Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA scientist says he is 95% sure there is life on Mars!

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutz4tom
reply to post by Arken
 


30 years is an awfully long time to sit on such an important microbial find ......Who the heck decides how far apart the steps need to be ??

Nice Find

tom
edit on 15-11-2012 by wutz4tom because: (no reason given)


There is no microbial find. No information was "sat on". This has all been public knowledge for 30 years. All this guy did was reanalyze 30 year old PUBLIC knowledge and conclude he THINKS it indicates life. NASA released this information over 30 years ago, they do not believe the Viking test indicated life. There is nothing new here, the story is even very old and already posted on ATS.




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I am pretty sure they are talking about micobial life. Don't get your hopes set on any kind of "intelligent" life.
But hey, microbial life is a good start
S&F, good find.
Quad
edit on 15-11-2012 by Quadrivium because: S&F



Step by step, Quad.


Step............. by..............step............

Thx


Yes, but sadly, not for the life on mars. Any life there would not evolved feet yet.

But if you think there's a secret martian colony of aliens sitting up there banging on bongos or dancing martian dreamtime dances, go for it. Nasa will tell you soon. One step at a time..



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Arken
 

Third, he is talking about microbial life only, not what you think he means.

Do you understand the significance of microbial life on other planets or are you expecting them to find cyborgs?
What science consider as life have more widely meaning than what you're assuming.


Do you see a reason then, for a 'step by step' slowly slowly approach to revealing this?

As alluded to by the OP ?

No.. if there is microbial life on mars, then yes it is a great discovery but in the grand scheme of things, meaningless to us. It doesn't mean we'll be having interplanetary shindigs with our new neighbours... it doesn't mean we will see new foods and exitoc plant life on earth.

It could mean a deadly plague... that's more of a realistic outcome.

There's no need for a step by step revelation about bugs on mars.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
They haven't even been to mars. That rover crap has and is being filmed at area 51. The people running nasa save the money that way and pocket it.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I am pretty sure they are talking about micobial life. Don't get your hopes set on any kind of "intelligent" life.
But hey, microbial life is a good start
S&F, good find.
Quad
edit on 15-11-2012 by Quadrivium because: S&F



Step by step, Quad.


Step............. by..............step............

Thx


Or as they say NASA
Never A Straight Answer



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





False. Dont think you know what I assume. People on this forum think NASA know about alien forests and highly evolved animals. When they hear life on mars they think OMG that really was a squirrel in that picture!!! Maybe you missed where Arken talked about NASA coming closer to "disclosure". What science considers life does not have a wider meaning than what I assume, sorry. In conclusion, life has not been found, this is evidence that dates back to 1979, not anything new, and there is no "disclosure".


Microbial life is life, noone said intelligent life, that's just what you made of it.

Furthermore the title clearly says "scientist is 95% sure there is life on Mars". All the other parts you have a problem with are assumptions you made yourself, buddy.

edit on 15-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
IMPORTANT: Here the proof of the existence of microbial life in Martian soil.
The entire Pdf. document

Excerpt

[...] we have shown that the active LR signal
is periodic, exhibiting a circadian (more appropriately
circasolar) rhythm with a period of 24.66 hr, approximating
the rotational period of Mars. The periodicity in the LR
experiments rapidly evolves over time, and can be almost
entirely extinguished by heat treatment or long-term soil
sample storage. Circadian rhythms are robust biosignatures,
and the presence of such rhythms in the LR signal is at least
consistent with a biological interpretation.
In the current work we have demonstrated that the LR
signal (and the associated noise) in active LR experiments
is very different from the LR signal for heated or long-termstored
soil samples. Furthermore, the active LR experiment
data cluster with known biological signals (rat temperature
series, the active terrestrial LR pilot study Biol 5), exhibiting
flicker (pink) noise in the detrended active samples , whereas
the LR control studies cluster with non-biological signals
such as random background radiation, Mars atmospheric
temperature, Mars lander temperature, and a terrestrial LR
sterile control (Biol 6), approximating white noise.[...]



Next step: Moss and Lichens..... that they determine the Methane gas increment in the Martian atmosphere on seasonal periods....


I bet!

Martian Metane lasts less than a year, scientists say

NASA: Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet
Mars today is a world of cold and lonely deserts, apparently without life of any kind, at least on the surface......

edit on 15-11-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 





There's no need for a step by step revelation about bugs on mars.


This depend how "big", "intelligent" and "ancient" are those "bugs".



