Electricity Found on Saturn Moon--Could It Spark Life?

Originally posted by silver6ix
In the end, I didnt need google to tell me what I already knew.

Because you know everything.

Originally posted by silver6ix
not a reputable source.

You are in the minority here. A sad, pathetic minority. Even the sources you quote don't agree with you...

National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas...

You cherry pick a few incidents, and condemn source. And for no sincere reasons. On any other day,you would applaud this article and the source, as it supports a position you hold, that life may be abundant across the galaxy. However, you condemn it for no other reason than you do not like the person who posted the article, and want to derail the thread.

Besides, National Geographic is not the source of the study. They are only reporting on the study, which was published in Icarus. Though I am sure you will tell us Icarus is trash and the worst science journal ever.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Actually its called University, a place you go to learn things. If you had ever studied Journalism, you would know also.

Do you think a journalist picks their own stories and chooses their own angles? Im afraid thats not how it works, the agenda and angles are decided by the editor and he is dictated to by corporate and corporate is confined and pressure by corporate partners and financers. Thats the way the worlds works.

The "freedom of the press" is the greatest myth of all.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Actually its called University, a place you go to learn things. If you had ever studied Journalism, you would know also.

What in the world are you talking about?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I was answering the post you placed. The one at the top of this page that you edited and changed completely.

And no, on any other day I wouldnt applaud it. Theres the difference.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Silver6ix just out of interest which part of the quote do you beleive to be rubish?

Is it the fact that Titan could sustain life, that they discovered an electrical charge, that this planet even exists?

Just so I know what point you are arguing.

Good find OP, love hearing about new information on planets within our solar system. It's from this we can discover what happened in our own planets history.

S&F

reply to post by farther84


That it could contain life. Im afraid that contradicts everything else they have stated up until now.

NASA themselves have announced on five occasions there was "life found on Mars" and on five occasions have retreated back into the closet on this with a shed load of excuses.

This is smoke and mirrors, a scientific propaganda to keep the masses amused and direct your thinking somewhere else. Slight of mind rather than slight of hand. Maybe even a pre funding exercise.

You do realise what you are reading dont you?

I mean this was all said by certain other sectors about Mars and yet was dimissed out of hand and buried by NASA. All of a sudden its moved to a planet?

Its just a coincidence I suppose that Titan is suppose to have oceans of pre biotic Oil (hydrocarbon oceans)? Nothing to see here, move along people.

In fact Titan is said to be the richest hydrocarbon source known containing at surface level many times the amounts found on Earth ever. Strange concidence that now we are being directed to fund Titan missions.



[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Hm, I understand your point of view but who is to say that we know what the conditions have to be for somewhere to sustain life. Life has done and will continue to spawn in places we never dreamed of being habital. Take the volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of South America for instance.

Link

Originally posted by farther84
Hm, I understand your point of view but who is to say that we know what the conditions have to be for somewhere to sustain life. Life has done and will continue to spawn in places we never dreamed of being habital. Take the volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of South America for instance.

Link

Exactly, whose to say and more pertinant to the issue WHY?


Like I said, NASAs have announced "life on Mars" on more than one occasion and convenienty turned on a penny in the other direction. They even marginalised the head scientist on their very first discovery by claiming other equipment "which proved later to be a lie) couldnt support his claims.

The point being that NASA have made a clear and obvious stance against finding life in the most obvious place and the general feeling is thats coming from sources above NASA.

Suddenly we are being directed to Titan, the hydrocarbon saturated moon of Saturn. The same people who patently have no interest in life of any sort and certainly dont want to talk about it, are suddenly interested in a far more skeptical claim of life on Titan? Now thats a real chuckle.

Like I said, I take the word of deceptive organisations with a serious pinch of salt, what they say is never what it seems to be and thats something more people should bear in mind.

The only thing I can see being conveniently found on Titan is a new supply of hydrocarbons to keep us all slaves to the fuel machine for another couple of hundred years.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Could someone show me where NASA claimed to have actully foune life
on mars or the remnants thereof. It was my understanding that it
was allways "may" have found evidence of life.


