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.


Did NASA just ADMIT to extraterrestrial life?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:12 AM
Assuming that there was life on Mars because water in liquid form may have existed there is not exactly a sound scientific conclusion. A good scientist would require considerably more than this to say that life was known to have existed on the Red Planet. &&&&& It seems likeliest that any life on Mars would be micro-organisms or, at most, small, simple forms. &&&&& Finding life on two planets in the same solar system would have very large implications. It would speak of a strong tendency for life to exist wherever possible. This implies a universe richly populated with a wide diversity of life, including, it seems reasonable, intelligent life. This would presumably exist at many different levels of cultural and scientific development, some almost immeasurably more advanced than ourselves. &&&&& For the moment, we have the odd juxtaposition of an apparent statement about known life on Mars, and a spacecraft speeding on its way to that same planet. This Mars Science Laboratory, Called 'Curiosity' will arrive at Mars next summer. Its principle official mission is to look for geological conditions that would tend to support life. &&&&& I notice that it is equipped with a magnifying camera of around seven power, at the end of a robotic arm, called the 'Mars Hand Lens Imager'. The area that Curiosity will explore is exposed layered terrain. Just the sort of situation that fossil hunters on Earth like to explore. Perhaps Curiosity will turn up more than expected, such as the preserved remains of ancient life. Ross
edit on 21-12-2011 by Ross 54 because: spacing for independent sentence.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by Ross 54

If all we get are images, those can be denied. As far as I know, there's nothing on Curiosity that can PROVE the presence of life. All we will get from it are more questions. It's still a fun ride.

You can read more here:

His "proof" is his own experiment. He wants to use Curiosity to corroborate it. He says he can do this by proving that mars has organic matter. He will use Curiosity as a "virtual" tool.

They're delaying. If life is there, I think they already strongly suspect it to be the case. -I- don't know why they'd do this. But we always delay new information, don't we? We're extra skeptical. Look at our history. We always delayed new information. We always fought to retain status-quo. We did not willingly switch to a copernican universe. We did not willingly embrace Einstein. We did not willingly adopt a free country (we had to fight for it). We did not willingly bring about womens rights or gay rights or whatnot. All of it had to be fought for because humans do not like things to change. I think it's because we've been hurt before by change so... We fear it. In scientific circles, they praise the scientific method. Generally, they're absolutely right when they say that science is the most genuine institution. However, science does not completely wipe clean our tendency to resist new information. It only tempers it. It's more subtle. Also you have to consider that science happens WHEN IT'S FUNDED. Non-scientists ROUTINELY fund scientific research. This leads to the result that, factual or not, research is principally directed by PEOPLE.

And about the reality of ET being everywhere in our universe and this conflicting with the world's religions... I sometimes blurt out something like this: "If life is everywhere, if the cosmos is filled with it, and this all goes back billions of years, then could ETs not have surpassed our level of technology and knowledge long before us, maybe billions of years ago, and attained supernatural status and presided over portions of the cosmos as angels and demons?

Could not god and angels and demons actually exist BECAUSE of panspermia?

I think panspermia is logical. I'm not buddhist. But why can't angels/demons be logical too? Why do ET's have to threaten religion? I think they can BUILD on the argument!!

We ask where the super intelligent life is. It's supernatural. That's why it's invisible. At least in part. I think we will find proof. But it doesn't destroy my argument about supernatural ETs. All proof will do is show us that life exists elsewhere. It will confuse some people. But they deserve it. You can't live in the past. You have to advance and evolve to a new knowledge base. This new knowledge base, however, will not destroy religion, as is popularly argued. In fact, it will bolster it. Future faith will point to the immensity of space/time. They will claim that god/angels/demons/etc were like us at one time, but they advanced to supernatural godhood. They now rule everything, like some kind of intergalactic government. We all have their supernatural DNA.

I'm beating around hte bush. I have no faith. I simply acknowledge the possibility that ET could have attained levels of advancement far beyond anything imaginable. We don't have to KNOW to BELIEVE. Once people know about life elsewhere, they will adapt this to their religion (and vice versa). This results in their religion evolving. Sort of like the new testament evolved the old one.

I'm not here to destroy religion. I know how people hurt. They're so hurt. They believe to relieve some of that hurt. To have some meaning. To find some larger sense of place. Life is hard.
edit on 21-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:16 AM
What ever came of THIS

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by draknoir2

100% deniable. It's just a picture. Next.

And even if it's brine, so what? I don't see any martians in that picture running around with kids.

Conclusion: Bleh.

