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.


Scientific Evidence Of Life On Mars!! Why is NASA Obfuscating The Truth?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+160 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:10 AM
Here is an analysis of evidence of life on Mars. What is surprising is that the positive results produced by the Viking Landers have been stone walled for reasons which needless to say, seem to be obvious.

This is a paper I found while going through the LANL archives, which I think has pretty much been collecting dust. I wonder why NASA has not commented on these findings? If it has, I haven’t chanced upon it as yet.

Having said that, this paper was presented to the scientific community at the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory seminar by Dr Gilbert V. Levin, Ph.D. Chairman, Executive Officer for Science, Spherix Incorporated. I would recommend you read the seemingly incredible analyses where you will learn the truth and evidence of life on Mars.

Other revealing analyses and papers which are worth a read have been included in the acknowledgements at the end. Though extremely thought provoking and interesting, I must warn you that this makes for heavy reading! But then life on Mars has to be scientifically proved, and all science which can get pretty complicated, is not everyone’s cup of tea!

For those who find it tough to go through the labyrinth of scientific terminology, here are a few excerpts from these papers/lectures that will set you thinking.

The Viking Project was begun by NASA on November 15, 1968, and was composed of two orbiters and two landers. The launch was initially planned for 1973, but postponed to 1975 due to the complexity and challenge of the project.

Viking on Mars.
Courtesy: MSSS

In a May 3, 2007, Carnegie dinner, Carnegie Institution Chairman, Michael Gellert, pointed out that the Institution was founded to - and does - concentrate on high risk problems.

This makes Carnegie the proper venue for exploring a major scientific paradigm change – there is life on Mars. And, most importantly, to determine whether life had more than one origin, as would be indicated were Earth life and Mars life is fundamentally different.

Such a result would have profound implications for the existence of life, including intelligent life, throughout the universe. I am thus very pleased to have the opportunity to present this prospect at the Carnegie Institution Geophysical Laboratory seminar.

The Excerpts.

The Carnegie Institution Geophysical Laboratory Seminar
Analysis of evidence of Mars life held 05/14/2007.

The Viking Landers carried nine courses of the Labeled Release experiment (LR) designed to detect any metabolizing microorganisms that might be present on the Martian surface. The LR was designed to drop a nutrient solution of organic compounds labeled with radioactive carbon atoms into a soil sample taken from the surface of Mars and placed into a small test cell. A radiation detector then monitored over time for the evolution of radioactive gas from the sample as evidence of metabolism: namely, if microorganisms were metabolizing the nutrients they had been given.

When the experiment was conducted on both Viking Landers, it gave positive results almost immediately.

(Now why has this remained a subject of debate when the results were positive in the first instance?) The reasons cited were:

1. “The Viking organic analysis instrument (GCMS), an abbreviated gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer designed to identify the organic material widely presumed to be present on Mars, found no organic molecules”.

After years of discussion and experimentation, a consensus was reached explaining this negative result as a lack of sensitivity.

2. "UV destroys life and organics".

Yet sampling soil from under a rock on Mars demonstrated that UV light was not inducing the LR activity detected.

3. "Strong oxidants were present that destroy life and organics".

Findings by the Viking Magnetic Properties Experiment showed that the surface material of Mars contains a large magnetic component, evidence against a highly oxidizing condition.

4. “Too much too soon”. The LR positive responses and their reaction kinetics were said to be those of a first order reaction, without the lag or exponential phases seen in classic microbial growth curves, all of which seemed to argue for a simple chemical reaction.

However, terrestrial LR experiments on a variety of soils produced response rates with the kinetics and the range of amplitudes of the LR on Mars, thereby offsetting this argument.

5. “Lack of a new surge of gas upon injection of fresh medium”.

However, a previous test of bonded, NASA-supplied Antarctic soil, No. 664, had shown this same type of response to a 2nd injection. The failure of the 2nd injection to elicit a response can be attributed to the organisms in the active sample having died sometime after the 1st injection, during the latter part of Cycle 1.

6. "There can be no liquid water on the surface of Mars".

Since November and December 2006, the accumulated evidence shows that liquid water exists in soil even if only as a thin film. Viking, itself, gave strong evidence of the presence of liquid water. Snow or frost is seen in Viking images of the landing site (e.g., Viking Lander Image 21I093). Pathfinder has shown that the surface atmosphere of Mars exceeds 20 degrees C during part of the day, providing transient conditions for liquid water.

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

7. "Cosmic radiation destroys life on Mars".

A recent report calculated the incoming flow of both galactic cosmic rays particles (GCR) and solar energetic protons (SEP) over a wide energy range. As a result one may acknowledge that -without even invoking natural selection to enhance radiation protection and damage repair- the radiation incident to the surface of Mars appears trivial for the survival of numerous terrestrial-like microorganisms.

Adding to this rising tide of facts supporting the detection of life by the Viking LR experiment are the recent findings in the Martian atmosphere of methane, formaldehyde, and, possibly, ammonia, gases frequently involved in microbial metabolism.

Excerpt from the lecture by Dr Gilbert V. Levin, Ph.D

Hydrogen Densities (Probably Water) on Mars with Viking 1 and 2 Landing Sites Located (VL1 & VL2).

Where there’s water, there’s life!
Courtesy: LANL

Have the colors of Mars images been fudged too? Why? The first is the untouched one from NASA. The second image is I think what it actually is after I reduced the red tinge....

Courtesy: MSSS

I have attempted to summarize the main points here, though there are many more surprises, if you read the links provided.

So what do you make of this? Why is the scientific community shying away from the reality that alien life forms exist on Mars, considering this scientific evidence? Why are we being denied the truth? The hesitation probably lies in the fact that accepting the reality of life on Mars would result in profound implications for the psyche of mankind as a whole.