Anyway It is interesting to that they found electicity on Titan, but thats
a long way from claiming life.

I am however, of the view that life could happen anywhere, and I mean
absolutley anywhere. We have no idea and probably not even the
capability to grasp all the possibilities. All we have is our limited
knowledge of earth and its near surroundings, Our ideas are shaped
by that and by what we have experienced, who's to say that it's
impossible?? Although it does seem unlikely.

reply to post by AlienChaser


NASA first found life on Mars back with Viking.

Their own scientist found it. NASA denied it on a technicality based on other tests which showed negative, a lie that was later proven when the equipment was tested in the Artic to demonstrate that it was never capable of doing what NASA used as their excuse.

Heres an interesting read on it.

www.firstscience.com...

Bottom line is NASA have lied and its suspected they lied again on this Mars mission and have once again confirmed what they already knew. When the results were back NASA head slingers met with Bush and his cronies, before later announcing a tokenism in the "water".

The thing is this, IF we discover life on Mars almost every respectable scientist in the world will tell you it makes it virtually certain there is not only life through space but probably older, and intelligent life.

THAT is why NASAs infromation is being kept under wraps. Now it could well be the people controlling that know only too well theres life (alien conspiracy theories) and do not want to give confirmation to the study of UFOs or Aliens, which would undoubtedly spring from it.

This is why NASA wont announce the finding of life anywhere. They are liars, of that I dont think theres ay doubt. How deep it runs and whats at the very root, well that is a matter of guesswork and million theories. Of course theres also weight behind some of the theories.

The fact that such a basic finding, microbial life, would be buried, indicates something unpleasant underneath it.

reply to post by silver6ix

NASA didn't lie.

Gilbert Levin's papers are readily available on the web. They are not being suppressed.

Gilbert Levin says the results shown by just one of several experiments designed to look for life provides proof of life on Mars. Other scientists dispute his conclusions about the results, saying other processes can account for the results. Levin also ignores the fact that the other experiments, including one designed to find organic molecules, turned in negative results. The experiments were designed to compliment and reinforce the data obtained by each other. There was no collaborating evidence found to support that the one positive was definitive proof of life.

In science it generally takes more than one or two mens' opinions to come to a conclusion, especially a conclusion as important as this would be. The next Mars mission should have more and better experiments to help determine if life has ever existed on Mars.

Of course, you can and will smugly insist that NASA lied and continues to lie and will always lie.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by silver6ix

 

NASA didn't lie.

Gilbert Levin says the results shown by just one of several experiments designed to look for life provides proof of life on Mars. Other scientists dispute his conclusions about the results, saying other processes can account for the results. Levin also ignores the fact that the other experiments, including one designed to find organic molecules, turned in negative results. The experiments were designed to compliment and reinforce the data obtained by each other. There was no collaborating evidence found to support that the one positive was definitive proof of life.

In science it generally takes more than one or two mens' opinions to come to a conclusion, especially a conclusion as important as this would be. The next Mars mission should have more and better experiments to help determine if life has ever existed on Mars.

Of course, you can and will smugly insist that NASA lied and continues to lie and will always lie.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

Id suggest you go back and do your research Phage. NASA lied. the quipment they used to debunk this was PROVEN incapable, which they knew fine and well at the time, of verifying anything. it was tested in the arctic and could NOT do it here on Earth, it got a negative result.

Second of all MANY scientists have supported the test and its becoming a more and more validated test, well used, well documented and proven.

Less propaganda and more facts.

You might want to note the methodology or results of the test were NEVER in dispute, the ONLY reason it was disgarded was on the negative results from the other tests, again, they couldnt even function on Earth, a fact NASA patently knew all along....they lied. Again.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

The fact that such a basic finding, microbial life, would be buried, indicates something unpleasant underneath it.

Admitting finding ANY other llife anywhere would be monumental
and would lead to the things in your reply. which has me agreeing
with you about NASA being liars, but its not just them. I believe that
"they" have full knowledge and evidence of life other than earth.

Why they lie is unknown and does lead to a billion theories like you
said.

