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.


Allen Hills 84001 proved to contain Martian fossils

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:24 PM

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


When people desperately want to believe that Earth is the only planet with life you can easily invent other explanations for any evidence that exists.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:43 PM
Why is it that, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, it seems the scientific community needs there to be "a smoking gun" type of evidence presented before it is generally accepted to exist or have existed?

The Big Bang, Speciation, Dark Matter ... these have no "a smoking gun" type evidence to back them up, but they are generally accepted.

When you apply The Razor to the current evidence of the existence extraterrestrial life then then can there be any debate?

But then again, maybe I am ignorant to the fact that the scientific community does generally accept that life exists elsewhere ... ?

Does it???

However I agree that, in the light of this revised article, the new evidence from 84001 is not a smoking gun that life once existed on Mars.

edit - it needed it

[edit on 26/11/09 by Horza]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

I'm not really sure what you're on about.

Methane on Mars. Yes, the are thinking about what may be causing it. That's their job. Life has not been ruled out, by a long shot.

Methane -- four atoms of hydrogen bound to a carbon atom -- is the main component of natural gas on Earth. It's of interest to astrobiologists because organisms release much of Earth's methane as they digest nutrients. However, other purely geological processes, like oxidation of iron, also release methane. "Right now, we don’t have enough information to tell if biology or geology -- or both -- is producing the methane on Mars," said Mumma. "But it does tell us that the planet is still alive, at least in a geologic sense. It's as if Mars is challenging us, saying, hey, find out what this means." Mumma is lead author of a paper on this research appearing in Science Express Jan. 15.

If microscopic Martian life is producing the methane, it likely resides far below the surface, where it's still warm enough for liquid water to exist. Liquid water, as well as energy sources and a supply of carbon, are necessary for all known forms of life.

When I was a kid there was even a bit of discussion about Lowell's "canals" on Mars, that's how long ago I was a kid. What I heard was there is no direct evidence of water but it could be there. Our tools improved and now we know there is water (vapor and ice, at least) on Mars.

Science doesn't "pick a position". It investigates. It examines possibilites. As many as possible and practical. The possibility of life on Mars is very much one of those possibilities.

On Earth, all forms of life need water to survive. It is likely, though not certain, that if life ever evolved on Mars, it did so in the presence of a long-standing supply of water. On Mars, we will therefore search for evidence of life in areas where liquid water was once stable, and below the surface where it still might exist today. Perhaps there might also be some current "hot spots" on Mars where hydrothermal pools (like those at Yellowstone) provide places for life.

A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.

Just a few examples.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Science doesn't "pick a position". It investigates. It examines possibilites. As many as possible and practical.

That's not entirely true.

When it comes to certain subjects then I would agree with this statement.

There is plenty of money for the research to go ahead and the researchers have the luxury of investigating and examining the possibilities.

Other subjects, can't get the funding, often for political/social reasons and this research languishes, stops completely or never even gets started.

In this way, Science does pick a position.

It can be argued that eventually, maybe years down the track, most research worth looking into will receive funding, and this may be true.

It is probably true of Astrobiology for instance. At the beginning of last century, this was probably considered to be a pseudoscience (my opinion, can't find a source)

However Science and the scientific community is no way near as pragmatically benevolent as some (and I am not saying you here Phage) might righteously suggest.

Anyway, I am relieved that the search for extraterrestrial life is being taken more and more seriously as this article and the attention NASA is giving 84001 shows.

[edit on 26/11/09 by Horza]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Phage

I guess I'm just complaining about random off topic stuff.

When I was a kid I was interested in science and in particular our own solar system. I quickly learned that Mars was a dead rock much like the Moon, and that the solar system in general was pretty boring and uninteresting. Now years later I learn most of that was untrue! And the system has some really interesting things in it. The Solar system has lots of things that are unanswered and mysterious.

Take for example a book I have called "The Snows of Olympus" by Arthur C. Clarke. He goes out of his way to make it very clear that if you were on the surface of Mars that you would NOT see any mountains or hills. Well him being one of the most respected scientists who specialised in all things space who would question that notion? The only problem is that he was so very very wrong. Look at all the photos from the rovers and orbiters. Why did he feal the need to tell us he knew something that he didn't? Why did he print such fabrications? Why did that claim err on the side of the boring and uninteresting?

Turn on the TV any day of the week and you can find some scientist talking about some really far out stuff as if it's true. Multiple universes is an idea that comes to mind. I watch these guys try and impress the viewer with all this junk science and pass it off as fact. As a previous poster said... Why is it OK to talk about the big bang as though it were fact, but the idea that Mars might have life right now is thrown out. No, they always say Mars may have at one time billions of years ago had microbes. Why don't they say Mars may have once had cows and jellyfish and whales and trees and today it almost definately still has some microbes! Why is the later irresponsible but the former compleatly OK? They are both speculations, and they are both more likely than not.


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

Well, depending on where you are on Mars, it can be rather flat. So Clarke was not entirely wrong. Ever seen Chesley Bonestell's paintings of Mars?

But is that the only science fiction you read? No Bradbury? You never read about Barsoom? Heinlein had Venus being a habitable (though rather nasty) planet with native life. He had Mars habitable (though a bit dry) with native life. Heinlein was known for "hard" science fiction, based on real possibilities, not fantasy (well, at least until later).

Edit: Seeing Clarke's name I assumed fiction..wrongly. But I stand by the rest of my post.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Phage

To be honest I really havn't read much sci-fi. Most sci-fi movies and TV are really super lame in my opinion. But on the other hand some sci-fi is great. I love Star Wars. Bakaroo Banzi is great.

