Allen Hills 84001 proved to contain Martian fossils

Originally posted by Imagir
Seven Questions (fron another thread) www.abovetopsecret.com... on how "they" managed the truth and the discoveries on Planet Mars during these years.
..

Questions full of set-up falsehoods. More of this and the thread will decay so badly the stink will drive most reasonable folks away.

reply to post by JimOberg


NASA and the other Space Agencies tell lies.
And I know that you know this, Jim...

reply to post by Fraank Fontaine


Thanks mate ... hope you find the original.

Heads up to any other members who read the original to check their cache to see if you still have it stored.

EDIT - Found part of the original.

London: The fossilised remains of Martian bugs have been found on a meteorite that crashed into the Antarctic some 13,000 years ago.

The comet, named Allen Hills 84001, was found in 1996 and sparked a controversy with both NASA and then US President Bill Clinton announcing the possible discovery of life from Mars.

Initially, it was believed that the fossils were bacteria from Earth that contaminated the meteorite while it lay in the frozen wasteland.

But according to a leaked report from the US space agency, scientists now believe the fossilised remains originated on Mars, The Daily Mail reported

Source 1

Source 2

This link does not show the whole of the original article. It is only about half of it.

But this will show those who did not get to read the original article why members who posted early on in the show got so excited.

As you can see the language is much more positive than the article that spaceflight or the Mail have now.

Excerpt from another article than posted some of the same info as the original Mail article in the OP:

Dr Emily Baldwin, deputy editor of the UK's Astronomy Now magazine, said: "Many scientists argued that what looked like fossils in the meteorite were really caused by the explosive event, such as an asteroid impact, that blasted the rock out of Mars in the first place.
"But the Nasa team is now saying they have proved that they could not have been produced by the blast itself.
"If the features turn out to have an extraterrestrial, biological origin and were not formed during the 13,000 years the meteorite spent lying on Earth, this will have profound implications for our understanding of how life evolved in the solar system."

Telegraph


[edit on 27/11/09 by Horza]

reply to post by Fraank Fontaine


Sorry as much as I hate to admit it, short of an alien race landing in time square the american government will forever try to cover these things up. (hell the might try to to cover that up to) Lets face it to many people stand to lose big $$$$$ if it is ever exposed that aliens exist. Lets look at the government. The are investing billions if not trillions into disinformation propaganda. Do you really think all that money goes to that. No the elite are pocketing some of it. One of the biggest losers would be the church. No where does the bible speak of aliens. That would cause a crises among many of its followers. These two orgs will not let the secret come out easily as if it does its going to be nasty. Personally I hope no alien species lands here because we cant get along with our own kind because of little diffrences like skin color, religien, or what "hood" your from. what do you we would do to a species that was not even from this planet.

Here is a link to a (November 27, 2009) NewScience article about the Allen Hills 84001.

"Fresh claim for fossil life in Mars rock"
www.newscientist.com...

In the article:
"Now an even closer look at a meteorite from Mars suggests it may show signs of life after all."

It is unbelievable the there are still IDIOTS out there who are DUMB enough to say stuff like; "opening the possiblity of life existing elsewhere in the universe".
I mean, how thick are you?
It is a mathmatical IMPOSSIBILTY that this planet is the only place with life.
Our galaxy alone contains an estimated 500 BILLION solar systems, the universe contains thousands of billions of trillions of galaxies, all of which contain hundreds of billions of solar systems. Getting the picture?
Even if life is more rare than we estimate, the universe MUST contain trillions of billions of quadrillions of life sustaining planets. You don't have to be THICK to realise this, you don't even have to be educated in any way, there is simply no question about it.
In fact, some trains-of-thought believe that the universe is infinite, you understand this word-INFINITE? That means that it must contain infinite galaxies, which means infinte solar systems, therefore infinite life-sustaining planets.

Any evidence that shows us that there is life ANYWHERE outside of Earth should be met with the proclaimation "Well, DUH! No sh*t Sherlock".