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Yes this information is in the public domain, and yes it has been debated here on ATS, and yes people claim it's a non-event because NASA say it's a non-event, while others including individuals who were part of Viking at the time, claim NASA had and is continuing to deliberately hide the discovery that the Viking lander discovered evidence of microbial life on Mars.

The significance of any life on Mars, whether humble bacterial life or not, is astounding on many levels.

Not least of which, is the reasonable conclusion that if microbial life is present on Solar planetary bodies as close as right next to Earth, on our literal doorstep..then the implications for the possibility of more advanced forms of life on Mars or indeed elsewhere is greatly enhanced.

It certainly indicates that life can and probably does take hold wherever it can, and means that like our own world, teaming with unimaginabley diverse and numerous lifeforms, this life in all it's diversity is probably flourishing in many other places, and at all levels of complexity and development.

The knock on ramifications of this, for our antiquated and dogmatic systems of belief and politics, are profound.

That's a powerful reason to deny evidence of any life detected, even microbial life on Mars.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
Yes this information is in the public domain, and yes it has been debated here on ATS, and yes people claim it's a non-event because NASA say it's a non-event, while others including individuals who were part of Viking at the time, claim NASA had and is continuing to deliberately hide the discovery that the Viking lander discovered evidence of microbial life on Mars.

The significance of any life on Mars, whether humble bacterial life or not, is astounding on many levels.

Not least of which, is the reasonable conclusion that if microbial life is present on Solar planetary bodies as close as right next to Earth, on our literal doorstep..then the implications for the possibility of more advanced forms of life on Mars or indeed elsewhere is greatly enhanced.

It certainly indicates that life can and probably does take hold wherever it can, and means that like our own world, teaming with unimaginabley diverse and numerous lifeforms, this life in all it's diversity is probably flourishing in many other places, and at all levels of complexity and development.

The knock on ramifications of this, for our antiquated and dogmatic systems of belief and politics, are profound.

That's a powerful reason to deny evidence of any life detected, even microbial life on Mars.


BOOM!


You centered the point!



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutz4tom
30 years is an awfully long time to sit on such an important microbial find ......Who the heck decides how far apart the steps need to be ??

The results were publish at the time, most scientists thought that they were inconclusive.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
To tell you the truth, i don't think NASA or any other agency will have the need to hide the truth.

You expect people to build space craft and run?

You expect people to say "omg the world is doomed" even if the aliens are just singled celled organisms?

With all the media sculpting peoples mind, i don;t think people going to panic when the actual aliens(if it does exist and its advanced) come to earth. Most would be prepared.

According to movies, they portray them as evil, it might be the opposite.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
Not least of which, is the reasonable conclusion that if microbial life is present on Solar planetary bodies as close as right next to Earth, on our literal doorstep..then the implications for the possibility of more advanced forms of life on Mars or indeed elsewhere is greatly enhanced.

The problem is that pesky if.

It's not just NASA that says that the results were inconclusive. If you look at it you will see that in all occasions that this case as reappeared, the people behind those reappearances are mostly the same, with Gilbert Levin (the designer of the test) appearing in all of those that I remember (at least three).



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by IntoxicatingMadness
reply to post by openeyeswideshut
 


I'd be amazed if it's dying. It's more likely birthing. The sun is slowly getting warmer so it'd slowly warm Mars. It' may have only recently hit the minimum warmth. But of course i'm not exactly an expert.

Actually that is completely wrong. We now have a bunch of evidence that points to Mars one day having a much thicker atmosphere as well as large bodies of flowing water on the surface.
Mars also no longer has a magnetic field even though evidence shows it had one in the past. Without a magnetic field the atmosphere is slowly leaking out to space, which explains why the atmosphere is nearly non existing today.
Earth was also warmer if you go back millions of years and this was partly due to thicker atmosphere even though sun was weaker back then.
The atmosphere on Mars today is not even thick enough to allow liquid water. If it goes even slightly above melting point it will just turn into vapour due to the very low atmospheric pressure.

Even though it is dying there might still be some simple lifeforms hidden underneath soil or in caves.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




The results were publish at the time, most scientists thought that they were inconclusive.


Scientists against scientists.... hmmm: suspicious and pesky....


In the Pdf. research published there are proofs of the tests, and protocols and data utilized in perfect line with the Biological evidence.

"Your" scientists claim that they are inconclusive...... Why? Where are the proof of this?

