NASA Researchers Claim Evidence of Present Life on Mars

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by btimsah, Feb 18, 2005.

  1. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Space.com is reporting: Evidence Of PRESENT Life On Mars

    Now, as a result I have several questions;

    1. Why has NASA not had a press conference to tell us about this incredible information? Where's the same hoopla over past water?

    2. Does this mean (If true) that Gill Levin is the godfather of this great discovery in reality?

    3. Why was Levins LR experiment (which tested positive for life on Mars) simply done away with?


    There's a serious lack of interest for NASA to talk about current life on Mars. It's left up to everyone else, BUT NASA. Nasa scientists, but not NASA itself. Space.com not nasa.gov. Why won't NASA take the lead in confirming the most important discovery in outerspace!?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Science shouldn't be conducted in "press conferences," but rather through the peer-review process of publishing in journals.

    Let the journal article go through the process... lets see what their peers make of it.

    From the article: "What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity..."

    It doesn't sound like they have "press conference" material anyway. It would be better for the press to come to them after publishing in Nature than to go to the press, that way, should any new investigation reveal a different explanation than microorganisms, the press can't stick NASA with "jumping the gun."

    As to Levin's LR experiment with Viking, the researchers could not rule out non-biological chemical agents in the soil as giving positive results in the tests at both lander sites. You have to appreciate the position that they're in, which limits their ability to conduct testing. But, with new data from subsequent landers, perhaps we'll find something conclusive. Perhaps the work of Stoker and Lemke will validate Levin's work.

    Perhaps not. Time will tell.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Okay, then why did they do Levins LR experiment to begin with?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If they were just gonna rule out a positive result, then what is the point? From what I understand Levin can prove that their "explanation" is wrong. NASA has boxed itself into a corner. If they say life exists on Mars, then Levin was right and they were wrong. Essentially we should have known in 1975 that there was life on Mars. This opens such a huge can of worms, it's just that I doubt Levin will get any credit for it..

    Did NASA have their water findings peer reviewed and submitted by two lone scientists? I guess I don't know why the NASA TEAM is not submitting it?

    There just seem's to be a huge disconnect between the way they treat water, and life.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Why wouldn't they? The research question was sound and they had no reason to think that the experiment wouldn't work. It was only after they conducted the experiment that they found that hydrogen peroxide could be made to evoke responses obtained by the LR experiment. It was the peer-review process that discovered this after the researchers published their initial findings. One of the ways they tested the results was by creating Mars analog soils and introducing non-biological chemicals (such as H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>) and testing again.

    "They" didn't rule out a positive result. They ruled out a conclusive result. There's a difference. If Levin was able to prove conclusively that their explanation was wrong, that would be fine. Point us to the citation. As I understand it (Levin & Straat, 1981), he made some very good arguments, but could not rule out non-biological chemicals in the soil.

    What are you talking about? There's no competition or suppression of knowledge going on. NASA hasn't "boxed itself" into any corners or anything of the sort. Indeed, "NASA" isn't a single, individualistic entity when it comes to such things. It’s a very large group of individuals providing checks and balances among each other. Many of the "NASA researchers" are primarily members of other organizations (not all work at the JPL) and conduct their research as professors and graduate students of Universities. Moreover, if a new test concludes that "life exists" on Mars, the primary credit should go to whatever researcher(s) conducted that test. If Levin's work was influential or significant in relation to it, he'll get his props. He' already cited in many papers.

    Son, I remember 1975. We were lucky to have been able to conduct a single Lander mission, much less two, with the level of technology that we had at the time. There's no "can of worms" that exists anywhere except in the mind of conspiracy nutters like yourself. The LR experiment provided valuable data and a stepping off point for experiments that followed. Levin isn't Galileo or Newton. He came up with a flawed experiment that told us much, mostly how to conduct a better experiment. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what science is about: experimentation, evaluation, more experimentation, and more evaluation. That the experiment itself had flaws isn't slanderous and has no negative connotations against Levin. His experiment told researchers a lot and they owe him much, but they pay that debt every time they cite his work and build upon it.

