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.

 

SCI/TECH: Possible Evidence of Life on Mars

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The ESA may have found evidence of life on Mars! Ammonia has been detected which either means that there are active volcanoes or microbial life!
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Ammonia may have been found in Mars' atmosphere which some scientists say could indicate life on the Red Planet.

Researchers say its spectral signature has been tentatively detected by sensors onboard the European Space Agency's orbiting Mars Express craft.

Ammonia survives for only a short time in the Martian atmosphere so it must be getting constantly replenished.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Interesting stuff!! Could be exciting so if they don't find evidence of volcanoes then it implies microbial life!
This is in combination with the discovery of Methan in the atmosphere earlier in the year....

[edit on 7-15-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Same space agency that crashed their rover...and a less than reliable news source "BBC". I'd rather just wait for better evidence. And Ammonia is produced by volcanoes sure, but does not mean that it is not trapped within rocks//soil what not. There are numerous reasons that there could be minute amounts of Ammonia in the atmosphere, and it will be minute, 97% of the atmosphere is CO2, and the atmosphere is only 6/1000ths that of earth. If there is Ammonia in that atmosphere, it is less than all the Ammonia found in high school laboratories back here on Earth.

The evidence to me seems very miniscule, and more easily explained by geologic processes than by biologic.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Much as i would like for them to find evidence of life on Mars, i have to agree with Free Mason on this. Many moons and planets of this solar system have atmospheres of methane and/or amonia that occured with out life being necessary. The early Earth's atmosphere is belived to have been made up of amonia and methane i believe. Im pretty sure that the fact that there is life on one planet in the solar system we know indicates that there is probably life elsewhere in this Universe. If they do find evidence of life having been on Mars it will lead me to believe the Universe is relatively crowded with life. I hope they keep looking, the geology itself is informative and interesting. As far as what I would think was conclusive, short of finding some live organisms or spores, would be finding some fossilized micro-organisms.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Same space agency that crashed their rover...and a less than reliable news source "BBC".


aww you're so funny sometimes Freemason!
I'd love to know what counts as a reliable source in your book!



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Same space agency that crashed their rover...and a less than reliable news source "BBC". I'd rather just wait for better evidence. And Ammonia is produced by volcanoes sure, but does not mean that it is not trapped within rocks//soil what not. There are numerous reasons that there could be minute amounts of Ammonia in the atmosphere, and it will be minute, 97% of the atmosphere is CO2, and the atmosphere is only 6/1000ths that of earth. If there is Ammonia in that atmosphere, it is less than all the Ammonia found in high school laboratories back here on Earth.

The evidence to me seems very miniscule, and more easily explained by geologic processes than by biologic.


You know, I originally intended to point out all the things that are wrong with your post, FreeMason... but then I realized how pointless that would be. Are you always drunk when you post, even in a 'minute' way?



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Same space agency that crashed their rover...and a less than reliable news source "BBC".
The evidence to me seems very miniscule, and more easily explained by geologic processes than by biologic.


The rover isn't the only craft to crash land on Mars. Many U.S. craft have crashed as you well know.

So the BBC is not reliable? Please explain your reason for saying this. I disagree. To me the BBC is one of the most reliable news organizations on the planet and it has been for many years. Maybe I missed something :-)

I agree the evidence just isn't there. The ammonia could be coming from geologic processes.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
onlyinmydreams a person who says they can do something, but doesn't, is usually full of shi.t. Thank you good game no rematch.


Texas, you'll notice the ones we crashed were all joint with the ESA


I don't think the BBC or any main news source is reliable in any sensitive information, they are good at videotaping an explosion or such, but the finer stuff, they construe or are not very in depth about, and so it gets passed down the grape vine and can sometimes become rediculous. Even if the general idea is maintained. Which to a lay-person is all that matters.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
onlyinmydreams a person who says they can do something, but doesn't, is usually full of shi.t. Thank you good game no rematch.


Texas, you'll notice the ones we crashed were all joint with the ESA


I don't think the BBC or any main news source is reliable in any sensitive information, they are good at videotaping an explosion or such, but the finer stuff, they construe or are not very in depth about, and so it gets passed down the grape vine and can sometimes become rediculous. Even if the general idea is maintained. Which to a lay-person is all that matters.


This is all a load of bull. One, just because some one decided reaming you out wasn't worth the trouble doesn't devalue their statements. Two, we've bounced plenty of metal off the Martian soil without having to blame any of it on the ESA.

As for the BBC, you have admitted through your own words that they are as credible as any mainstream media outlet. If your intention is to discredit all of the news outlets we will be left with nothing but speculation on our own parts with a diminishing of the global communication system that is in place now.

What's with you?

