Space.com is reporting: Evidence Of PRESENT Life On Mars (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html)

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!?

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.

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

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.

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

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 H₂O₂) and testing again.

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.

"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.

NASA has boxed itself into a corner. If they say life exists on Mars, then Levin was right and they were wrong.

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.

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..

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.

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?

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

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

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

Why won't NASA take the lead in confirming the most important discovery in outerspace!?
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 :) s

ad hominem, are we? tsk tsk tsk
talk about degeneration... :rolleyes:

ad hominem, are we? :

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 :D s

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. :p
Besides I have taken a course in 'Critical Thinking' at my uni, so I know when 'ad hominem' applies.

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

e :) s

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

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

ES

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.]

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

e :) s

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.

The bottom line is the evidence for current life on Mars is getting stronger and stronger...

..."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?

..."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?

Then why did space.com run the article, and the NASA scientists claim there was?

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.

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

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

Do not hold your breath although.
If there were not degenerate idiots - yes

e :D s

Ophiolite, thank you for the info, but...

What Btimsah said was that the evidence is growing "stronger and stronger". The information you posted is conjectural at best. Even you yourself had to admit that is was merely "suggestive" and "intriguing".

And I was already familiar with that information. I thought, from the way he said it, that Btimsah had access to some other news item that I hadn't heard yet.

So I consider that Btimsah's assertion that the evidence for current life on Mars is "growing stronger and stronger" remains unproven.


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. ;)

Question: Why do you think NASA is "obligated" to conceal any evidence of life on Mars? If the existence of current life on Mars were proven, their budget would increase--overnight--about a hundredfold, and we'd have a manned expedition to Mars under way in about a couple of weeks. So why would they want to keep it quiet?

--- If the existence of current life on Mars were proven, their budget would increase ---
You see, those who control the thing, care more about their butts, which will be kicked for their incompetence.

btimsah
What is your problem? Do you also think we didn't go to the moon?

But, we know for sure that NASA is idiotic.
This is just another example in the very long line.You know that; we don't. Then again, you also know the Earth is flat.

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.Agreed.

Why do you think NASA is "obligated" to conceal any evidence of life on Mars? If the existence of current life on Mars were proven, their budget would increase--overnight--about a hundredfold, and we'd have a manned expedition to Mars under way in about a couple of weeks. So why would they want to keep it quiet?Conspiracy theories are more fun than thinking.

Conspiracy theories are more fun than thinking.

Yes.
Cancel you newspaper subscriptions today - save the planet.

e :D s

Save bandwidth, put extrasense on your Ignore List.

btimsah
What is your problem? Do you also think we didn't go to the moon?

You know that; we don't. Then again, you also know the Earth is flat.

Agreed.

Conspiracy theories are more fun than thinking.

I know we went to the Moon. Remember when NASA found the burnt mark (from landing/takeoff) that was on the photos, AFTER we landed on the Moon? Those marks were not there BEFORE the landing.

Again, I am not saying NASA is in a conspiracy, but that evidence of ETI (that is found) is classified as top secret.

If you don't agree, then that's fine. I'm not saying it's a fact or anything. It's a hypothesis based testimony from former government employee's as well as NASA and our Military's own operating documents.

Ophiolite, thank you for the info, but...

What Btimsah said was that the evidence is growing "stronger and stronger". The information you posted is conjectural at best. Even you yourself had to admit that is was merely "suggestive" and "intriguing".

And I was already familiar with that information. I thought, from the way he said it, that Btimsah had access to some other news item that I hadn't heard yet.

So I consider that Btimsah's assertion that the evidence for current life on Mars is "growing stronger and stronger" remains unproven.

Question: Why do you think NASA is "obligated" to conceal any evidence of life on Mars? If the existence of current life on Mars were proven, their budget would increase--overnight--about a hundredfold, and we'd have a manned expedition to Mars under way in about a couple of weeks. So why would they want to keep it quiet?

Like a lot of things, I suppose it depends on what you're idea of evidence is.

1. Water was once on Mars, and could be there today. Not just ice.
2. Conditions underground could be perfect for life.
3. The LR experiment DID test positive for life. Given 1 and 2 that's not really a surprise.
4. Replenishment of Methane in the Martian atmosphere, possibly from life.

