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.

 

Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

page: 13
102
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
All of these references to John Lear and Pravda and the 5th density and the 6th sense and Nikola Tesla and the "incredible" range of Extremophiles (ON EARTH) leads me to one conclusion: some people have an obsessive need to believe in life elsewhere, like on the surface of Venus. That's highly unlikely. It wouldn't be carbon-based, I don't think. If life at all were possible on the surface, we would know by now. NASA or RKA can't hide things like that. They're not smart enough. There're too many eyes and ears. No organization on earth is smart enough to cover up something of this magnitude. In many ways, our numbers and our dispersed skills prevent a small group from lying to the many. I know that by coming to ATS I'm exposing myself to insane people and should keep quiet, but if ATS is about truth then I have to say something.

And on a related note, given that the surface of Venus literally melted in the past billion years, I doubt we'll find fossils. I think if there's any life over there, it's in the clouds.

A NASA study group has covered the prospects for venus life and concluded it's highly unlikely:
www.space.com ...

BOULDER, Colorado -- A special study group has advised NASA that Venus is far too hellish of a world for life to exist on or below the planet's surface. Furthermore, while the potential for life in the clouds of Venus can't be ruled out, the expert panel gauged this possibility as extremely low.

The assessment concluded that "no significant risks" exist in contaminating Venus with Earth organisms on any future landers or atmospheric probes, including balloons. Likewise, any surface materials shot back from Venus or whiffs of its atmosphere returned to Earth pose no significant risk to our planet in terms of "back contamination."

Even if we did manage to rid ATS of the BS, I think i'd feel like a bad person. I keep thinking of Linus with respect to this crowd of people. Maybe they need ATS like Linus needs his blanket:

edit on 21-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
You some times wonder what people get from these reports, is it just for money or do they truelly believe it?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
After skimming the article about Venus germs possibly travelling the solar wind to cause influenza outbreaks and a reference in that article to an Indian balloon that may have recovered ET bacteria, I'm curious if anyone has tried to examine the DNA of this influenza and this bacteria in detail. It should be easy enough to determine if these germs evolved on Earth or not, and it is such an important question. We are spending billions to look for ET life on Mars and maybe it is already here on Earth if we spent that money to sequence a greater variety of species.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
But if you want to believe it's a fabled Venusian Sand Shrimp, feel free.


We'd probably disagree on a few things, but as to what's funny, we're perfectly aligned! The Venusian Sand Shrimp was literally a "LOL" moment... and I'm in a crowded Starbucks. Haha. Thanks for the laugh.

As to the thread in general, I'm not sure how or why anyone would stray from the idea that those are just pieces of the lander, but (if I'm reading fully and correctly) there are STILL other pictures involved that have not yet been produced. (?)

I do see a surprising amount of anthropocentric thinking in this thread. Of the strong type, too... i.e., the type that doesn't disappear even when its presence is pointed out. But I guess it wouldn't truly be anthropocentrism if it were easily extinguished.... Personally, I'm one of those "not just stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine" types. (Homo Sapiens as Flatlanders, shadow biospheres, all that stuff.... )



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 

In a lot of ways you're right, but unfortunately this does not give you license to crack your . open and claim unjustifiable or unknowable things. I think that if things of this nature only ever stay in the realm of speculation and do not start to impact actual policy or real world decisions then it's acceptable and possibly encouraged. But the problem happens when people take these far out ideas and let them "guide" their rationale mind. It's a lot like cherry picking.

For example, consider a scientist that thinks it's possible that life might live in the clouds of Venus. So he rounds up some people who agree and they propose a $2 billion mission to confirm or deny the claim. To those involved, the idea seems like a good one. But, as I mentioned above, this is just another example of cherry picking but in a professional setting. However, outside of their bottled up world, most researchers and scientists disagree. In fact, it has already been determined (as I wrote in my previous post on this page) that the odds of life being in the clouds is extremely low. Given this information, spending $2 billion on a mission that's likely to fail is not a prudent use of time and money. This is why we should not let unfounded speculation run our rationale choices and negatively influence real world activities.

