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.

 

National Geographic Article...."I Found Life On Mars In 1976, Scientist Says"

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by sputnik
 


I'm sure it's happened unintentionally with bacteria and the like but an actual seeding program would be massively irresponsible - doesn't mean it wouldn't happen though.

After all we did find that meteorite from Mars with the "alleged" fossilized bacteria in it....so who's to say meteorites from Earth don't find their way to Mars.



If a meteor could potentially come from Mars with bacteria on it (although that issue is still quite controversial), and we have proven bacteria can survive for a long duration in outer space (proven fact), and we sent multiple bacteria covered space probes to Mars (proven fact), what do you think that may possibly mean?

To me this is pretty obvious.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I remember at the time (1980s) that the news said that some experiments showed evidence, some did not. This is really interesting as you would expect the experiments to be retried in the next Mars landing (as this is massively important).

Also agree that cross contamination between Earth and Mars is not only possible but probable. given the amount of time that bacteria have been on this Earth and their virtual indestructability.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
More on the experiments and detection methods here.

An old article and much has been uncovered since 2003. One goes off in accusations is more of a sign of being bitter. The general scientific community surmise that the Viking's biological tests remain inconclusive.

Read through the four experiments conducted and come to your own conclusion, or opinions on the matter of whether the experiments were insufficient.


Most researchers surmise that the results of the Viking biology experiments can be explained by purely chemical processes that do not require the presence of life, and the GC-MS results rule out life.


GC-MS is the Gas Chromatograph – Mass Spectrometer results were negative, measure molecules present at a level of only a few parts per billion.

Interesting for and against debates on the experiments in whole, and ones not conducted leaves the question of whether or not Viking found organic compounds is still considered wide open.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
I remember at the time (1980s) that the news said that some experiments showed evidence, some did not. This is really interesting as you would expect the experiments to be retried in the next Mars landing (as this is massively important).

Also agree that cross contamination between Earth and Mars is not only possible but probable. given the amount of time that bacteria have been on this Earth and their virtual indestructability.


Yep.

Add that probability with the blatant symbolic meanings derived from the Spherix company logo.

In my opinion the scales are tipping in favor of a likely logical conclusion.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by sputnik
 


I'm sure it's happened unintentionally with bacteria and the like but an actual seeding program would be massively irresponsible - doesn't mean it wouldn't happen though.

After all we did find that meteorite from Mars with the "alleged" fossilized bacteria in it....so who's to say meteorites from Earth don't find their way to Mars.



If a meteor could potentially come from Mars with bacteria on it (although that issue is still quite controversial), and we have proven bacteria can survive for a long duration in outer space (proven fact), and we sent multiple bacteria covered space probes to Mars (proven fact), what do you think that may possibly mean?

To me this is pretty obvious.



Yeah, i totally agree.

And if there's one meteorite out there with bacteria on it, then there's probably many more in the same state.

I wonder if one day we'll be able to trace all life back to one particular 'genesis' that then spread out across the universe, or will it be that it spontaneously came into being in several different locations in the universe at once.

In reference to your OP, i'm completely sold on there being life on mars in any case. And if you accept that, then really you have to accept life exists absolutely everywhere else too.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Explanation: More information confirming multiple experiments...

The Telegraph-Herald - Sep 17, 1976 New Mars Puzzles [news.google.com]



Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Disclaimer This is a rapid reply and possibly kneejerk and so expect me to edit this to confirm or deny what I am about to post.

Explanation: It is my understanding that there were SEVERAL experiment tests performed [3 I think
] and this blokes experiment was VERY accurate and the other 2 experiments [which this bloke now claims..] were faulty/dodgy.

Personal Disclosure: I will get back asap and edit this post [by adding below] with the real deal as soon as I have done the research!

UPDATED...

Edited to add ...

Long-time Mars Researcher Hopeful That Curiosity Rover Will Confirm Claim of Life on Red Planet (By Genalyn Corocoto | December 2, 2011 10:31 AM EST) [au.ibtimes.com]


NASA's 1976 Viking Mission experimenter Gilbert V. Levin who had written in 1997 that his Labeled Release (LR) experiment detected living microorganisms on Mars, recently said that instruments aboard Curiosity can confirm his published claim.

Contrary to the statement of NASA that its new mission to Mars carries no life detector, Dr. Levin said that the organic analyzers and the high resolution camera on Curiosity are his "stealth life detectors."

Together with Dr. Patricia Ann Straat as his co-experimenter, Dr. Levin conducted the LR experiment that produced evidence of life on Mars. However, NASA discounted the LR results because another Viking instrument failed to find organic matter, the stuff of life.