But the book I mentioned isn't sci-fi, it is supposed to be fact.

Well I take that back, I guess at the end he does speculate on the colinization of Mars and creating a habitable atmosphere, but it's all based on (suposed) science. There is no main character ao anything though. There is no plot. It isn't presented as fiction. It is presented as fact.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

The goof was mine.
Star Wars is not science fiction. It is fantasty.
Buckaroo Banzai is true.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:52 PM
Finding life in a Martian rock (if it is one) is not conclusive that life originated on Mars as on Earth.

It can also mean that life originated on Earth, was ejected to Mars, then re-ejected to Earth.

King James Bible
And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh Ezekiel 47:9

My guess is that life will be found where there is liquid water.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Phage

I gave you a star for that. Thanks for the laugh.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Jim Scott
It can also mean that life originated on Earth, was ejected to Mars, then re-ejected to Earth.


My guess is that life will be found where there is liquid water.

Jim, it can indeed mean that but two factors stack the deck towards a Mars origin:

Mars is thought to have cooled, and hosted large oceans, a billion years before earth did -- so there was a 'head start'...


Mars is much easier to blast pieces off on Earth-impacting trajectories, than Earth to Mars -- by a factor of tens of times easier.

But the range of the 'possible' has been vastly expanding in recent years... and I can't argue with your view of finding life where you find liquid water (and chemical or thermal energy). That would include Mars, Europa and Ganymede, Enceladus, Triton, even Pluto and Charon, and elsewhere out there.

Let's go look.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:50 PM
In 1996 they announced the rock contains possible evidence of life on Mars. Now they leaked out a new story: the rock contains possible evidence of life on Mars but the possibility is now greater since they've done more testing.

I was kind of hoping for something a little more conclusive after all this time but I guess they can only release evidence and facts as fast as they are discovered.

But to read the thread title and some of the posts in this thread you'd think the story was that life on Mars had been confirmed beyond any doubt, so I'm wondering how many people misread the story or got caught up in the misleading title of the thread...apparently quite a few.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

The goof was mine.
Star Wars is not science fiction. It is fantasty.
Buckaroo Banzai is true.

[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]

You're right about the "fantasty", we just ate it up!

My wife and I went to the screening and we still treasure out press release brochures.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:58 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

The original story that the Mail Online had posted used much stronger language that insinuated that it had been proved.

The story I read last night and the story they have now are completely different.

The story that they have up now is much more reserved.

This is why the earlier posts are full of excitement and members reading those post now are wondering why we are all so amped up about it.

I have mentioned this earlier

I am gonna U2U the OP.

[edit on 27/11/09 by Horza]

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by Horza
That may clarify why some of the early posts seem excited, thanks for the clarification.

Do you know if the spaceflightnow story has also changed?

It still has the Nov 24 date showing so that would be misleading if they changed that one too.

I'm wondering if maybe the source the OP used (Mail online) isn't reliable, I know the Sun isn't trustworthy, and there was another thread on this based on the Sun article.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

This article is different to the Mail's original article.

That one was much more sensationalist.

I have sent a U2U to the OP, so fingers crossed.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Bluemcgee
I read this article earlier today. Didn't read anywhere it was proven. In fact, I took it as a maybe because the other explanation had been ruled out. Doesn't mean there's not a billion others.

Notice you don't have any stars for a factual post. You're not playing the game properly. You have to punch the air in ecstasy and yell how it's a world shattering discovery.

It is ironic however, I was watching a documentary with old wotsisname, Sir Patrick Moore (bless him and his mumbling these days
and it was about Mars and this rock.

So far, nothing has really changed. No proof of anything.

Still, it is a very intriguing subject, and one I really do hope comes to fruition.

Mars has been changed too much IMO for any remote observation to show us anything also. But I doubt we'll have a manned mission there in my lifetime.

I'd love to have solid evidence of the origins of life on another planet. Mars has everything going for it too.

Fingers crossed.

Star btw.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:31 AM
Seven Questions (fron another thread) on how "they" managed the truth and the discoveries on Planet Mars during these years.

1) Question: There is life on Mars even in microbiological forms?
Answer: No. Absolutely Not. It is impossible! If there were life forms, even in microbiological forms, would be Methane in its atmosphere.

2) Q: Is the Methane presence in the Mars atmosphere due to microorganisms?
A:No. Absolutely Not. It is impossible! On Mars there is no water therefore there is no life.

3) Q: Then, is the Methane presence caused by still active Volcanos?
A: No. Absolutely Not. It is impossible! No. There are not active volcanos on Mars!

4) Q: And to what the Methane presence is due in the Mars atmosphere?
A: It gives off from the geologic interaction between Water and Rocks!

5) Q: Then, there is Water on Mars?
A: No. Absolutely Not. It is impossible! if there were water with temperatures under zero celsius degees would be Ice! And there isn't Ice.

6) Q: Does Mars have Ice to the icecaps?
A: No. Absolutely Not. It is impossible!

7) Q: Are you to take piss out of us?
A: Yes. Absolutely Yes! It is possible! No, IT IS SURE!

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Horza
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]

Thanks for pointing this out, it was indeed changed about an hour after I posted the initial link and thread. The first version was very much more positive, and used much stronger language and terms.

I am going to look through the cache on the machine from which I posted the thread later today, to try and find the original wording.

Thanks again Horza

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:16 AM
Maybe we are going to get some sort of disclosure soon, it seems slowly we are getting more facts thrown at us (very slowly, but still...). But then again, I am probably wrong about that. Nonetheless, still a cool find. S&F.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in