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.

 

Allen Hills 84001 proved to contain Martian fossils

page: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I don't really see why this is that surprising...

What wouldn't other planets have life?

It really seem that some people want Earth to be the center of the Universe.

Out of fear or arrogance people who are powerful on Earth want to believe they are powerful in the Universe.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Fraank Fontaine
 


A balanced POV is needed here. I never accepted the claims about the meterorite because all I see is some "scientists" wanting a bit of fame with outrageous claims, and they got it.

But a documentary was presented on TV challenging the alleged Martian rock. Other scientists showed rocks with similar-looking "organisms" that had no connection whatsoever to anything outside of planet earth. The "organisms" on their rocks, and there were many, were identical to the alleged Martian rock.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by phrankie79
I guess it depends on what your definition of "life" is.




wow so we find martian fossils with bacterial LIFE and there are still people in denial im speechless.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The thread title is incorrect. The OP is incorrect.
Neither the Dailymail article nor the original article state there is proof of Martian fossils.

There is, as yet, no proof.

Although not a smoking gun, the new findings considerably strengthened the Mars life arguments that have been hotly and passionately debated for a decade, given that the discovery of life on Mars is the Holy Grail of science.

spaceflightnow.com...

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The thread title is incorrect. The OP is incorrect.
Neither the Dailymail article nor the original article state there is proof of Martian fossil


Star for Phage for at least reading the article where they admit they have NOT found life!

I would love it if they did find life but this stinks of trying to get more taxpayers dollars. ( btw I would gladly give ALL the money spent on wars towards space exploration)



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
AND SKY NEWS: news.sky.com... 15471284?lpos=Technology_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15471284_Life_On_Mars_Proof_A_Step_Closer%3A_Nasa_Researchers_Find_New_E vidence_From_Crashed_Meteorite



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProTo Fire Fox
Isn't there a theory which says that we were put on this Earth, just like this rock was. We landed here as micro-organisms and then after a long time, week or so, went from single cell to these fine war hungry creatures we are now.

Couldn't it be an idea that we have been 'seeded' all across the galaxy/universe. If this theory can be proven correct the chances of life on other planets go from, likely to 99.9% sure.

(Oki, longer then a week! Maybe 2...)


Like the movie starship troopers?...
lol i know it sounds kinda lame, but it goes with it.
THe bugs on "plindathoo" dunno how to spell that...
anyhow, the humans notice that they fling ROCKS, or shoot rocks up into the space, and they laid there larva on it, or microbiological larva on the rock, and they keep shooting them out, til they hit a planet, and in little bit of time, the bugs start to grow and take over that planet and so on and so forth
lol



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I find it funny how we get so excited over such an officious announcement given that most logical people would have admitted to the high possibility of life in the universe prior to this discovery.

I suppose it's just nice to have some affirmation from the higher-ups.

However, I disagree with those who claim this to be a monumental event in human history - it is merely a step in the right direction.

Looking forward to hear NASA's official take on this.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I wait for the next thrilling installment on the Soap we now call disclosure.
What is the betting it is microbes found in the water on the moon. I recently saw a video of a chap from Nasa hinting at a big announcement soon... Go on tell me I can handle it



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I have often wondered if Mars could be the "other planet" that collided with Earth to make our moon.

Is it possible that Mars and Earth bumped at some point and settled into the orbit they are in now?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
I have often wondered if Mars could be the "other planet" that collided with Earth to make our moon.

Is it possible that Mars and Earth bumped at some point and settled into the orbit they are in now?


nope when the planet collided with us we pretty much turned into a ball of hot lava. the other planet was blown to bits. Even if it was mars, then it would hacve a big moon like we do. not the two astroid thingys it does now



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 10001011
I love how we have crustaceans who thrive in 800 degree water around underwater volcanoes, and Ice worms who live in glaciers, as well as Cave fish who live in complete darkness and temps just below freezing with no eyes, and I can go on and on and on.

But we just cannot have life ANYWHERE else in the universe... Your laughed at when you say that. Really, are we starting the world is flat again?

Blows my mind, there is Nothing special about our planet, other then the idea that its the only one like it in OUR Solar system, and life became of that, But since it did, these conditions here HAVE TO BE THE ONLY WAY life can be created.

Wow, I created mold on my bread, must mean that the conditions in my house are the Only kind of conditions mold can grow in....

Way to be scientific....

for those of you who can not tell, I'm being sarcastic, and Pissed off.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by 10001011]


Quoted for absolute truth.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by odyseusz
I wonder what is the point in posting once more time this old photo of that "something" in stone. When I went into that thread I hoped that I finally would sea something new. That one photo proves nothing. In other way everybody would agree that there was life on Mars many years ago but in fact it's hardly to find scientist who would be convinced by this photo.


I don't think the The "photo" of "That Something" as you put it is the focal point of the articles - It's the real science behind it.

and if the science holds up would you be impressed by it or just plain bored - cause it is not green & can't hold a ray gun ?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeRadical.
 


I think people get excited about this stuff not because it is confirmation from "hugher ups" but because they can now go to the nay-sayers and tell them

"I told you so"



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by FreeRadical.
 


I think people get excited about this stuff not because it is confirmation from "hugher ups" but because they can now go to the nay-sayers and tell them

"I told you so"


But they only get to say "I told you so" because they have the confrimation from higher ups.

Unfortunately though there will be no confimation. As Phage pointed out they will not admit it is proof of alien life, only that their previous grab at straws debunk has been ruled out.

They could find fossils of people on Mars and still invent some silly theory for it to be something other than life.

This is a step in the right direction, but sadly the "scientists" will not admit that the obvious answer is life.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Jehovah witness I salute you!

Next time, I will give you somewhat of fresh cookies, martians stylesz.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 

Often the obvious answer is not correct.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's what's been happening. The scientific consensus was against biological origin (as it SHOULD have been since that was the 'extraordinary' theory)


Really? The proper scientific approach is to be "against" a certain possibility? Shouldn't the proper scientific approach be agnostic open mindedness while investigating the possibilities?

Of course, I'm sure you're right that the scientific consensus was generally "against" this idea, as it is biased "against" many such ideas. But that doesn't mean that this was or is the proper attitude. Proper skepticism is agnostic and unbiased but few 'skeptics' manage to live up to proper skepticism. Nice to know you, at least, were fully open-minded on this issue.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by Malcram]


I'd give this post more stars if I could. There is nothing scientific about a consensus. And thinking that Earth is the only place in the Universe with life SHOULD be the 'extrodinary' theory.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The original Mail Online article has been changed since it was originally published.

It did have much stronger language that suggested that the new evidence was a smoking gun.

In this light, you would forgive the OP for the title of this thread.

It may have been sensationalism on the part of the Mail, which is why they have changed it.

Does anyone have a copy of the original story published by the mail?

It would be interesting to compare the two.

[edit on 26/11/09 by Horza]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 

Often the obvious answer is not correct.


I agree with you 100%.
What bothers me though is that "scientists" can't admit that it is more possible than not. NO! They seem to always lean to the boring uniteresting side of things rather than accepting and admitting it is almost definately life. Look at the methane on Mars issue... They have come up with some real far out reasons for saying it isn't caused by life.

I still see shows on TV talking about how Mars "might" have had water at one point in time. When I was a kid I was told Mars NEVER had water.

If "science" is going to pick a position without knowing for sure the answers then why not lean toward the exciting? No they allways err on the side of dead, lifeless, colorless rocks (can we say Earth's Moon?)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join