Wake up and have a look at how stars, planets and galaxies relate to one another, you just may learn something. Stars, planets and galaxies are REAL, they are NOT theories.

So, "opening the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe", is something that THICK people say.

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

well life is life what other definition is there??

reply to post by jmotley


Have you ever thought that it may bring the human race together finally knowing we are not alone

Originally posted by cannibalman
It is unbelievable the there are still IDIOTS out there who are DUMB enough to say stuff like; "opening the possiblity of life existing elsewhere in the universe".
I mean, how thick are you?
It is a mathmatical IMPOSSIBILTY that this planet is the only place with life.
Our galaxy alone contains an estimated 500 BILLION solar systems, the universe contains thousands of billions of trillions of galaxies, all of which contain hundreds of billions of solar systems. Getting the picture?

While I agree with the general point you make that life else where is so likely one could conclude it's a near certainty, I disagree with the arrogant and condescending tone with which you make that point. Saying that it's a mathematical impossibility is pretty arrogant, it would be more accurate to say it's mathematically extremely unlikely. The Drake equation for example is such a mathematical equation for which we have only estimates of some of the factors, we don't know their true values, so the problem with calling it a mathematical impossibility is that there are too many unknowns in the mathematical equation.

Some factors we can only just now begin to guess at since we have only recently been able to detect the first Earth-like planets. But other factors we can't even venture a guess at based on scientific knowledge, all we can do is plug in some wild guesses. Abiogenesis is not a well understood process. It could be inevitable that life will form everywhere there is liquid water, but we don't really know this for a fact. Drake liked to plug in a 100% certainty in his equation for the percentage of planets where life could form, did form, but why 100%? Without an understanding of abiogenesis we can't begin to estimate the true number, it's complete guesswork at this point. So maybe scientists are a little conservative and say life elsewhere is extremely likely, but to say it's certain seems quite unscientific and arrogant.

For example, studying ALH84001 reminds us of the possibility that Mars had life and that rock shows a mechanism by which life could have been transferred to Earth. So we don't know if perhaps Earth didn't even have any abiogenesis, maybe the conditions weren't quite right on Earth but they were on Mars, and the way life got started on Earth was to be sent here from Mars on an older rock like ALH84001. I don't think that's too likely, but I'm only saying it's a possibility. And if that were found to be the case then abiogenesis might be less likely than we think.

The estimates I keep hearing from respected astronomers and cosmologists for the the star and galaxy population in the universe is about 100-200 billion galaxies with perhaps 100-200 billion stars per galaxy, which when multiplied out does result in an almost incomprehensibly large number.So even if life is less likely than we think, just the huge numbers make it a near certainty even with low probabilities of unknown variables.

By the way, what is the source for your "thousands of billions of trillions of galaxies" figure? That's larger than the estimates I'm familiar with. If you're going to be so arrogant as to call other people dumb idiots which includes many scientists, who are among the top 3% most intelligent part of the population, I hope you at least have your facts straight yourself to show that you're not what you accuse others of being.

One of the scientists you insult is Carl Sagan, who gave his views about the likelihood of extraterrestrial life starting at 2 minutes in this video:



Carl Sagan wasn't a dumb idiot as your post suggests because he wasn't quote as sure as you are about ET life. I think he was smarter than most people.

So keep making a good point about the likelihood of life elsewhere, I happen to agree it's a near certainty, but lose the ad hominem attacks for scientists and others who define their certainties much more rigorously than you apparently do. Thanks.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by cannibalman
It is unbelievable the there are still IDIOTS out there who are DUMB enough to say stuff like; "opening the possiblity of life existing elsewhere in the universe".
I mean, how thick are you?
It is a mathmatical IMPOSSIBILTY that this planet is the only place with life.
Our galaxy alone contains an estimated 500 BILLION solar systems, the universe contains thousands of billions of trillions of galaxies, all of which contain hundreds of billions of solar systems. Getting the picture?
Even if life is more rare than we estimate, the universe MUST contain trillions of billions of quadrillions of life sustaining planets. You don't have to be THICK to realise this, you don't even have to be educated in any way, there is simply no question about it.
In fact, some trains-of-thought believe that the universe is infinite, you understand this word-INFINITE? That means that it must contain infinite galaxies, which means infinte solar systems, therefore infinite life-sustaining planets.