This is what I was referring too, as the list of evidence growing. The arrow is pointing closer and closer to microbial life being on Mars. Right? :D

But as Iris says none of this is new. And as I said it is merelysuggestive and intriguing.
Let us suppose that your supposition is correct - that NASA is required, or has decided, to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial life.
Let us further suppose that they have some evidence that it may exist. This evidence, even if conclusive is incomplete. i.e. NASA does not know the exact form this life takes, does not know the extent of its knowledge of us; does not know the level or nature of its interest in us.
In these circumstances would it not make sense for NASA to seek to acquire as much information as possible. That would be in line with their charter, and since they could withold any information that was obtained, they could meet their security requirement also.
A substantial increase, or rather renaissance, in manned exploration, of the moon, Mars and beyond would greatly aid this goal.
What better way to gain the budget for such activity than to play up the possibility of life on Mars if that life were microbial. That would in know way infringe their alleged requirement to keep quite about the existence of ET. So why would they not do this?
This seems to me, even after we take your base supposition as valid (which I do not, except for the sake of discussion), to completely destroy your argument.

oh dear, oh dear;
NASA have indicated that they are not giving direct support to the claims of detection of life;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html

looks like we are pretty much back to square one.

NASA have indicated that they are not giving direct support to the claims of detection of life;http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html
Looks like we are pretty much back to square one.

What do you expect from the deranged bureaucrates?

e :D s

What do you expect from the deranged bureaucrates?

e :D s

lol - the :D is cracking me up. It's interesting to note how some defend NASA almost like a child, and others like myself have no problem taking them to task.

But as Iris says none of this is new. And as I said it is merelysuggestive and intriguing.
Let us suppose that your supposition is correct - that NASA is required, or has decided, to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial life.
Let us further suppose that they have some evidence that it may exist. This evidence, even if conclusive is incomplete. i.e. NASA does not know the exact form this life takes, does not know the extent of its knowledge of us; does not know the level or nature of its interest in us.
In these circumstances would it not make sense for NASA to seek to acquire as much information as possible. That would be in line with their charter, and since they could withold any information that was obtained, they could meet their security requirement also.
A substantial increase, or rather renaissance, in manned exploration, of the moon, Mars and beyond would greatly aid this goal.
What better way to gain the budget for such activity than to play up the possibility of life on Mars if that life were microbial. That would in know way infringe their alleged requirement to keep quite about the existence of ET. So why would they not do this?
This seems to me, even after we take your base supposition as valid (which I do not, except for the sake of discussion), to completely destroy your argument.

There are alternate suggestions as to ensure funding for future missions Ophiolite.

Some suggest the reason NASA is so slow, or even say disinterested in proving the existance of any life in outerspace is to keep dangling that carrot out there; To make sure funding continues. :)

Now, the flipside assumption is that once life is detected and proven to exist that NASA would secure even more funding. I suppose it depends on what kind of life and again back to the main theme of weather or not they COULD reveal such an existance without threatening our national security. It's an extremely complex issue that has almost no correct answer because in the end we don't know EXACTLY what is designated as top secret.

You have only destroyed my argument, if it's taken from you're prospective of only one way to continue funding. My guess is that they continually dangle the potential discovery for MICROBIAL life, perhaps looking for more solid evidence, but are NOT ABLE to release ANY information which would confirm the existance of ETI and the danger of their crafts/structures.

I mean, when you consider they classified 23,000 images of the far-side of the Moon; You are left with very few chooses as to why - and then ask what else are they obligated to classify and why?

I mean, when you consider they classified 23,000 images of the far-side of the Moon; You are left with very few chooses as to why - and then ask what else are they obligated to classify and why?

How do you know that there are any images classified, much less 23k? I'm not saying they aren't, I just haven't seen anyone but you say it. Is there a NASA or DoD link that confirms it, or is it just urban legend?

How do you know that there are any images classified, much less 23k? I'm not saying they aren't, I just haven't seen anyone but you say it. Is there a NASA or DoD link that confirms it, or is it just urban legend?

This is where I've been frustrated, and hope the FOIA request helps.

The only site that I've found that really talks about is this one; http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/furlotte/sdi240.html

IF this is true (that their classified) I was thinking that maybe some very noticible features have changed since they were last photographed.. lol, of course this means ALIENS EXIST AND ARE BUSY WORKING ON THE MOON WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN A FEW YEARS.

Just interesting conjecture, but if they did classify them it only leads to extraordinary suggestions in one way or another.

So, in other words, there's no reason to believe that there are actually 23,000 images classified by the government that come from the dark side of the moon. That is precisely the sort of thing people like to concoct to perpetuate the grand conspiracy of organizations like NASA who are "keeping the aliens from the public."

It occurred to me that Clementine made a couple of Earth orbits before heading out to the moon and it may have taken some photos of locations here that could have legitimately been classified secret/top secret depending on the image resolution and target.

I don't know if it took images of Earth or not, however.

So, in other words, there's no reason to believe that there are actually 23,000 images classified by the government that come from the dark side of the moon. That is precisely the sort of thing people like to concoct to perpetuate the grand conspiracy of organizations like NASA who are "keeping the aliens from the public."