It has been stated before that $12 billion, the money budgeted to NASA, could feed a lot of people or send a lot of college age kids to school or help refurbish a decaying highway system or any number of other very valuable things here on earth. Usually the response is "Oh you're not forward thinking!" from the space enthusiasts. However, this point clarifies the situation we face when we go into the unknown. If the people doing the exploring are not staying rationale and also letting their minds wander too much, we might easily see ourselves spending money and time on things that're wasteful and would be better spent on earthly things.
edit on 21-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


What will be found in our Solar System is that life is more prevelent instead of the exception to the rule. If you will look at the 2 ridges especially the ridge to the right you will see 4 tiny equally spaced spheres near the ground. The right ridge has plenty of images of humanoids, a monkey looking face and alien hybrid with large eyes. The majority will not see these faces at first and most will say dream on, but if you keep studying the ridges you will eventually see the faces at different angles. ^Y^



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Josonic
 


Absolutely, and I expect [the discovery of life elsewhere] in my lifetime.

Here's a book foreword on that theme, that I wrote last year:

www.jamesoberg.com...


A nicely written forward. And I'm delighted to hear of your optimism. Let's all hope....

My favorite Sagan quote: "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

And to make my post a little more relevant to the thread and forum in general: anyone interested in Sagan's views on UFO's should read his 1968 statement to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics. That was at its 'UFO Symposium.' It's pretty obvious that Sagan was not as stubbornly skeptical as his later writings might imply. (The UFO veterans will likely already know this, but to others his words may be surprising. They definitely surprised me!)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by Larry L
But I've already come to my own conclusions on this issue YEARS ago and no one is going to convince me one way or the other off of what I think/believe here.



So you came to a thread with Venus in the title, clicked it, didn't bother to read it, then spouted off your opinion (and in the process shouted over others), without any regard to those who have had the courtesy to read, think, then post their thought's on the matter.


Feel better now? K, thanks.


People, now that high and mighty has finished, I think we are safe to start discussing again.


edit on 21-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)


Edit to clarify. I didn't say I didn't read any of the thread, so don't make assumptions. I said I didn't read the whole thread. And I rarely do. I read threads until they turn into pointless bickering (which in this thread was after pg3), then I reply to the OP, not other people until they reply to me, like you just did. -End Edit-

You can try and be a passively aggressive, condescending jerk all you want. That's your problem, not mine. I only need to comment on the OP. That's called staying on topic. Why exactly do you somehow think I need to be informed on YOUR or any other person's OPINION on the matter.

It seems to me that it's YOU who are Mr. HighandMighty thinking people can't come to their own conclusions without YOUR input. Get over yourself.

Your OPINION that life can't or doesn't exist on Venus is completely useless in the face of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that a parachute lander (which is what Russia's Venus Landers were) could NEVER have landed on Venus if Venus is anywhere even CLOSE to what we are told Venus is.

A parachute can't work in 90 Bars of pressure. Parachutes collapse at air pressure even slightly higher than Earth's (learned in 5th grade science class in a 5 gallon aquarium), nevermind 90 TIMES the pressure.

And what parachute material could they have used in the late 70's that would survive a slow decent through a 900-1500 degree atmosphere?

The Russian landers (the fact that they landed) prove without a doubt that the facts we're told about Venus are all complete lies. Because if they'll lie about the atmospheric pressure and temperature, they're lying about everything to cover up what's there. What other motivation could there be to outright lie about such simple things?
edit on 21-1-2012 by Larry L because: to clarify



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larry L
Your OPINION that life can't or doesn't exist on Venus is completely useless in the face of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that a parachute lander (which is what Russia's Venus Landers were) could NEVER have landed on Venus if Venus is anywhere even CLOSE to what we are told Venus is.

A parachute can't work in 90 Bars of pressure. Parachutes collapse at air pressure even slightly higher than Earth's (learned in 5th grade science class in a 5 gallon aquarium), nevermind 90 TIMES the pressure.

And what parachute material could they have used in the late 70's that would survive a slow decent through a 900-1500 degree atmosphere?

The Russian landers (the fact that they landed) prove without a doubt that the facts we're told about Venus are all complete lies. Because if they'll lie about the atmospheric pressure and temperature, they're lying about everything to cover up what's there. What other motivation could there be to outright lie about such simple things?



Thanks for making it clear that your firm beliefs are based on Emily Latella class misunderstandings.

Who ever said Venera-13 and -14 descended on parachutes? ALL descriptions of the mission that I've seen, in English and Russian, describe the probes as falling as swiftly as possible through the ocean-dense 'air' to reach the surface with a few hours of life left.

If you base your conclusions on what i am asserting is a non-fact, of course the conclusions will collapse.

You can support your case by finding a reputable account of a parachute on these heavy lander missions.