Where are their scientific publications on this?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Well the general consensus among scientists seems to be that Mars once had lots of flowing water and a stable magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth. The chances are very high Mars once supported life, but the chances are only so high because Mars is so close to Earth. Even if we do prove life once existed on Mars, that life will have more than likely originated from Earth... Mars was probably seeded with microbial life from Earth when a large meteor impacted Earth and sent debris flying off into space (or perhaps it happened the other way around). The chances of life independently manifesting on two planets so close to each other, is virtually zero.
edit on 15/11/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Well the general consensus among scientists seems to be that Mars once had lots of flowing water and a stable atmosphere like Earth. The chances are very high Mars once supported life, but the chances are only so high because Mars is so close to Earth. Even if we do prove life once existed on Mars, that life will have more than likely originated from Earth... Mars was probably seeded with microbial life from Earth when a large meteor impacted Earth and sent debris flying off into space (or perhaps it happened the other way around). The chances of life independently manifesting on two planets so close to each other, is virtually zero.
edit on 15/11/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Actually if it had life then it most likely had it before Earth as it is smaller and cooled quicker than Earth.
So if there was seeding going on then Mars could be the one that seeded the life here on Earth.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
IMPORTANT: Here the proof of the existence of microbial life in Martian soil.
The entire Pdf. document

Excerpt

[...] we have shown that the active LR signal
is periodic, exhibiting a circadian (more appropriately
circasolar) rhythm with a period of 24.66 hr, approximating
the rotational period of Mars. The periodicity in the LR
experiments rapidly evolves over time, and can be almost
entirely extinguished by heat treatment or long-term soil
sample storage. Circadian rhythms are robust biosignatures,
and the presence of such rhythms in the LR signal is at least
consistent with a biological interpretation.
In the current work we have demonstrated that the LR
signal (and the associated noise) in active LR experiments
is very different from the LR signal for heated or long-termstored
soil samples. Furthermore, the active LR experiment
data cluster with known biological signals (rat temperature
series, the active terrestrial LR pilot study Biol 5), exhibiting
flicker (pink) noise in the detrended active samples , whereas
the LR control studies cluster with non-biological signals
such as random background radiation, Mars atmospheric
temperature, Mars lander temperature, and a terrestrial LR
sterile control (Biol 6), approximating white noise.[...]


"at least
consistent with a biological interpretation." - I wouldn't call that the definite proof. It's an educated guess.
edit on 15-11-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I'm betting they won't come clean about life on mars until they are absolutely sure that there is no oil available...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This is old news. More credible people have to come out to back up Levin or it's a non-story.

This is Levin's website:
www.gillevin.com - Dr Gilbert V Levin...

Hurry up, he's 86 and won't be around too much longer.

Here's an interesting link that makes you wonder if martian life is on earth right now:
www.newscientist.com - Tough Earth bug may be from Mars...

And this makes you wonder - did they evolve this trait(?):
www.space.com - Alien Bacteria Could Breed in Extreme 'Hypergravity'...

The most ancient microbes date back over 3.8 billion years. Did any of them come from space? Traditional thought is they're homegrown even though earth is just 4.6 billion years old. And there were ample opportunities for collisions of asteroids on the planets to exchange materials with other planets. So there's this idea of co-evolution between venus-earth-mars and other planets.

Just how long could microbes exist on an asteroid (or comet). I don't know, but there's this:
news.bbc.co.uk - Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab...

That tells me that in order for there to be sharing of primitive life between stars there must be some means of survival that we're unaware of. This is because the link (above) argues against it. However, it may be that organics (non-living) can be transported and used to create life elsewhere.

However, this doesn't mean microbes can't survive a short time in space:
www.newscientist.com - 'Water bears' are first animal to survive space vacuum...

And that is an insect! The link I showed previously forbids transport between stars, not planets. But I don't think it's empirical, it's just unlikely. Organic transport is very likely, though.

Organics are fairly widespread and probably do get transported by comets and asteroids:
www.space.com - Organic Molecules Found in Diverse Space Places...

..........
Many scientists now accept the notion that ancient meteorites and comets helped jumpstart life on our planet by bringing a significant amount of water, organic molecules and even amino acids to early Earth.

Scientists now think those imprisoned organic molecules were likely created in the massive dust and gas clouds that eventually coalesced into planets and stars, comets and meteorites. Dust clouds are thought to form when events such as novas and supernovas caused chemical elements and molecules created during thermonuclear reactions inside stars to be ejected into space.
.........

This must be an exciting area of research for professionals. They be researching little tiny microscopic primitive forms of life, but it's exciting when you think of what it could all potentially mean. Unfortunately, professionals don't get to have near as much fun. They have to do the hard work.
edit on 15-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join