It occurred to me that Clementine made a couple of Earth orbits before heading out to the moon and it may have taken some photos of locations here that could have legitimately been classified secret/top secret depending on the image resolution and target.

I don't know if it took images of Earth or not, however.

I know you would love to make this mundane, but my FOIA request should answer the questions about this. I asked specifically if they had any images related to the Moon that were classified.

There are alternate suggestions as to ensure funding for future missions Ophiolite.

Some suggest the reason NASA is so slow, or even say disinterested in proving the existance of any life in outerspace is to keep dangling that carrot out there; To make sure funding continues.


But...government funding doesn't work like this. If your program doesn't come up with results, you don't get even more money to keep doing research. Eventually they shut off your funding.

And NASA keeps not coming up with "life on Mars" results, so Congress keeps appearing disinclined to increase their funding. This is a fact.

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/098.html

Now, the flipside assumption is that once life is detected and proven to exist that NASA would secure even more funding.

Right--that's exactly the point I was making. So, since we are in agreement that official scientific evidence of life on Mars would mean that NASA would get more funding, why would you continue to think that they are suppressing evidence of life on Mars?

suppose it depends on what kind of life and again back to the main theme of weather or not they COULD reveal such an existance without threatening our national security.

Please explain how you think that NASA would think that revealing the existence of life on Mars would "threaten our national security". Please outline their supposed train of thought.

Please explain how you think that NASA would think that revealing the existence of life on Mars would "threaten our national security". Please outline their supposed train of thought.
This aspect has amazed me too (the argument of national security). I mean, "life on mars", fantastic, I would organize a huge party (that's a promise), wine, girls and linux geeks :p , etc, I mean, it's not that a "life on mars" headline would make me to load myself with explosives and go on a suicide mission to the nearest telescope

If your program doesn't come up with results, you don't get even more money to keep doing research. Eventually they shut off your funding.


Hum,
i suppose that it’s possible that they have found no life there at all.
And (<i>if</i>) they are covering up their findings, that it’s a barren desolate place, void of all life...
well, it keeps them in a job... ;)

NASA new boss is expected to be health official. Its previous boss was BS, sorry, bachelor of art.
They do not want any scientists around. Too much trouble.

IDIOTS!

e :) s

But...government funding doesn't work like this. If your program doesn't come up with results, you don't get even more money to keep doing research. Eventually they shut off your funding.

And NASA keeps not coming up with "life on Mars" results, so Congress keeps appearing disinclined to increase their funding. This is a fact.

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/098.html

Right--that's exactly the point I was making. So, since we are in agreement that official scientific evidence of life on Mars would mean that NASA would get more funding, why would you continue to think that they are suppressing evidence of life on Mars?

Please explain how you think that NASA would think that revealing the existence of life on Mars would "threaten our national security". Please outline their supposed train of thought.

I wrote about this here: The Space Act: Implications For Us All (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44544)

I agree that discovering alien intelligence SHOULD garner more funding. I, like most here believe we as a world are ready for it. However, back when NASA was first created and given certain guidlines for releasing information the issue of alien intelligence was seen as a threat, not really a great thing.

I think that perhaps "the Brookings Report" and "The space act" have combined to create the problem currently in place now. However, read the link above because mainly that's where I outline their train of thought.

Hum,
i suppose that it’s possible that they have found no life there at all.
And (<i>if</i>) they are covering up their findings, that it’s a barren desolate place, void of all life...
well, it keeps them in a job... ;)
:p nice switcheroo - there IS a conspiracy to conceal the LACK of alien life!!! Tantalising selected evidence planted or faked to look like there still might be a chance of life elsewhere... not too much or you'll have to produce the green slime...

Na. Seriously, this is hard-to-do science done under really difficult conditions. Of course the results take interpretation and review.

Back on topic - as far as I can tell, this story (Life on Mars!) was just some reporters getting the wrong end of the stick by wishful reading of a scientific paper.

I am not sure why, Space.com though they were saying CURRENT LIFE was on Mars when they were really saying that conditions in certain potential underground area's COULD support life.

In my haste to finally have that proven, I did not read the story fully and now hate space.com for that! lol.. But after reading it all the way through I really don't understand the title of the article, when you consider it's not about any evidence of actual life. :mad:

Oh well, it will happen soon enough. :cool:

Btimsah, you still didn't answer my question.

Please explain how you think that NASA would think that revealing the existence of life on Mars would "threaten our national security". Please outline their supposed train of thought.


I went to the other thread and read your post. All you're saying is that you believe the NASA is obligated to cover up any evidence of alien or extraterrestrial life: but you don't explain WHY you think they should do this--you don't explain what you think the rationale for this would be.

So, again, why should NASA be obligated to cover up alien life? Why would the government not want us to know, for example, that there's an alien city on the dark side of the moon?