To further prove his claim, Levin has written Dr. Mike Malin, designer of Curiosity's camera, requesting for high-resolution pictures of "lichen-like" colored patches as these might be living organisms.


Please refer to article linked above for full story.


Gilbert Levin [wiki]

P.S.


edit on 27-12-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to add the edit I promised.

Thanks so much for the updated info. Odd how it was previously stated that no life detecting equipment was being sent to Mars and now it seems there was. I guess disclosure is only coming in premeasured baby steps.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Oh and Spherix's logo again =

Red sphere = Mars
Thunder bolt = Fertilization

Get it?

I listed a link to Bellatrix also. War = Bella
Mars = War Deity

I could connect this in all kinds of ways.
Go reread my posts above. They are trying to tell us something perhaps?
But who is listening or paying any attention?
It's right in our face!
edit on 27-12-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Col. Phillip Corso said in his book "The Day After Roswell" that alien technology was secretly farmed out to companies which eventually resulted in fibre optics, night vision as well as other technologies. Perhaps Mr. Levin has been allowed to use some of the biological info learned from Mars under the auspices of Spherix.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputnik

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by sputnik
 


I'm sure it's happened unintentionally with bacteria and the like but an actual seeding program would be massively irresponsible - doesn't mean it wouldn't happen though.

After all we did find that meteorite from Mars with the "alleged" fossilized bacteria in it....so who's to say meteorites from Earth don't find their way to Mars.



If a meteor could potentially come from Mars with bacteria on it (although that issue is still quite controversial), and we have proven bacteria can survive for a long duration in outer space (proven fact), and we sent multiple bacteria covered space probes to Mars (proven fact), what do you think that may possibly mean?

To me this is pretty obvious.



Yeah, i totally agree.

And if there's one meteorite out there with bacteria on it, then there's probably many more in the same state.

I wonder if one day we'll be able to trace all life back to one particular 'genesis' that then spread out across the universe, or will it be that it spontaneously came into being in several different locations in the universe at once.

In reference to your OP, i'm completely sold on there being life on mars in any case. And if you accept that, then really you have to accept life exists absolutely everywhere else too.

How fascinating it would be if we could eventually trace the origin of life in the universe to one location/planet(not in my lifetime) but my personal thoughts are that wherever life can exist it will on it's own. Not to dismiss the contributions of our Creator, of course. Odds are that there is somewhere in the universe that can hold claim to being the first place life started, among others to follow.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MissSmartypants

Thanks so much for the updated info. Odd how it was previously stated that no life detecting equipment was being sent to Mars and now it seems there was. I guess disclosure is only coming in premeasured baby steps.


The original article from 2003 only knew of the ESA Mars Express orbiter carrying the lander Beagle 2 that crashed, and the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, little if anything was known about Curiosity then, equipped to look for life. Beagle 2 was equipped to search for life. Since Curiosity was originally planed to launch in 2009, development was underway by 2003 one has to wonder how close Levin's ties are with NASA, but of course analysis of data and space probe construction are two different things.



After Viking, Levin was appointed team member of NASA's MOx experiment aboard the Russian '96 Mission to Mars


I'm not sure why except for credentials, Mars '96, sometimes caller Mars 8 was brought up because that mission failed to reach earth escape velocity.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


So as a member of a conspiracy theory website....do you not believe that NASA is covering up the knowledge of life on Mars and that Mr. Levin is indeed correct or do you see his research as flawed and no conspiracy is involved? And what do you feel is the significance of Spherix....other than to make millions treating illness and disease rather than curing or eliminating it?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceJockey1
 


Then you are an idiot and I am glad you are not in charge. Look what happens when areas get "seeded" with species that are not native.

Here's a link I pulled up in 5 seconds.
www.nature.org... .CL2.MT2.KW923&gclid=CL6ij86npK0CFQjd4AodV3fkmg

It would be awesome to discover life on Mars and then realize we "seeded" it out of existence.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MissSmartypants
 


I see it as inconclusive evidence, a positive in one out of 4 experiments doesn't make me want to rush to the press with life verification, especially when explained the carbon based molecule detection could be from natural rock sublimation and exposure to solar radiation, in a similar way that methane signatures don't necessarily prove life. I myself am not a chemist, but I've been assembling literature in chemistry fields in geology, health and life sciences, chem/bio agents and protection/detection of such, and materials sciences for over 24 years so I sort of pick up on the processes a bit on the development, testings, and analyses in the field.

I respect the man and his colleagues diligence but research scientists are all different, there is no such niche that describes them as a whole, the same as any other profession.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
dbl post
edit on 28-12-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Well, you certainly make sense...but this is a conspiracy website and where is the conspiracy in your explanation? Party pooper.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join