[edit on 7-15-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 7-15-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Haha Valhall, again, all talk. None of you can "ream" me. The problem of slicia based life forms on Mars are exactly as I described, and numerous more that a biologist could tell you.

Don't argue with me unless you plan to put your money where your mouth is...I'm sick of big fat babbies who say, "oh I could so prove you wrong...but it's not worth it."

As for the BBC, it is actually on my low list of main-stream media, which I deem most of them to be unreliable in science. So BBC is in an extreme pickle if it is the main source of the story. And if it isn't, then it is repeating a story, which is even worse.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

Originally posted by FreeMason
Same space agency that crashed their rover...and a less than reliable news source "BBC".


aww you're so funny sometimes Freemason!
I'd love to know what counts as a reliable source in your book!



A science journal...OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT!? (sarcasm in bold not directed at you muppet, but for everyone else who thinks the BBC is a "credible" source and doesn't have a clue that science, is an INVOLVED issue...

To explain:

We all can find schematics online of fat man or little boy, none of us can build a Nuclear bomb.

This BBC article, is posting the "Schematics".

You are all the equivilent of high school graduates to Mars when it comes to this, and believing they have discovered the greatest POSSIBILITY!

It's not a science journal, find one, read the findings, it's much less hyped. MUCH MUCH less.

Now I amazingly got a warning for telling people to put their money where their mouth is...I believe people should get warnings for saying "I can prove you wrong, but don't want to waste the time".

Again I'll repeat, most all of Mars' VERY SMALL atmosphere is CO2.

Another large portion (as opposed to tertiary gasses) is N2.

So whatever Nitrogen is left over, will be available for ammonia.

So:

1) Their instrument is wrong.
2) It is so fine tuned it can pick up trace gases that are virtually non-existant.

It could very well be 2, that wouldn't surprise me, but there is SO little of the gas, that it could literally be seeping out from fissures in the ground and they are detecting this.

There are numerous problems with BBC's report, if agent posted a Science Journal, maybe then it'd be worth concerning over. So just wait and see what happens.

I mean seriously, you do realize how many times the mainstream media has said "They have discovered the shape of the universe!"

I remember when it was spherical, then flat, then spherical again, then flat, and so on.

Now they finally have admitted at the moment that "we are not sure".

Only the news hypes such variable knowledge.

And I can't believe I'm having to defend myself on this 6th grader concept.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Hrm, there doesn't appear to be anything massively incorrect in the article. Sure its a little overhyped, but really its good for the media to try and inspire more interest in space and space exploration. Plus of course they are always trying to be the first to get stories out.

No worse than making a statement that 'Mars IS the Moon' is it?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
It's not about incorrectness, it's about construing the entire issue. I mean, first they say they tentatively have checked and detected ammonia, so it may or may not be there...if it is there, they'll have to do a thurough search to see if it is localized or not, because in an atmosphere that small things to not mix very well, then when they do that they'll need to see what the local events are. Most likely it will literally be coming out of the soil, it could be such localized phenomena that it is seasonal and something we've missed. That's just it...any numerous amounts of things could be going on...and the first hill to climb is is the equipment really detecting it, or was it an accident? And the argument that began and has ended, was over the fact that some are trying to climb the 20th hill.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   
The title of the article is "Ammonia on Mars could mean life". Notice "could" there in that sentence?
BBC is one of the most reliable news sources on the planet and they are deffinitely not sensationalists. That title rightfuly belongs to The Sun
, they are hyping all the time. Also, BBC writes news for all people, not just those with MD is science and a Nobel Prize. They cant write a 50 page scientific essay including every single data info they gathered from ESA missions. They have to publish a one-page article that everyone understands but still include SOME scientific background. I think they are doing a great job.

I think this is awsome news. Considering the setbacks ESA has had, a few good news now and then is what they need to keep the program going.
Ammonia COULD mean life, and just think of the implications of that, if there really is life outthere! Man, I feel like a kid who just got the coolest toy



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Freemason,

The BBC doesn't work at all the way you think it works. It doesn't just scour the web looking for things to repeat like you seem to assume.

Read the article. It factually reports what different people say. I promise you won't find an inaccurate statement BY THE BBC in that article. If the BBC states that a scientist says there may be life on Mars, you can be pretty damn sure a scientist really DID say that. The facts in the article will be checked and double checked with real expert sources.

Assuming you don't have a problem with ALL news sources, which ones do say ARE reliable? Names? Organisations?

Oh and you might want to post YOUR credentials in this area as well.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   
personally I don't trust the BBC. The BBC is european and therfore suspect.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   
The BBC were right about the WMD wernt they!

Where's the apology from the government?

They (BBC) do take accurate quotes and I trust this information.

Fullstop.

Regards


Boon_Dog



new topics




 
0

log in

join