Also, on the subject of government funding, the government cut off all funding to the SETI project in 1993--because it wasn't getting any results. Do you think that if SETI had ever succeeded in finding an actual artificial signal, that their funding would have been cut off?

If they had found an actual artificial signal, their funding would have tripled, at least.

Btimsah, you still didn't answer my question.



I went to the other thread and read your post. All you're saying is that you believe the NASA is obligated to cover up any evidence of alien or extraterrestrial life: but you don't explain WHY you think they should do this--you don't explain what you think the rationale for this would be.

So, again, why should NASA be obligated to cover up alien life? Why would the government not want us to know, for example, that there's an alien city on the dark side of the moon?

Also, on the subject of government funding, the government cut off all funding to the SETI project in 1993--because it wasn't getting any results. Do you think that if SETI had ever succeeded in finding an actual artificial signal, that their funding would have been cut off?

If they had found an actual artificial signal, their funding would have tripled, at least.

Sorry, I thought the other thread was self-explanatory. Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat. Secondly, the potential for the Military to garner this technology and perhaps reverse engineer it could play into it. Mainly the issue would be the DANGER* an advanced civilization would pose for us. I don't believe NASA has any rationale for it, I believe the Military does.

I hope this answered your question.

Sorry, I thought the other thread was self-explanatory. Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat. Secondly, the potential for the Military to garner this technology and perhaps reverse engineer it could play into it. Mainly the issue would be the DANGER* an advanced civilization would pose for us. I don't believe NASA has any rationale for it, I believe the Military does.

I hope this answered your question.
Yes, it did. However...

1. "Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat."

What does this mean? A "national security threat"...how? You mean the military thinks we couldn't handle the truth that an advanced alien civilization was out there, that we would panic? Do you have any evidence for this assumption? Is that how we have handled unpleasant and frightening news in the past--we panicked? When? During the War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938, when some people really did believe the Martians had landed, this is all that happened.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds_2.htm
All across the United States, listeners reacted. Thousands of people called radio stations, police and newspapers. Many in the New England area loaded up their cars and fled their homes. In other areas, people went to churches to pray. People improvised gas masks. Miscarriages and early births were reported. Deaths, too, were reported but never confirmed. Many people were hysterical. They thought the end was near. Nobody "panicked" to the extent of the complete breakdown of law and order. People indulged in constructive activity: they packed and left, they went to church to pray. But Civilization held together.

2. "Secondly, the potential for the Military to garner this technology and perhaps reverse engineer it could play into it. "

You're assuming that any alien technology discovered would be comprehensible to the military. Why are you assuming that? I thought the whole point of "alien" technology was that it wasn't comprehensible to Earthlings.

3. "Mainly the issue would be the DANGER* an advanced civilization would pose for us."

So you're assuming that any alien civilization that was discovered would automatically be (1) still active (IOW, not extinct), and (2) hostile? Why are you assuming that? Why not assume that the evidence would show a long-dead alien civilization? Why not assume that if they weren't extinct, then that they would be, if not friendly, then at least neutral towards homo sapiens? Why assume "dangerous" aliens?

Yes, it did. However...

1. "Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat."

What does this mean? A "national security threat"...how? You mean the military thinks we couldn't handle the truth that an advanced alien civilization was out there, that we would panic? Do you have any evidence for this assumption? Is that how we have handled unpleasant and frightening news in the past--we panicked? When? During the War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938, when some people really did believe the Martians had landed, this is all that happened.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds_2.htm
Nobody "panicked" to the extent of the complete breakdown of law and order. People indulged in constructive activity: they packed and left, they went to church to pray. But Civilization held together.

There was panick. This may have influinced power-makers in the military to classify such intelligence. Also, the radio broadcast was not a world-wide event. You say they just packed and left? When millions of Americans all pack and just leave, you have a dangerous situation on you're hands. If something like this had actually happened on a world-wide scale the PANIC would have been even worse. Some knew the program, War Of The Worlds, was fiction so not everyone thought it was real. I do believe it's possible our government saw the reaction of the program and HAD to wonder, well what if this was to really happen??

2. "Secondly, the potential for the Military to garner this technology and perhaps reverse engineer it could play into it. "

You're assuming that any alien technology discovered would be comprehensible to the military. Why are you assuming that? I thought the whole point of "alien" technology was that it wasn't comprehensible to Earthlings.

Incomprehensible, untill we try to reverse engineer it and learn from it. Nice try though.

3. "Mainly the issue would be the DANGER* an advanced civilization would pose for us."

So you're assuming that any alien civilization that was discovered would automatically be (1) still active (IOW, not extinct), and (2) hostile? Why are you assuming that? Why not assume that the evidence would show a long-dead alien civilization? Why not assume that if they weren't extinct, then that they would be, if not friendly, then at least neutral towards homo sapiens? Why assume "dangerous" aliens?