EARLIER 'light lander' probes, before conditions were known, did use parachutes. but they were made smaller and smaller as knowledge accumulated. Finally they were done away with entirely.

At least they were, in my Universe. Can you provide any evidence your Universe is closer to reality?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Josonic
 


Absolutely, and I expect [the discovery of life elsewhere] in my lifetime.

Here's a book foreword on that theme, that I wrote last year:

www.jamesoberg.com...


A nicely written forward. And I'm delighted to hear of your optimism. Let's all hope


Thanks for the kind words.

i suggest we can do more than 'hope'.

We can go LOOK.

And that's why this original story is worth discussing. However weird are Ksanfomatili's claims. the Universe is likely to turn out WEIRDER -- and we'll only be barely able to wrap our minds around it, if we practice stretching them with weird theories.


edit on 21-1-2012 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
ok Ill Bite On this !

A living Creature that is Known here on Earth that can survive on Venus

The Toughest Creature on Earth

Tardigrade
en.wikipedia.org...

The water bear (tardigrade), the most extreme animal on our planet


Especially at the Polar Caps of Venus!!

Science 8 March 1968:
Vol. 159 no. 3819 pp. 1097-1098
DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3819.1097
Ice Caps on Venus?


The data on Venus obtained by Mariner V and Venera 4 are interpreted as evidence of giant polar ice caps holding the water that must have come out of the volcanoes with the observed carbon dioxide, on the assumption that Earth and Venus are of similar composition and volcanic history. The measurements by Venera 4 of the equatorial surface temperature indicate that the microwave readings were high, so that the polar ice caps may be allowed to exist in the face of the 10-centimeter readings of polar temperature. Life seems to be distinctly possible at the edges of the ice sheets.

Source: www.sciencemag.org...

(Science Mag in the 60s )

Polar Temperature of Venus Science 26 September 1969: 1356-1357.
www.sciencemag.org...

(PDF)
Ice on Venus: Can It Exist? Science 30 August 1968: 915-916.
www.sciencemag.org...

(PDF)
Venus: Ice Sheets Science 28 June 1968: 1473-1474.
www.sciencemag.org...

Also Check the site Called Information Bridge

about Venus Ice Caps

(NASA)
Ice Caps On Venus by W F Libby
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.../19680010377_1968010377.pdf

even if there were NO! Ice Caps on Venus
what would the Temperature Be at the Poles in a Green House Effect as its Claimed to be

But can Anyone Dispute that Life Could be there in Venus Deep Underground Surface ?
Could there Be Water IN Deep underground Caves of Venus

Especially when you think of the Bombardments on Earth of Ice Comets From the Ort Cloud Theory
to make Our Earth as a Water Planet

even some Scientist will say that Saturn's Atmospheric Moon Titan my have Water & Possible Life
the Same as Jupiter's Europa having Life underneath the Surface

What would the Temperature of Venus Underneath the Surface say about 1/2 a Mile to 1mile Down ?

if Life was Possible on Venus

Well then you have to think about the Core Magnetic Properties I would Assume ...

ohh by the Way Bacteria (Streptococcus mitis) Survived on the Surveyor 3 for 3 years ?

(NASA)
Earth microbes on the moon
Three decades after Apollo 12, a remarkable colony of lunar survivors revisited
science.nasa.gov...


The 50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Wolfenz because: fixing typos



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Larry L
 


Sorry but this is absurd:


"John Lear Proven Right Yet Again."


And:


Because that 900-1500 degree, 90 bars of pressure, sulfuric acid atmosphere version of Venus is complete non-sense sci-fi sillyness to keep us (the people) uninterested for who knows what reason.


Oh? And this is yet again based on the old, long-dead misconception that NASA "lies" about everything, I suppose?

Do the ESA also "lie" about everything? How about the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

Are they "in on it" too??



Snippet (read the full PDF for more):


Venus is almost the Earth’s twin in terms of its mass and radius. However, Venus has an atmosphere
very different from that of the Earth. With a surface pressure more than 90 times that of the Earth and
a composition of more than 95% carbon dioxide, an extreme greenhouse effect heats the surface of
the planet to temperatures of 730 K — hot enough to melt lead. The planet is completely enshrouded
with clouds, composed of concentrated sulfuric acid droplets that extend up to 70 km altitude.



What now? More appeal to a non-authority?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Um.....just took a gander at the first source, it looked intruguing:


Polar Temperature of Venus Science 26 September 1969: 1356-1357.
www.sciencemag.org...