Any evidence that shows us that there is life ANYWHERE outside of Earth should be met with the proclaimation "Well, DUH! No sh*t Sherlock".

Wake up and have a look at how stars, planets and galaxies relate to one another, you just may learn something. Stars, planets and galaxies are REAL, they are NOT theories.

So, "opening the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe", is something that THICK people say.

i agree 100%...it should be said it would be a miracle if life WASN'T found outside of the earth, giving all that we know today.

the odds of winning the lottery is 1 out of a 136 million.
the number of stars in our galaxy alone 200 billion.
that means your chances of hitting the lottery are at least 1,400 times greater then NOT finding life, just in our 1 galaxy.

mmmm this reminds me of a discovery channel show about the kaguya satellite ... there was a part were they said that asteroid impacts were the reason for the craters.... they also said that there was a theory of life on earth... an asteriod is formed of iron and some other stuff ..... when an asteroid hit earth the explosion binded and created amino acids and from that life was formed ....

Originally posted by jimmyx
the odds of winning the lottery is 1 out of a 136 million.
the number of stars in our galaxy alone 200 billion.
that means your chances of hitting the lottery are at least 1,400 times greater then NOT finding life, just in our 1 galaxy.

So if the lottery had provided only a single winner in thousands of years of human history, you'd still believe these "anybody-might-win" statistics and keep buying tickets? Sounds like the analogy proves just the opposite of what you intended.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the odds of winning the lottery is 1 out of a 136 million.
the number of stars in our galaxy alone 200 billion.
that means your chances of hitting the lottery are at least 1,400 times greater then NOT finding life, just in our 1 galaxy.

I think you need to study the Drake equation.

These factors involve probabilities for any life, (and the equation has more factors relating to intelligent life):

R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

We have good estimates for the first one, R, some estimates for the second factor, fp, but ne is unknown and the 4th factor fℓ is we can guess at but we really don't know. It looks like you're assuming where there's a star, there's a chance for life, that's an oversimplification of the odds. There are more factors that must be considered, like how many of those stars are not conducive to supporting life even if they have planets:

most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it

How does that affect your math on using the number of stars as the basis for calculating probabilities?

Another factor is longevity: what if life formed in a distant solar system in the past, but no longer exists today, as may be the case on Mars (possibly, the topic of this thread)?

But the biggest problem with your math is that while we know what the probability for winning the lottery is we don't know the probability of life elsewhere due to insufficient data:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

The problem with using math or probabilities to estimate the chances of ET life, is that it's only a guess because our assumptions used to come up with any estimate are guesses.

At least when Drake made estimates about ET life, he showed his math so we could critique the validity of his estimates for the factors used in his estimates. I happen to think ET life is extremely likely, and we know the probability must be above zero or we wouldn't be here. But we really don't know the odds so I wish people would stop pretending we do. There are too many unknown variables.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


dude! you remind me of the guy who always gets eaten by the monster
in the movies.

so maybe there are a few million less solid possibilities of life.

so what.

the rest are there, eh?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In the drake equation there is a point were they say planets per star where life is possible .. but what about moons?
gas giants are so powerfull with radiation and gravitational forces they warm up the cores and inner surfaces of there moons and even moons can have atmospheres which we see in our own solar system.
so entering also a percentage of moons which might have life into this equation the amount of alien life is even bigger.

is there something like this in the drake equation which takes account for the moons around giants?

reply to post by MarkLuitzen

That's a good question as some moons may be a great place to find life.

The article I linked to addressed that issue:

Historical estimates of Drake Equation parameters

Confidence in ne (the number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets) was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.