    They did (Wentworth et al, 2005; Kossaki & Markiewicz, 2004; Mellon, Feldman, & Prettyman, 2004; Shallcross, 2005)

    Then how do you explain the high number of articles in journals like Icarus, which are discussing that very thing (Krasnopolsky et al, 2004; Nair et al, 2005; Wentworth et al, 2005; Edwards et al, 2005; Allen et al, 2004; Mahaney et al, 2004)




    References:

    Allen, C., Probst, L., Flood, B., Longazo, T., Schelble, R., and Westall, F. (2004) Meridiani Planum hematite deposit and the search for evidence of life on Mars—iron mineralization of microorganisms in rock varnish Icarus, Volume 171, Issue 1, Pages 20-30

    Edwards, H., Moody, C., Jorge-Villar, S. and Wynn-Williams, D. (2005) Raman spectroscopic detection of key biomarkers of cyanobacteria and lichen symbiosis in extreme Antarctic habitats: evaluation for Mars Lander missions Icarus, In Press

    Kossacki, K. and Markiewicz W. (2004) Seasonal melting of surface water ice condensing in martian gullies Icarus, Volume 171, Issue 2, Pages 272-283

    Krasnopolsky, V., Maillard, J. and Owen T. (2004) Detection of methane in the martian atmosphere: evidence for life? Icarus, Volume 172, Issue 2, Pages 537-547

    Levin, G. and Straat P. (1981) A search for a nonbiological explanation of the Viking Labeled Release life detection experiment Icarus Volume 45, Issue 2 , Pages 494-516

    Mahaney, W., Milner, M., Netoff, D., Malloch, D., Dohm, J., Baker, V., Miyamoto, H., Hare T. and Komatsu G. (2004) Ancient wet aeolian environments on Earth: clues to presence of fossil/live microorganisms on Mars Icarus, Volume 171, Issue 1, Pages 39-53

    Mellon, M., Feldman, W. and Prettyman, T. (2004) The presence and stability of ground ice in the southern hemisphere of Mars Icarus, Volume 169, Issue 2, Pages 324-340

    Nair, H., Summers, M., Miller C. and Yung Y. (2005) Isotopic fractionation of methane in the martian atmosphere Icarus, In Press

    Shallcross, D. (2005) Preparation of psychrometric charts for water vapour in Martian atmosphere International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, In Press

    Wentworth, S., Gibson, E., Velbel M. and McKay, D. (2005) Antarctic Dry Valleys and indigenous weathering in Mars meteorites: implications for water and life on Mars Icarus Article in Press
     
  8. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    NASA has no scientific capacity, period.
    It is a stinky bunch of bureaucrates and degenerates.

    But even more then that, the science itself has totally degenerated into parasitic pseudoscience.

    This is why.

    e

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    s
     
  9. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    ad hominem, are we? tsk tsk tsk
    talk about degeneration...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    What ad hominem? Did you ever know meaning of words?
    "Ad hominem" means roughly "at person".
    NASA, Media and Academia are NOT persons.
    Nevertheless, they can and have degenetated into crap.

    e

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    s
     
  11. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Did you ever know the meaning of the word 'person'? :bugeye:
    A person can be a public person (government, ministry), a private person (human), a legal person (a company), a legal private person (company owned not by gov.)/a legal public person (owned by gov.).
    There have been legal persons since the Roman times.
    It's not my fault you're uneducated.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Besides I have taken a course in 'Critical Thinking' at my uni, so I know when 'ad hominem' applies.
     
  12. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    Too concocted, is not it?
    Looks like you are in the law school or something.
    Get a life.

    e

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    s
     
  13. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    hum,
    < on topic >
    News reports that NASA scientists from Ames Research Centre, Moffett Field, Calif., had found strong evidence that life may exist on Mars are <b>incorrect</b>.

    NASA does not have any observational data from any current Mars missions that supports this claim. The work by the scientists mentioned in the reports cannot be used to directly infer anything about life on Mars, but may help formulate the strategy for how to search for Martian life. Their research concerns extreme environments on Earth as analogise of possible environments on Mars.
    No research paper has been submitted by them to any scientific journal asserting Martian life.

    from:
    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html
     
  14. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    I have told you, we are dealing with idiots here.
    NASA executives and scientists are a perfect match to each other

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ES
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I should rather believe a man who consistently spells like a lazy fourteen year old?
    [That is not an ad hominem since I am not attacking you, but asking a question. Additionally, I believe we could demonstrate a correlation in spelling of the type alleged.]
     