I am not assuming that. I am baseing it on the testimony of hundreds of people who used to work for the United States military. Individuals with highest security classification's. This is not based soley on my assumptions, but on those who decided to classify evidence of ETI as top-secret. I could hypothesis, or guess WHY they would, but that does little to offer much of any substance.

Also, on the subject of government funding, the government cut off all funding to the SETI project in 1993--because it wasn't getting any results. Do you think that if SETI had ever succeeded in finding an actual artificial signal, that their funding would have been cut off?

If they had found an actual artificial signal, their funding would have tripled, at least.

Nah, funding would stop for "official" SETI and the military would take over, THEN funding would triple once under their private control. ;)

So you're assuming that any alien civilization that was discovered would automatically be (1) still active (IOW, not extinct), and (2) hostile? Why are you assuming that? Why not assume that the evidence would show a long-dead alien civilization? Why not assume that if they weren't extinct, then that they would be, if not friendly, then at least neutral towards homo sapiens? Why assume "dangerous" aliens?

Clearly you've never been in a protective situation. One always has to plan for the worse and never underestimate anyone. If an alien civilization is ever found, we won't know anything about them therefore we wouldn't know how they would act or what their motives, if any, would be. People fear the unknown, ya know? Once one lets their guard down is when something bad happens.

- N

Iris, the reason, as I understand it, that UFO's are considered 'a national security threat' is because of their superior technology. Of course, to accept that statement,
you have to accept that at some of the UAP's (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) are
of extraterrestrial origin. That is what you are asking the government to openly state.
There is a problem, however, if the statement is true. The main purpose of the military,
any military, is to offer protection and security to its citizens, a job most in the military
take seriously. The question is, would each country's military be able to assure its
citizenery that it could accomplish this task, if it became necessary, when confronting
the 'admitted' alien technology? IF the military and our government, your government,
ARE aware we are being visited, why would they want to alarm their citizens if no immediate threat is perceived and, hopefully, may never be a threat? Are you aware
of the reports of nuclear missiles, the Minuteman ICBM's at Malmstrom AFB in the U.S.
for instance, being shut down, taken off line one by one while an unidentified object
hovered over the base? No hostile action was displayed by the UFOs, but was it a
'show of force', of technology, and a national security risk as viewed by the military?
Does anyone think the military would relish answering this question, among many others, if the government openly stated we were being visited by extraterrestrial UFOs? No, whether we are being visited or not, the world's governments will keep
mute on the subject, IMHO. A link to the Malmstrom AFB incident:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

A link to a questionable newspaper in India with a new article on the same subject
(nuclear missile shutdown): http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1656.asp

The first link is down.

... "Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat."

At least with ETIs, you can hope for mercy, benign treatment, non interferring observation of (to them) a primative life form, etc. but what if the disaster were natural and inanimate? There have been many "cosmic disaster" stories, some made into movies. Unfortunately, most require something from space (usually an asteroid or comment) to hit the Earth and this is not very probable, in the time period of interest to st of us.

Dark matter excepted, perhaps, the most common objects in the universe are small black holes. The cores of stars bigger than about 6 solar masses end up as stellar-core black holes. There have been many generations of stars before the sun was born. Back in the early history of the universe, it was much smaller. Then the gas clouds, from which stars form, were much more dense. Then as now, most gas clouds formed pairs of stars. (If only one were formed, it would need to rotate too rapidly to collapse enough to gravitationally heat to fusion temperatures. Also the density within the gas cloud is not uniform, so typically the two most dense regions eat up most of the gas to form a pair of gravitationaly bound stars, rotating about their common center of mass.)

Thus, at the present age of the universe, the most common objects in the universe are gravitationally-bound, small, black hole pairs. (all those prior generations of big stars are now "stellar core" BHs with typically a few solar masses each.)

What would happen if one with 3 solar masses should pass "near" our solar system, say five times more distant than Pluto is from the sun and in the same azmuthical sector of the sky as Pluto, just to take a specific example? Well since Pluto is not in a strong gravitational field of the sun, it could be strongly disturbed. Perhaps even its orbit plane would be tilted from the ecliptic. Neptune is also far from the sun. If not in too different a sector at the time of the BH's passage by our solar system, it too would be distrubed.

To cut to the chase: In the late 1920s Neptune was distrubed. Based on this distrubance Percivle Lowell predicted a unknown planet, "planet X," many times more massive than Earth, would be found roughly where Pluto was found a few years later. (He founded the Flagstaff observatory and hired someone whose sole task was to hunt for Planet X, and he did find Pluto.)