Cheers! We may not be alone after all!

[edit on 5-4-2008 by mikesingh]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:53 AM
Excellent post, Mikesingh, as usual
It goes without saying to me that there is abundance of life out there, what form and how sapient may vary as much as there may be stars in the universe. But life is life, be it be it microbial unicellular or even viral up to the most evolved light beings.
Why were these findings suppressed, minimized and shunned? There is only one reason, the powers that be, were (are) afraid to admit they are NOT really at the top of all things.
When for thousand of years you have been taught from religion that "human" is the top of the ladder in creation on this rock and you find yourself at the top of the ladder of the "humans", you don't want your power status to be relativised by the existance of extra-terrestrial life. Even if it's microbial.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:10 AM
Wow, Mike again you've out done yourself - if it's going to be anyone disclosing the truth to the public it's going to be you have a better chance then Greer any who....just watch your back incase you wind up like Phil Schneider…

You really should go on coasttocoast, make yourself known and you might even get some funding...

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:16 AM
Evidence of life on Mars is not proof of life on Mars.

The evidence may have other explanations and/or have been misinterpreted (understandably so since we're not omnipotent).

And what the layman considers strong evidence may not aways been seen a such by the experts.

Thus, the scientific community is still looking for proof.

But when we get it, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be on the front page of every paper on the planet

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by andre18

You really should go on coasttocoast, make yourself known and you might even get some funding...

I second that suggestion, and take Internos along, you two really know what you are talking about. Make the difference at C2C and show 'em all.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by andre18
You really should go on coasttocoast, make yourself known and you might even get some funding...

Hi andre! Well, I neither have the time nor the inclination!

As far as funding goes, I'm all for it, if I can buy me a ride to Mars and back!! I need to see what's inside that face, what?


posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:09 AM
Excellent work.

Come on people... DIGG It!

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:05 AM
exactly what is NASA hiding ?? and what is the truth ?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:06 AM
Just about the Nasa Mars landscape images... What process did you use to alter the colours?

I do believe you get a more accurate result by using the "auto levels" feature in Photoshop.

I think the red hue in the original Nasa photo is from the lighting conditions, not from tampering. Try running one of your own "washed out" images from home through the same process.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by Comatose]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by Comatose

do not use ` AUTO LEVELS ` from any image program on martian images

why ?

because ` auto levels ` works on a series of assuptions - assumptions that are not valid on mars

i do a lot of photo work @ night and using light painting - and getting correct colours is often hard - and ` auto adjustment ` ussually makes things worse

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:34 AM
Excellent post
We are the ones that have to push for the truth and this is how it's supposed to be done. I really think that you should take the next step and maybe give it a try in C2C, it's obvious for me at least, that mainstream science is following an agenda of not disclosure and it's impossible to block the whole sun with your finger, the ball it's on our side now in order to keep digging for the truth.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:51 AM
Mike, just like I have been saying over and over life exists on Mars. Individuals have tried to discredit Dr. Levin's findings that life actually exists on Mars and it is not a fairy tail.

In this Viking lander pic with the dusting of snow you will see half way up from bottom on the right edge of photo what at first glance appears to be a light tan colored angled rock. I have always said this is a craft of some kind a camouflaged craft made to look like a rock. You will see a small manufactured small tale to the left end on craft that comes to a perfect V on top of tale. Above that V you will see a perfect Sandmarie face with larger eyes nose and mouth. Sandmaries, tiny hybrid humanoid looking beings. Rik Riley

[edit on 5-4-2008 by rikriley]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:01 AM
The second picture you posted, the sky looks awfully blue? Is that normal for the Martian atmosphere?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by tripod0086

Yes, its common, at least for the more recent Mars rovers photos.


For those more scientifically minded, here you can see the data from those Labeled Release experiment (both missions).

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:47 PM
This just backs up the post I had put on here about the 1962 Mars landing with life. I was told it was an April Fools prank. The sky was

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:58 PM
Well its no suprise that the government would cover up micro life on Mars,they cover up everything else-including the more intelligent life forms.So what did you all really expect?Why hasnt anyone tried to dispute these findings publicly?I know I would and hopefully get it world wide attention.

edit to say"I would however expect some kind of disclosure on everything pretty soon.

[edit on 4/5/2008 by jkrog08]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by mikesingh

Mike this thread is so well documented and sourced that speaks by itselfs. I haven't much else to add: Star, Flag and Digg from me

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:06 PM
S'd and F'd

great post mike. always a good read..

I am getting tired of the games NASA plays..
yes there could be life.. no there couldn't.. yes there is water.. no there isn't... well, maybe.. too salty... too much radiation..
Get it straight nasa!

we all know that there is/was life.... and it won't be reported in MSM. not while obama is doing up some crappy bowling... or crazy Mcinsane talking about a war for another 100 years..

MSM will never tell... it will hurt the sheeples minds... it would make people think..
OMG.. what a novel idea

did I mention... great thread

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Essan
Evidence of life on Mars is not proof of life on Mars.

The evidence may have other explanations and/or have been misinterpreted (understandably so since we're not omnipotent).

And what the layman considers strong evidence may not aways been seen a such by the experts.

Thus, the scientific community is still looking for proof.

But when we get it, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be on the front page of every paper on the planet

Evidence of life on Mars is pro the proof of life on Mars and not against it. I agree that the evidence may have other explanations ( I don't believe misinterpretation is the right concept in here) but i strongly believe that is not the case of a mistake. And yes making mistake as human beings is understandable but isn't all our science based in this modus operandi, meaning finding the evidence as the trigger for the proof?

For the last paragraph I can't help it but smile
... maybe I don't believe in miracles from the mainstream science.

Nice post mike. Stared and flagged

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:31 PM
Fantastic post again mike, S&F

great links to back it up as well

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in