Life on Mars

reply to post by Ketzer22

---

You are correct. The article from the BBC was from 2004.
This just seems to be much adieu about nothing. I was hoping they definitively attribute it to biological sources. Maybe by identifying a particular isotope or something.

OK, I'm officially disappointed yet again by NASA.

So why all the fuss? .. if this discovery(as evident) is nothing new, then again, why all the fuss from the media and official announcements and stuff?

JL is right, NASA really are the biggest gas giant in the solar system.



[edit on 15/1/09 by Majorion]

did anyone post the NASA link yet?

www.nasa.gov...


this one, is the first link on todays www.nasa.gv website

Ok, so what they've said is its a 1% chance to be a comet (basically meaning it wasn't a comet). They are missing all other gases (namely sulfur dioxide) to say that it is a geological process. They have located twelve other "life-marker gases" as they called them, on mars. They have found ice, yet they still want to say there is no evidence to point in either direction. Does that make sense to anyone else?

It's live now, you can see it on cnn.com, it's at the top of the page. Unfortunately the CNN tv channel isn't even mentioning it.

www.nasa.gov...

think this is the chat now folks

Lots of "maybe", "could be", "test the hypothesis".

If this isn't NASA wheeling out it's begging bowl and pleading to Obama for more money I don't know what it is.

Maybe it's just a comet..?

Let this be a lesson to those who think NASA would conspire in conjunction with Seti or other government agencies to hide the discovery of ET life.

*Each* time something of interest to Mars was dicovered, they go public, and in a big way.

So, that methane is present by biology or geology on Mars, it's important, but to me the "how" they come forward with evidence is just as important.

Keep up the good scientific work.

I can't wait to see the reaction here on ATS, gases seeping out from the subsurface is a far cry from EBE's at Area51, I'm sure some will be yealling "coverup" pretty quickly.

Actually I don't know if you noticed or not but when a caller asked when these detections of methane were done the first scientist sitting on the left admitted it was from way back in 2003 and 2006. So they've known about it for quite some time, why are they coming out with it now?

Begging for more funding seems to be the most logical answer.

If this was true they would not have waited as long as they have to address this issue. This information has existed for over four years. There is something definitely odd about the timing especially given how underwhelming the news have been.

By the way, one of the senior scientists on the panel was asked about other releases of methane in previous seasons, to see whether this was a seasonal occurrence (which would strengthen the case for life)

His answer: "We are not at liberty to discuss this yet"

Not "We have insufficient data" or "We have not gone over the data yet" but "We are not at liberty to discuss"

What do you think that means? It means that what determines their subjects allowed for discussion is not scientific reasons but a complex blend of what's scientific knowledge and what is somehow politically necessary.

-rrr

Yep, that's the last time I invest enthusiasm in any "breaking news" announcement from NASA.

At least it wasn't as bad as the announcement last year that was hyped to no end.

reply to post by Leto

---

That goes hand in hand with the report yesterday that said Obama may eliminate NASA due to the financial crisis.

My ears perked up when he said that;-) imo,

He's a geek nerd working in a big box.

Before releasing any data they need it peer reviewed.

Just collecting and presenting all that data is time consuming.

a) Geeks don't like like looking foolish in front of their peers.
b) The big box he's working for has lawyers and public relations people who need to validate all public facing data; they certainly need to sign off before any public release is made.

NASA as it is now will stop to excist but it will be combined with the Pentagons space program that means they can more easily get black , grey and white world tech into work.
but that is what I heared .. that obama wants to fuse the space branches together

[edit on 15-1-2009 by MarkLuitzen]

Dear President-elect Obama,

We know the democrats are not interested in our Lunar base plan or future plans for space exploration. Therefore, in order to protect our budget, NASA can confirm the potential signs of life on Mars.

In fact, President-elect, we can evaluate and develop conclusions on the matter but we will require A) our budget not to be cut and B) increased budget in order to prevent China or Russia from making the historical discovery.

Yours sincerely,

NASA

BBC

If it is a ongoing process, with no signs of geological or active earthquakes, we will have to conclude biological life.

reply to post by infinite

---

There are various possibilities for geological production of methane. It is also possible that the methane was formed long ago and is being slowly released.

Biological processes are also a possibility.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by Phage

---

But Phage, I'm pretty sure that they've already ruled out the volcanic activity explanation. Something like, there being NO volcanic activity on Mars.

What explanations other than biological are there?

Edit to add: BTW star for you Phage, you always present the other side of the argument in an informative manner.

[edit on 15/1/09 by Majorion]

reply to post by Majorion

---

"Geological" production of methane doesn't have to mean just vulcanic activity:




www.nasa.gov...

I guess the only quite certain thing is that there must be liquid water on Mars, at least under ground. It seems liquid water is necessary for both geological and biological production of methane, if I have understood this right.