Here is what the abstract says, from the "sciencemag.org" source:


The presence of substantial polar cooling of Venus, as derived from microwave interferometry at 10.6 cm wavelength, is shown to be open to doubt. Other microwave measurements give little evidence for significant pole-ward variation in temperature on the planet.





"....little evidence for significant pole-ward variation in temperature on the planet."


Seems rather clear-cut.......



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Oh, ok Mr. Oberg. So they just dropped a Lander (which was basically a clone of Viking), right into the supposedly incredibly dense atmosphere of Venus, with no parachute, even though we know what happens even on CONTROLLED re-entry here in Earth's comparitively thin atmosphere with the heat shielded, far more modern space shuttle (meaning things burn up)?

So meteors get burned up in our atmosphere but the Venera landers don't in 90 times more dense atmosphere? You really believe that?

So the russians in the late 70's not only had heat shielding that would just deal with full speed re-entry into atmosphere 90 times more dense than ours, but ALSO survived that sudden stop at the end which would have hit exactly like a meteor slamming into the earth? WOW..........the russians must have building materials from Krypton, because that's just how Superman's ship crash landed here on Earth. Awesome!! I always knew Superman was real!! lol

I'm just sayin' Mr. Oberg. That's basically what you just describled to me, and I want to know what those materials were, because they aren't mentioning that in the blueprints.

But let's just say that for a second, I buy that. That's how those russian probes were landed on the surface. Well there are a couple/few publicly available panorama shots from those russian probes, where you can see the base of the lander and what's around it. So point out to me where all that shielding is that protected that probe from the re-entry heat (which is FAR greater than re-entry heat here if you believe the official facts about Venus), and protected it from the incredibly devestating crash landing (since there was no parachute according to your info), then just unfolded or something so the probe can take it's pictures.

Where is all that shielding Mr.Oberg? Or are you also saying it was just the probe itself making these miracles happen? No shielding at all? And further....where's the crater that should be around the probe if it somehow miraculously landed the way you're saying?

I'm DYING to hear the answers to these questions. Because it sounds like the work of "God" to me. Or a bad science fiction writer.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
John Lear vindicated. Awesome!
I think the whole solar system is populated on most of the frequency channels.

Also, wonder if those odd plasma discharges from Venus harmed anyone there.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larry L

I'm just sayin' Mr. Oberg. That's basically what you just describled to me, ....


Nope, it ain't, and you and your stubborn self-delusions are not worth arguing with. You just make things up, imagine somebody else said them, and then either believe or attack, at your pleasure. Enjoy. Gawd, I hope you're not a registered voter.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


LOL....no, dear:


John Lear vindicated.


Don't pop any champagne corks just yet....


Read a bit more first, and check out some links and PDFs above ^ ^ ^.....



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Interesting, so you don't think the ESA answers to the same "PTB" that NASA does, and expected to cover up the same exact things? Ans the Ausies? Isn't JPL's main facility in Austraila? Why would you think THEIR higher ups aren't also towing the company line? Even the Nippons and the Chinese who you would think might be out of "TPTB" loop if one exists have been caught spreading space-based lies. Am I the only one who remembers the supposed Japan moon orbiter sending back those "AWESOME" picture?......Oh yeah.....that's right....they were NASA images from a decade earlier.

They're ALL in on it. ecause you ain't gettin' in space at this point in human history unless you ARE in on it, and do what you're told.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Check out the authoritative 'Encyclopedia Astronautica' here, to straighten out some of the confusion in ALL of our minds:
www.astronautix.com...

It reports the probe entered the atmosphere with a heat shield which was then jettisoned, and DID use a parachute for descent stabilization before the paracute was jettisoned for terminal descent to the surface.

So i'll meet Larry halfway re the probe design -- and zero-way re his model of the Venus environment.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Larry L
 


Larry, sorry to interject but you are arguing from an obvious position of ignorance on this subject.

Remember, just because an individual is personally unaware or lacks understanding does not make something an impossibility in our shared reality, it only makes it impossible in that persons mind.

Do a little research and educate yourself if you are interested in facts rather than promoting bias confirmation.

All of the arguments you are presenting are solved with an understanding of contemporary science and engineering, even if you are lacking a solid foundation in theory there is a wealth of reputable information geared towards the layman across the web.

Good luck in your research.




top topics



 
102
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join