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.

 

Life on Mars

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
You must give credence to BBC.

Interestingly. I have mentioend in other posts that we have found life in more andf more extreme place on Earth e.g. way bel;ow the surface of the Earth- only in the last 10 years - making it more likely to exist elsewhere.

Also interesting that telescopes have spotted it from Earth - maybe NASA had to come out and say something.

Still tremendous discovery




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
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]


sty

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
did anyone post the NASA link yet?

www.nasa.gov...


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



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
www.nasa.gov...

think this is the chat now folks



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
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..?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by senshido
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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

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


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



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 





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.


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



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
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?


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.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Leto
 





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.


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


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]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   


Methane was detected in the Martian atmosphere five years ago; scientists have found it is more abundant over particular parts of the planet.


BBC

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



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
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...



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



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.


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]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


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




Scientists don't yet know enough to say with certainty what the source of the Martian methane is, but this artist's concept depicts a possibility. In this illustration, subsurface water, carbon dioxide and the planet's internal heat combine to release methane. Although we don’t have evidence on Mars of active volcanoes today, ancient methane trapped in ice "cages" might now be released. Credit: NASA/Susan Twardy

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.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join