For years it was assumed that Pluto had mass much greater than the Earth, as this was necessary for it to make the observed perturbations to Neptune from Pluto's orbit. We now know Pluto is in fact smaller than the moon. It was hard work searching a specified region of the heavens plus luck that found Pluto. It would not have taken so long as it did to find if Pluto's orbit plane were essentially in the ecliptic, like all others are.

Now back to the fact that stellar-core BHs come in pairs: The thesis of Dark Visitor is that the second memeber of this "1920/2008 pair" of stellar core BHs will pass thru solar system in 2008. The good news is it is only 2.2 solar masses. The bad news is it misses the Earth by only

Now back to the fact that stellar-core BHs come in pairs: The thesis of Dark Visitor is that the second memeber of this "1920/2008 pair" of stellar core BHs will pass thru solar system in 2008. The good news is it is only 2.2 solar masses. The bad news is it misses the Earth by only............


AND? :eek: :D

A question about the fact that each day now it seems more and more likely that we will discover some form of life on Mars and perhaps Titan.

At what level would we be prepared to declare it as having intelligence.

Even microble life can display some level of organization and cooperative living. i.e. - bees, ants and spiders have social order and are excellent constructionist and build complex things.

Where does one distinguish intelligence from instinct, etc.

Even trees on earth have shown a form of cooperative living. If attacked by some parasite some trees give off a chemical signal and other trees receive that information and begin to develope a resistance to the attacker.! They communicate even if at a rudimentary level.

... "Because the evidence that would reveal the technological advancement of ETI would be a national security threat."

At least with ETIs, you can hope for mercy, benign treatment, non interferring observation of (to them) a primative life form, etc. but what if the disaster were natural and inanimate? There have been many "cosmic disaster" stories, some made into movies. Unfortunately, most require something from space (usually an asteroid or comet) to hit the Earth and this is not very probable, in the time period of interest to us.

Dark matter excepted, perhaps, the most common objects in the universe are small black holes. The cores of stars bigger than about 6 solar masses end up as stellar-core black holes. There have been many generations of stars before the sun was born. Back in the early history of the universe, it was much smaller. Then the gas clouds, from which stars form, were much more dense. Then as now, most gas clouds formed pairs of stars. (If only one were formed, it would need to rotate too rapidly to collapse enough to gravitationally heat to fusion temperatures. Also the density within the gas cloud is not uniform, so typically the two most dense regions eat up most of the gas to form a pair of gravitationaly bound stars, rotating about their common center of mass. Being big, they rapidly age into Black Holes pairs.)

Thus, probably at the present age of the universe, the most common objects in the universe are gravitationally-bound, small, black hole pairs. (all those prior generations of big stars are now "stellar core" BHs with typically a few solar masses each.)

What would happen if one with 3 solar masses should pass "near" our solar system, say five times more distant than Pluto is from the sun and in the same azmuithical sector of the sky as Pluto, just to take a specific example? Well, since Pluto is in a relatively weak gravitational field of the sun, it could be strongly disturbed. Perhaps even its orbit plane would be tilted from the ecliptic. Neptune is also far from the sun. If not in too different a sector at the time of the BH's passage by our solar system, it too would be distrubed.

To cut to the chase: In the late 1920s Neptune was distrubed. Based on this distrubance Perceivle Lowell predicted a unknown planet, "planet X," many times more massive than Earth, would be found roughly where Pluto was found a few years later. (He founded the Flagstaff observatory and hired someone whose sole task was to hunt for Planet X, and he did find Pluto.)

For years it was assumed that Pluto had mass much greater than the Earth, as this is necessary for it to make the observed perturbations to Neptune (from Pluto's orbit, which is always at least 17AU from Neptune). We now know Pluto is in fact smaller than the moon. It was hard work searching a specified region of the heavens plus luck that found Pluto. It would not have taken so long as it did to find if Pluto's orbit plane were essentially in the ecliptic, like all others are.

Now back to the fact that stellar-core BHs come in pairs: The thesis of Dark Visitor is that the second memeber of this "1928/2008 pair" of stellar-core BHs will pass thru solar system in 2008. The good news is: it has only 2.2 solar masses. The bad news is: it misses the Earth by only 12 times the distance to the sun (A 12 AU miss is much more likely than the "direct hit" concept of other "cosmic disaster" stories.)

I used the Dark Visitor story as a vehicle to teach a lot of physics, without the reader being aware how much he / she is learning. All the physics and a lot about climate is all woven into the story. For example, Keppler's three laws are explained and used but never even named, certainly not taught like you will find in a normal text book. The Earth's orbit will be changed by a bout 10% after 2008. A permanent ice age developes, but unlike all prior ones, it is confined to the Northern Hemisphere. We Southern Hemispere dewellers get to live, no ice, but you would not believe the floods that wash away most of our cities.Explaining why all this is so is the vehicle I used to painlessly teach about the mechanism of climate.