I'm going to go play SWTOR now. That feels more real than all of htis.... backpedaling.

You would think we would KNOW. But we like to argue and stare at pixels.
edit on 21-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by jonnywhite

Yeah... sarcasm noted.

Again, anyone know what came of this? Seems like it was big news, then suddenly the silence was deafening. One would think that in the debate over the existence of liquid water on Mars that a NASA photo of droplets on their own lander would be pretty significant.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:52 PM
Seems that they've more or less decided that it *was* brine water droplets on the landing legs of the Phoenix Mars probe. Presumably perchlorate-based, as this is apparently the mineral in the soil, at the site. The linked article below gives an idea of what is currently being done with this supposition:
edit on 21-12-2011 by Ross 54 because: corrected error in link address

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:56 PM

"From what we know, Mars did have life and oceans and a thick atmosphere."

It is generally understood that Mars "once" was habitable like a second Earth..and the idea that there was life millions/billions of years ago is not that new either.

There is also theories that life on Earth actually originated from Mars. So...nothing new under the Sun really

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:17 PM
There is a distinct possibility that life began on Mars, billions of years ago, and Earth was later seeded from it with life. This could have occurred via asteroid impact debris flying up from Mars and eventually falling down on Earth. The logic is that Mars, being smaller, would have cooled faster, and so become fit for life sooner. Ross

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Ross 54
Seems that they've more or less decided that it *was* brine water droplets on the landing legs of the Phoenix Mars probe. Presumably perchlorate-based, as this is apparently the mineral in the soil, at the site. The linked article below gives an idea of what is currently being done with this supposition:
edit on 21-12-2011 by Ross 54 because: corrected error in link address

Interesting. Thanks.

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:50 AM



edit on 22-12-2011 by neotech1neothink because: add link

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:54 AM
Neotech1Neothink; Thanks for sharing those two interesting and informative articles. In the interview, Dr. McKay was not hesitant to admit how much we don't know about life on Mars, and even on Earth. He was quite articulate and clear in what he had to say. He left no doubt about what he thought. As of the date of the interview, seven and a half years ago, he thought past life on Mars a reasonable possibility. He did not say that we knew that life did exist there at some time in the past. One wonders if something has changed since then, and if so, what, to prompt him, as a scientist, to make a positive statement about known life on Mars, from long ago. Ross
edit on 22-12-2011 by Ross 54 because: improved word choice

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by jonnywhite
So you aer saying that a intelligence (panspermia) caused life to appear on earth? Oddly the bible says the same thing.. What created the panspermic material? and how would it "know" how to spread life? Hmmm theory doesnt quite make muster... If you think it thru, there'd have to be an intelligence to send seed into space..

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by justaskin

no intelligence needed, just material Ejected from one planet and landing on another.


Fungus spores can be lifted into outer space and can also survive outer space.

All without the help of an intelligence entity

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:39 AM
this is the best way to put an atmosphere on mars. send a bunch of machines to emit greenhouse gases somehow. i know it can be done. at the same time put a crapload of solar reflectors at the poles in space to aim down and get the temperature up enough to melt the ice. but at the same time how is life protected from radiation from the sun. is there a magnetic field strong enough on mars?

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:54 AM
And just so everyones aware, the official NASA stance on the martian meteorite is that they are NOT microfossils.

Interesting quote from Mckay-
"Moreover, McKay presented to the crowd an electron microscope view of the rock showing chains of globules that bore a striking resemblance to chains that some bacteria form on Earth. “We believe that these are indeed microfossils from Mars,” McKay said, adding that the evidence wasn’t “absolute proof” of past Martian life but rather “pointers in that direction.”"

You will also notice his use of the words evidence and proof. 2 words with complete different connotations and meanings when it comes to the scientific method.

As Mckay states, the "microfossils" are evidence that life may have existed, but not Absolute Proof!

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:08 AM
The 'McKay' quoted here is presumably Dr. David McKay, of the Johnson Space Center, in Texas, who has charge of research on the Allan Hills meteorite (ALH 84001), which is believed to have come from Mars. The initial announcement that it may contain fossils of living forms was made on Aug 6, 1996.* &&& The current discussion began when a different Dr. McKay- - Christopher McKay of Ames Research Center, in California, gave his much discussed quote in the December, 2011 issue of Discover magazine. It is the difference in tone between the two quotes, from the two different Drs. McKay, that is especially interesting. One is justified in wondering what happened in the intervening 15 years to move scientific judgement from the possibility, or even likelihood of life on primordial Mars, to a seeming certainty. *Dr. David McKay and his team have made more recent remarks on ALH84001, of course. These still contain a notable degree of tentativeness about the question of past life on Mars. Ross

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Rafe_
Personaly i hope this was a slip up and they did actually confirm to have found simple life in these rocks but for people to be like "Doh they confirmed this years ago" now that is just downright silly.Granted they did say they may have possibly be in the rocks they brought back but shortly afterwards they concluded otherwise (officially).But nowhere did they ever sy they did,indeed.

