 25.

The poll was announced during a press briefing following the First Mars Express Conference, held Feb. 21-25 at the European Space Agency’s Estec technology center in Noordwijk, Netherlands.

The results perhaps reflect the sober caution of scientists who refuse to jump to conclusions before conclusive evidence is in about the No. 1 issue on the minds of everyone attending the conference, held to review a year’s operations of Europe’s Mars Express orbiter.

And why wouldn't they say something like this in public?

"The life on Mars issue has recently undergone a paradigm shift," said Ian Wright, an astrobiologist at the Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute at the Open University in Britain, "to the extent now that one can talk about the possibility of present life on Mars without risking scientific suicide."

Formisano showed evidence of the presence of formaldehyde in the atmosphere. Formaldehyde is a breakdown product of methane, which was already known to be present in the Martian atmosphere, so in itself its presence is not so surprising. But Formisano measured formaldehyde at 130 parts per billion.

And, with no known geological source of formaldehyde on Mars, it's clear where Formisano's suspicions lie."I believe there is extremely high probability that microbial subsurface life exists on Mars," he said, while acknowledging that although he believes in Martian life, he can't yet prove it.

"There is going to be a howl, even outrage," over these findings, geologist and isotope geochemist Paul Knauth at Arizona State University told LiveScience. They will say hot springs could have swamped the rocks Ohmoto and his colleagues looked at with normal sulfur, or that the crystals they analyzed washed in from elsewhere, or that their measurements are inaccurate, he said. However, Knauth noted Ohmoto and his colleagues did address these points "and make good arguments."

So in closing , ladies and gentlemen, we found life on Mars on our first serious attempt and if that does not speak volumes as to how abundant it is i don't know what will.

Since i am more adept at defending my views, than propagandizing it without context, i will await the torrent of dissent and scorn that is bound to follow from the same old 'skeptics'.


[edit on 24-8-2007 by StellarX]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by mojo4sale

I have already answered to this and permitted the possibility of Lifeforms not depending on Earth-like conditions. Look above.
You have to find a balance between reason and scepticism and Open-Mindedness and Hoagland-like-Insanity. It's not always easy. But, until proven wrong, we must conclude that Physics and Biology is subject to certain laws and conditions that must apply everywhere in the Universe.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:20 PM
so its a hoax or what?

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by ZEV93

I wasnt having a crack at you specifically, sorry if it came across that way.
But do we really think we have all the answers concerning physics, quantum mechanics, time and space etc. How many times over the past few hundred years have we had to adjust our theory's.
Are you saying that our understanding of the Universe and how it works is now at the level of complete understanding. I certainly don't think that is the case.
I'm sure there are some major surprises in store for us over the next couple of generations.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in