I am trying to recrute students to study physics. The western world has already lost technological leadership to hard working Asians and is process of losing scientific leadership as well. (Not because of cheap wages - people who can design a robot that can walk while playing a buggle don't come cheap.) Visit site www.darkvisitor.com to learn more, to get list of physics and climate painlessly taught, and see how to read entire book for free. (My motive for writing it is as stated, not profit of fame. - Billy T, the primary author of Dark Visitor, is not my real name.

The book's astronomer, Jack, provides most of the physics as he explains it to Billy T. The climate information comes from their mutual friend, George, brother of Jack's wife, who worked for NOAA. (Jack is too busy looking for slight deflections of background stars as the approaching BH passes in front (to refine the trajectory of approach) to write the book himself.) Jack and Billy T were college roomates at HARVARD, etc. Billy T tells about Jack's Ph.D astronomy project - another vehicle to painless teach physics, etc.

It is called Dark Visitor because being a BH, it reflects absolutely zero sunlight - telescopes do not see it coming. It may be, and someday will, but probably not in 2008. The unexplained late 1920 disturbance of Neptune, may have been the first indication that our solar system would be visited by two gravitationally bound BHs, the most common objects that exists in the universe! If Neptune's pertubation was something else, it is still true that someday we will be visited by a pair of "dark visitors."

For years it was assumed that Pluto had mass much greater than the Earth, as this was necessary for it to make the observed perturbations to Neptune from Pluto's orbit…… The unexplained late 1920 disturbance of Neptune, ……
A couple of corrections/clarifications:

Although discovered in 1930 the alleged disturbances of Neptune were based on observations made at the end of the 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century. Lowell made his first prediction of Planet Xs position in 1902.

There was no anomaly to explain. The apparent pertubations in Neptune's orbit were caused by assigning an incorrect mass to Neptune.

I am not assuming that. I am baseing it on the testimony of hundreds of people who used to work for the United States military. Individuals with highest security classification's. This is not based soley on my assumptions, but on those who decided to classify evidence of ETI as top-secret. I could hypothesis, or guess WHY they would, but that does little to offer much of any substance.
You're telling me that "hundreds" of former U.S. military-types have secret inside information--"testimony"--that (a) there really is at least one alien civilization out there, and (b) that it's hostile to us?

Cite for that.

Please.

Or is it just one of those "everybody knows" things?

A couple of corrections/clarifications:

Although discovered in 1930 the alleged disturbances of Neptune were based on observations made at the end of the 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century. Lowell made his first prediction of Planet Xs position in 1902.

There was no anomaly to explain. The apparent pertubations in Neptune's orbit were caused by assigning an incorrect mass to Neptune.

Thanks for the corrections. I knew lowell had long looked for planet X, but did not realize how long! He was not the onlyone to do so. Looking for new planets was popular scientific activty.

On your second point I am confused, perhaps you are correct, but I don't immediately see how you could be, because the orbit of a planet does not depend upon it mass. - It Neptune were replaced by the moon (and given Neptunes exact velocity at the time of replacement) the orbit would remain unchanged.

What does the "incorrect mass" assigned to Neptune change? If Neptune were preturbed (by any other source of gravity) and only half its current mass, the force acting on it would be also half and the inertia only half, so the acceleration causing the pertubation would seem to me to completely unchanged. Again am open to correction if I am wrong. In fact If I have something wrong I want to be corrected.

I also know some claim it was neverpreturbed - only bad observations, but my understanding is that most astronomers think Neptune was perturbed in the late 1920 by something every one assumed was Pluto, until Pluto's very small mass was known.

You're telling me that "hundreds" of former U.S. military-types have secret inside information--"testimony"--that (a) there really is at least one alien civilization out there, and (b) that it's hostile to us?

Cite for that.


He will undoubtedly cite the so-called Disclosure Project (http://www.disclosureproject.org/), in which Stephen Greer compiled a list of "eye-witness" testimony from hundreds of sources as a way of convincing Congress to "disclose" its knowlege of UFOs and their alien origins.

I've read over much of the "testimony" and even if we are to assume that each person was being truthful and accurate (a fool's assumption), none that recall indicated that they had knowlege of a nefarious and hostile alien force.

Ironically, I recall hearing that many of the people on the "list" have since asked to not be associated with Greer since he took their "testimonies" out of context, yet he still maintains their "testimonies" in his "Project."

Not surprisingly, you can purchase your very own copy of Greer's Disclosure from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967323819/103-0700802-9539012) for about $20.

I wish I would have thought of it first.

....Not surprisingly, you can purchase your very own copy of Greer's Disclosure from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967323819/103-0700802-9539012) for about $20.