I missed the mission where they brought back rocks from Mars. ;-)

These were meteorites blasted off Mars' surface by impacts, and some of them drift through space and fall to Earth.

The NASA team in Houston announced in 1997 that they had found indicators consistent with microbial life fossils in one meteorite, found in Antarctica. There was a lot of skeptical reaction, as there always should be, but over the years they kept answering criticisms and I've always thought they made a good case. 'Consensus' remains unconvinced, but gradually getting open minded.

The more that newer rovers detect the mineralogical traces of the action of liquid water below the permafrost on Mars, the more likely the existence of a habitable [by microbes] subsurface biosphere in the past and -- no reason why not -- still today.

It's been an exciting scientific debate and discovery process. It's good to expose folks here to how the process does work.

Good discussion, kudos, guys.

You are right and i did not even knew i wrote that they "brought rocks back from mars",my mistake and thank you for pointing it out to me.I will have to be a little bit more careful in the future

It does indeed seem to get less likely by the month to think that there are or have never been microbiological lifeforms on mars.Very exciting i agree.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:13 AM
i think it's pretty obvious that life MIGHT have been on mars but it is now a dead used up planet. the iron core that was once more like earth's...did it not leech out closer to the surface giving it it's red color? the magnetosphere would have went down then. it does not have a magnetosphere that can sustain life like earth does.... the core is no longer fluid. there was probably life on mars, it sucked all the oil out from beneath the surface and the atmosphere probably got screwed and then in overheating the core leeched out, the magnetosphere went down..... no more life on mars. now it is traveling out to the outskirts of the habitable zone AND IS NOT TURNING AROUND I MIGHT ADD.

We spend billions on the obvious? How do we need this exploration of mars? How?

to find ore?....perhaps. greedy intentions explain a lot.

I personally think they just want to build rovers and i DON'T think they will be sending all the prototypes they will be spending bookoo bucks on to mars.

I used to think the space program had integrity.... I thought they would one day protect us from things like comets and asteroids. they are playing on our fears of such things. there is no reason to be spending all this money and effort collecing mars rocks so they can say ALAS.... LIFE MIGHT HAVE ONCE BEEN THERE.

Ho any times in the past 3 decades has someone from NASA said ALAS.... EVIDENCE THAT LIFE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON MARS.

can't we watched the 53 epidode of the jefferson's again for the hundred and fifty ninth time instead?




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 03:02 AM
this is my theory... the extra dimensional beings found a solar system that was in working stable condition and they planted lifeforms on all the planets in the solar system, and they are studying each planet to see how their creations survive in different environments, and we just so happen to be their success... so now they stationed themselves somewhere on this planet where their is no humans, and they look over and study us... the reason they dont reveal themselves is because it would permanently effect the experiment... they pop in from time to time to give us information and knowledge that is helpful in the progression of the experiment... and they might do it telepathically... now the question is what is this experiment for?

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:26 AM
The question of life currently existing on Mars is far from closed. The Curiosity rover, due to land on Mars next Summer, will test the soil for organic matter. This brings to mind the two Viking Mars landers of 1976. They, too, tested the soil for organic matter, though in a different way. They seemed to find none. This was used as an argument that other tests, which seemed to indicate the activity of life, were mistaken. It was held that life would not be found where organic matter did not exist. Its now been realized that the Viking tests for organic material could have inadvertently destroyed the very thing they were seeking. &&&&& The tests that seemed to detect life, called 'labeled release', fed a nutrient solution laced with a mildly radioactive marker to soil samples. If the nutrient was eaten by microbes, or the like, gasses with the same radioactive 'tag' should have been produced. Such gasses were found. Dr. Gilbert Levin, designer of the test, has maintained for years that life was detected on Mars in 1976. &&&&& Another objection to the evidence for life on Mars was that repetitions of this test, using the same soil sample, did not give the same results, which was what was expected. Its now known that excessive moisture like this can stifle the life processes of organisms accustomed to a very dry environment, such as that on Mars. This was established by running similar tests on desert soil on Earth. Ross
edit on 26-12-2011 by Ross 54 because: corrected spelling

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in