The first several discoveries they mention would tend to drag that ne estimate down, but considering moons as well as planets would drive that number back up, so the inference is that this factor would include moons but I haven't talked to any cosmologists about this to confirm it.

But once again, as we have learned more, the uncertainty in that value seems to have actually increased rather than decreased.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

I don't know, but the mystery of how and when is fallen on the Earth the HAL 84001 meteorite it must make us to reflect carefully on what it happens in our solar system.

In my opinion 12.000/13.000 years ago something of huge and terrible happend in our solar system.
Maybe an "ELE" Event: an "Extintion Level Event".

Something of apocalyptic and so terrible to make to evaporate the oceans on Mars and to relegate the water under the ground.

On Earth THE FLOOD and on Mars an HUGE CATACLYSM: the terrible impact of a comet or asteroids showers that they have blown up beyond the Martian atmosphere rocks and provoked a cataclysm to the comparison of which the Flood on the planet Earth is nothing.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by Imagir]

Here we go again with that number that falls in the 11,500 to 13,000 years ago.
More proof to add to the story.

When Earth Nearly Died

When the Earth Nearly Died
Compelling Evidence of A Catastrophic World Change 9,500 BC
(c) 1995 by By D S Allan and J B Delair. 386pp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republished in 1997 as
"Cataclysm : Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B. C."

"The tradition of a Golden Age existing in the distant past, and of a fall from grace into barbarism due to catastrophes of apocalyptic proportions, is enshrined in the memories and ancient writings of many peoples. These notions are, however, conventionally regarded as pure invention. The existence of a surprising amount of factual evidence which suggests that these accounts are actually based on a series of events really experienced by humankind, is generally either ignored or treated with great caution by established scholarship, largely because attempts to explain how this Golden Age came to an end have hitherto been unconvincing or uncomfortably threatening to orthodox interpretations of history.

The real history of humanity is, however, far more dramatic and interesting than the conventional version implies. When the Earth Nearly Died offers an exciting and challenging new interpretation of the information currently available to us.

When the Earth Nearly Died carefully documents the fascinating story - which has never been told before in such detail - of how this Golden Age of peaceful conditions and equable climates ended traumatically in a tremendous catastrophe about 11,500 years ago. This was part of a cataclysm which disturbed the whole solar system, destroyed at least one sizable planet and its satellite, and also severely devastated Mars and Earth."

Originally posted by Imagir
I don't know, but the mystery of how and when is fallen on the Earth the HAL 84001 meteorite it must make us to reflect carefully on what it happens in our solar system.

In my opinion 12.000/13.000 years ago something of huge and terrible happend in our solar system.
Maybe an "ELE" Event: an "Extintion Level Event".

There is a theory about an ELE 12000-13000 years ago called the Younger Dryas event

The Younger Dryas impact event or Clovis comet hypothesis refers to the hypothesized large air burst or earth impact of an object or objects from outer space that initiated the Younger Dryas cold spell about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 BP uncalibrated).

An airburst would have been similar to but many orders of magnitude larger than the Tunguska event of 1908. Animal and human life not directly killed by the blast or the resulting coast to coast wildfires would have starved on the burned surface of the continent.

While ALH84001 fell to Earth around the same approximate time as the hypothesized Younger Dryas ELE, I'm not aware of any evidence which would suggest this timing is more than coincidence. And it certainly had nothing to do with Mars 13000 years ago, as it was ejected from Mars much longer ago than that.

www.biology-online.org...

ALH84001 was subsequently ejected into interplanetary space from the Martian surface ~16 million years ago (30), presumably as a consequence of a collision of an asteroid or comet with Mars (46). About 13,000 years ago it was captured by the Earth's gravity field and fell as a meteorite in Antarctica.

So ALH84001 was ejected about 16 million years ago (evidence for this is pretty good) and Mars lost most of its atmosphere about 3.8 billion years ago after it lost its magnetic field (evidence for this is less certain) neither of which had any connection to the ELE 13,000 years ago on Earth.