NASA May Have Discovered and Then Destroyed Organics on Mars in 1976

Link

Over 40 years ago, a NASA mission may have accidentally destroyed what would have been the first discovery of organic molecules on Mars, according to a report from New Scientist.

Recently, NASA caused quite a commotion when it announced that its Curiosity rover discovered organic molecules — which make up life as we know it — on Mars. This followed the first confirmation of organic molecules on Mars in 2014. But because small, carbon-rich meteorites so frequently pelt the Red Planet, scientists have suspected for decades that organics exist on Mars. But researchers were stunned in 1976, when NASA sent two Viking landers to Mars to search for organics for the first time and found absolutely none.

Have a friend who works at the Jet Propulsion Lab out in California ... she said this has long been a theory amongst her peers but now it is coming more to light and gaining traction..

a reply to: DoubleDNH

I just saw this article and thought about making a thread on it, glad you did!

S+F!

Gonna leave the comments to the smart guys here.

a reply to: vinifalou
Thank you. Believe half of what Nasa says, and be extremely leery of the other half.

a reply to: DoubleDNH

organics =/= life

I could be wrong, but the title is misleading. They did not discover and then destroy them, they discovered them BY destroying them. The entire point of the test was to determine if they existed using a method that would destroy them and examine the results to see if any organic compounds were destroyed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Roughly 3% of ATS members will actually read the article and the rest will scream about NASA conspiracies.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DoubleDNH

organics =/= life

I could be wrong, but the title is misleading. They did not discover and then destroy them, they discovered them BY destroying them. The entire point of the test was to determine if they existed using a method that would destroy them and examine the results to see if any organic compounds were destroyed.

Which ended up with a huge amount of time (and money) wasted (since 1976). It's like they always search where they know is little to nothing to find. NASA is like the Catholic medieval church that wants to control the truth.

Very interesting link in the comment section there.



If true this Dr. Gilbert Levin and his crew seem to be the ones discovering life back in 1976.

I have to wonder is NASA is what they say, Why the need for the new "Space Force"

a reply to: Balans

Life was never discovered. The tools sent in 1976 could not find life if it wanted to. It could only detect conditions that would be suggestive of life on Earth.

We know that life can't exist on the surface of Mars, so it's highly unlikely any test looking for life on the surface using an Earth model of life would be positive.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
I have to wonder is NASA is what they say, Why the need for the new "Space Force"

No, that has more to do with putting more money into mapping and scanning and developing new space weapons so we might be able to avoid being hit by the next NEO asteroid and civilization ending as we know it.

I heard an astro speculate about this on a show on NatGeo a few years back, backing up your friend's claim that this has been a suspicion in the field for a while.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Balans

Life was never discovered. The tools sent in 1976 could not find life if it wanted to. It could only detect conditions that would be suggestive of life on Earth.

We know that life can't exist on the surface of Mars, so it's highly unlikely any test looking for life on the surface using an Earth model of life would be positive.

On what are you basing your claim that life can't exist on the surface of Mars? We used to think life couldn't exist under all sorts of conditions that we've since found that life actually can withstand. I think it's a little presumptuous to claim definitively where it can and can't exist.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Balans

Life was never discovered. The tools sent in 1976 could not find life if it wanted to. It could only detect conditions that would be suggestive of life on Earth.

We know that life can't exist on the surface of Mars, so it's highly unlikely any test looking for life on the surface using an Earth model of life would be positive.

Dr. Levin, principal investigator of the Viking mission Labeled Release experiment, believes otherwise, he makes a good case for it in that youtube video. He claims to have found microorganisms, not organic material. As I said, if true, that would equal life.

This is also the first time I hear someone definitively say that life can't exist on the surface of mars. If you can back up that statement I'd gladly read about it.

a reply to: Balans

And his claims are nonsense. It is literally impossible for that claim to be made. He makes a claim as to why he thinks evidence should be read a certain way, but the experiment can not prove life. I know all about the experiment, Levin, and his conclusions. It's the difference between a blood type test and a DNA test. A blood type test can be suggestive of someone being the father, but it can never prove it.

a reply to: face23785

Maybe you should look into Mars a bit. Mars has no magnetosphere. We are not talking temperature, or dryness, but solar radiation which makes Mars 100% uninhabitable at the surface for any kind of life as we would understand it on Earth. That is why any test that uses Earth based lifeform as a model would almost certainly fail to detect any kind of life that was able to exist on the surface of Mars. Within several million years of losing it's magnetosphere life as we know it would have ceased to exist.

If we were to find life on Mars, it would be either unlike life as we know it on Earth, or it would be buried in some permafrost somewhere.

a reply to: Sabrechucker

Because NASA is civilian and not military. If NASA was NOT what they say then they would not need a space force, it's only if NASA is exactly what they say that they would.

a reply to: DoubleDNH

Look at NASA, using ALL the samples for this test so they couldnt verify the results later.....

It kept us from demanding NASA go back. It made the US have ample reason to divert those resources towards the cash cow military.

NASA never sent anyone in private like they probably promised their people. There were too many frustrated careers after the moon missions.

The freaking military did go back. Hope anyone watching didnt think too much of armed explorers.

a reply to: tadaman

I don't understand your post. They did go back, with better tests.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: face23785

Maybe you should look into Mars a bit. Mars has no magnetosphere. We are not talking temperature, or dryness, but solar radiation which makes Mars 100% uninhabitable at the surface for any kind of life as we would understand it on Earth. That is why any test that uses Earth based lifeform as a model would almost certainly fail to detect any kind of life that was able to exist on the surface of Mars. Within several million years of losing it's magnetosphere life as we know it would have ceased to exist.

If we were to find life on Mars, it would be either unlike life as we know it on Earth, or it would be buried in some permafrost somewhere.

Maybe you should look into Mars a bit more. That's actually not true. It's a common misconception that Mars has no magnetosphere. It doesn't have a global magnetic field like Earth does, but that doesn't mean the entire planet lacks this protection.

Source

Also, radiation does kill many forms of life, but other forms of life thrive on radiation.

a reply to: face23785

It's not a misconception, it does not have a magnetosphere that protects the planet. Nowhere in your source does it make the claim that you make that some areas are protected and could support life. If you think it does and I missed it please quote it.

Radiation resistant, they do not thrive on it. The word thrive in this case is indicating the microbes are able to reproduce and live in this environment. The environment in this example is NOT Mars, nor is it Mars like. Testing has shown it's possible for microbes to have survived in Permafrost on Mars for millions of years, but it's been BILLIONS, not millions.

Please tell me what life found on Earth can survive on Mars and source it.