It seems like you almost believe that they have found evidence on
mars and are now covering it up.

Titan is a focus because it exibits certain conditions of a planet
that could be more hospitable to life than other places that are within
our reach.

I disagree though, that it has anything to do with hydrocarbon

-We will not anytime soon be able to realisticaly harvest it

-we have enough here to snuff out humanity (if we havent crossed
the point of no return already)

Interesting, at least it has some of the 'ingredients' for life, i mean electrical activity is a big step. However, i dont think well see anything on Titan (in our lifetime) that will prove that life is possible if some kind doesnt exist already.

reply to post by AlienChaser


Not the whole of NASA, its leadership and the people it answers to. In the most recent cases, Bush jnr and Bush snr, oddly enough seem to have played a hands on role in "classifying" the findings.

Oddly enough it isnt the first time Bush snr has knived Mars exploration, under his manipulation NASA did the sham proposal for Mars manned expedition. I just got done watching a very interesting documentary on the alternate but what really sticks is Bush and his involvement in all of this from the very start, like father like son.

I'm also of the idea that what standards we use nowadays to judge the possibilities of life on other planets comes from our fixed observation point.
Until we get out there and do the tests in situ , we can only speculate.

We have proof right here on earth on th fact that life does indeed adapt and diversifies, what is poisonous to some is nourishment for others.
Who can say that the only possibility for the development of life on other planets and universes has to follow the path of earthly life?

On the other hand, I agree, NatGeo and other mainstream media are melting pots of propaganda.

We cant believe in most things, as some are just there to control our thoughts towards some established paradigm...

Its still very interesting tho, some contactees have claimed that there are bases in some moons of the solar system, who knows....

Theres a very interesting book which covers this issue in detail, not only NASAs lie, but further actions and deliberate discrediting and career sabotage of anyone who dared question the original findings, also further image cover ups on the same issue.

DiGregorio Barry, E. with Levin Gilbert and Straat Patricia, Ann. Mars: The Living Planet. Berkeley, California: Frog. Ltd., North Atlantic Books, 1997.

You might also want to check that this isnt the only time they have done it, there was another case with life in a meteor found here on Earth, of Mars rock.

Ohh and a final note here, the results of soil from the latest lander, completely contradict the results NASA claimed with Viking. Now they say the soil could grow things, a vast shift from soil they tried to portray as barren and toxic last time round.....

[edit on 31-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix


Apparently you are talking about the paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez. The paper was published in 2006, 30 years after the mission. Unless you have other information, that NASA knew about the sensitivity problems at the time, to say that they lied is incorrect (and I would like a source). The information available at the time did not prove the existence of life and it still does not.

The GCMS experiment returned a negative result. Although its sensitivity in some soils was not as high as it should have been, it does not mean the result is incorrect. There may or may not be organic compounds in the Martian soil, there is no way of knowing. More experimentation is needed. Levin believes the results of a single experiment are conclusive. Others do not believe so. Science.



I see you've provided a source. Thanks.

I found this excerpt:
mars.spherix.com...


[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Propaganda. NASA knew, again, you need to do your research. You seem to be missing a mile of facts. I listed a book you might like to read and I think you will find that theres a stack of evidence and as I said, their own recent "claims" on Mars soil contradict the claims they made at that time.

Im afraid all you are doing is Bush family advertising here.

Theres a mountain of good information out there on this and indeed on NASA and its nefarious activities and the constant and synical avoidance of anything that would force a conclusive answer.

You think this mission will find life that will be announced? You should be so lucky. Most likely it will be "inconclusive", deliberately so and allow another number of years delaying something because the people behind NASA dont want the single thread holding the theory of alien life in check and thats it exculsivity to Earth.

If that falls, the whole case of alien life becomes beyond dispute because thats the ONLY thing keeping it at bay.

What will happen next, as I said, diverted attention to somethign else, ie the Moon for example, then Titan and whatever else long before they ever tell the truth on Mars im afraid.

an interesting thread I like 'farther's rekoning. I dont think NASA lies, i just think that they often get it wrong and make claims that fit the geek that stumbled on a belief?