  16. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    No matter how low you might grade me, it can not be worse that NASA just graded itself

    e

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    s
     
  17. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    And there's the denial by NASA.. I was waiting for it.

    My hope is that enough NASA scientists come forward and do their own thing and say screw NASA. They are liars and are not able to claim their finding is false BEFORE it's been peer reviewed...

    Im mad now.. It's just NASA for them to do this. BTW they did submit it for peer review, perhaps NASA is just angry they did not get to stiffle it first.

    ADD - The bottom line is the evidence for current life on Mars is getting stronger and stronger, and NASA wishes to keep it quiet. Thank God SOME scientists up there have their own brain and ability to think critically and come to sensible conclusions based on the evidence at hand.
     
  18. Iris Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
    ..."stronger and stronger"? I wasn't aware that there was ANY evidence for current life on Mars. Let alone evidence that was getting "stronger and stronger".

    Like what?
     
  19. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Then why did space.com run the article, and the NASA scientists claim there was?
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Iris,
    there are two pieces of evidence:neither is conclusive, but both are suggestive and together intriguing.
    a) The labelled release experiment on the Viking landers in the 70's gave results that could be interpreted as due to life. The weight of scientfic opinion favoured alternative, non-biological explanations, though Levin, the experiments designer has continued to argue it detected life.
    Btimsah sees this perfectly normal example of how science works (debate and counter debate, experiment and analysis) as proof of some conspiracy within NASA and within the US government.
    b) Low, but significant levels of methane have been detected within the Martian atmosphere. This is a bio-indicator, but could arise from volcanic activity or a recent (in geological terms) comet strike.

    Personally, I believe there is microbial life on Mars; that the Viking Landers detected it; that the atmospheric methane is a product of this life; that we shall shortly have demonstrated this to be true;that the facts, as presently known, weigh against this interpretation. If there is a conspiracy to suppress this knowledge it is a singularily poorly organised one, or one so subtle that only a handful of gifted individuals, such as extrasense and btimsah, have the intellect and perspicacity to detect. I do regret that NASA did not employ improved detection methods on subsquent missions, but that is attributable to judgement, not conspiracy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2005
  21. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    551
    If it were from the blue sky, we could think anything then.
    But, we know for sure that NASA is idiotic.
    This is just another example in the very long line.

    es
     
  22. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    Very well written Oph.. Though I would like it noted,

    I don't think NASA is involved in a conspiracy!

    It's similar to the Stealth Bomber, when it was top-secret. TOP SECRET. I do believe that evidence of alien intelligence is classified as top-secret. Now, that's not the same thing as a conspiracy. I've said this about a billion times before.

    As for the organization of it, that does not mean it's not true. I'm sure a few gifted individuals KNEW the stealth bomber existed. Yet, it was still covered-up. Alot of projects that have been designated as top-secret was rumored to exist, before it's de-classification. This is no different. There are witnesses from inside NASA and our military who confirm this classification does exist steeming from the Space Act and I believe it's called the "Brookings Report". Where it suggest WE SHOULD HIDE evidence of extraterrestial intelligence because not doing so would be dangerous to the world governments.

    Can I prove this in a court of law? No, not at this time. However, from the evidence I've seen I think it's more than possible. For instance, the 127 thousand images from Clementine were classified TOP SECRET. It just so happens these select images were from the farside of the Moon. Why would they need to classify them, if not for something extraterrestial? As a result, the last images we have of the far-side of the moon are from the 60's! The Clementine mission was in the early 90's. Makes me wonder, why in the hell are they classified?

    I am still waiting for my FOIA request I submitted to NASA to be returned, so nothing new on that.
     
  23. btimsah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    665
    BTW - My "nutty" goal is prove that NASA is obligated to hide or dismiss any evidence of extraterrestial intelligence.

    Those who find this nuts, lack the vision to see the importance of it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page