I wish I would have thought of it first.
Me too. I had to think up something scary and physically realistic, for my book, Dark Visitor - See my post below of about 5 hours ago for details of how hard it was to not violate physic and yet scare with a real cosmic disaster, just waiting to happen.

You're telling me that "hundreds" of former U.S. military-types have secret inside information--"testimony"--that (a) there really is at least one alien civilization out there, and (b) that it's hostile to us?

Cite for that.

Please.

Or is it just one of those "everybody knows" things?

I said it was my opinion that they must be hostile, in order for the top-secret designation of ETI to make sense to me. Not that, "everybody knows". Quit trying to argue, it's not working.

He will undoubtedly cite the so-called Disclosure Project (http://www.disclosureproject.org/), in which Stephen Greer compiled a list of "eye-witness" testimony from hundreds of sources as a way of convincing Congress to "disclose" its knowlege of UFOs and their alien origins.

I've read over much of the "testimony" and even if we are to assume that each person was being truthful and accurate (a fool's assumption), none that recall indicated that they had knowlege of a nefarious and hostile alien force.

Ironically, I recall hearing that many of the people on the "list" have since asked to not be associated with Greer since he took their "testimonies" out of context, yet he still maintains their "testimonies" in his "Project."

Not surprisingly, you can purchase your very own copy of Greer's Disclosure from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967323819/103-0700802-9539012) for about $20.

I wish I would have thought of it first.

I disagree with the DProject, that disarming our nukes, "was peacefull". It's also not out of the question that with so many witnesses that Greer misunderstood their claim, and perhaps don't like the direction their group is taking. Point of fact, I don't like the direction the group is taking. They are way off onto clean-air crap and weapons in outer-space stuff. I feel they need to stick to the fact that Saucer shapped disks are ETI vehicles as witnessed and proven by his witnesses first, then move to other things after the congressional hearings they wanted.

A Space.com reporter fabricated that whole story. The Nasa response to it can be found at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=418683#418683.
Space.com seems to be becoming more like Disover magazine all the time.

Try this BBC story.

Martian gases pose life question
An Italian scientist working on the Mars Express probe says gases detected in the planet's atmosphere may indicate life exists on the Red Planet today.

Vittorio Formisano told a Dutch space conference methane and formaldehyde could signify biological activity.

But the cautious professor, from the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics in Rome, said only soil analysis on the planet could prove it.

Confirmation came through hard data, not "fantasy", he told BBC News.

"[My observations] should not be taken as a statement that there is life on Mars today, because we need to go there, to drill the soil, take samples, and analyse them before possibly concluding that life is there," Professor Formisano said.

Possible sources

The researcher is principal investigator on the Mars Express Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS).

The instrument is designed to determine the composition of the Martian atmosphere, and was able to confirm the presence in the Martian "air" last March of small quantities of methane.

The observation is fascinating because the gas is short-lived; it is broken down by sunlight, and should not be detectable unless it is being constantly replenished in some way.

The conservative view is that the source is geological - volcanic processes may be producing the gas, although active signs of this have yet to be observed. There may also be large reserves in the Martian soil of ancient methane-ice, so-called clathrates, which are slowly melting and releasing the gas into the atmosphere.

But there is also the theory that microbes are responsible. Some micro-organisms on Earth, known as methanogens, produce methane as a waste product and a number of scientists argue similar lifeforms could exist on the Red Planet, too.

Overlapping areas

Professor Formisano expressed his views on the subject at the European Space Agency's Mars Express Science Conference in Noordwijk.

He said that if the methane was considered in isolation, it appeared too small a source to be biogenic in origin.

However, he argued, if the formaldehyde detected in the atmosphere was viewed as a byproduct of the oxidation of methane, it would imply much more methane was being produced each year - and this could be explained by life more easily.

"If you consider only methane which is observed in the Martian atmosphere, it would be 150 tonnes a year; if you consider formaldehyde then you have 2.5 million tonnes [of methane] per year, which is much more," he said.

"And the correlation indicates the sources are in the soil, underground."

PFS data shows that the highest concentrations of methane overlap with the areas where water vapour and underground water-ice are also concentrated.

Recent events

One of these areas includes the equatorial Elysium region, where Mars Express scientists think they may have seen pack ice covered by a thin "lag" of dust and volcanic ash.

The researchers told the meeting earlier this week that a vast upwelling of water could have broken through a series of fractures known as the Cerberus Fossae, flooding an area about 800km by 900km, to a depth of about 45m.

And this was probably a very recent event, said Professor John Murray, from the Open University, UK.

"This was around five million years [ago]. That may sound old but in geological terms that is yesterday," he told BBC News.

"We know that these eruptions have occurred throughout Mars' geological history. The fact that they occurred just five million years ago essentially tells us we have vast reservoirs of liquid water beneath the surface today.

"Therefore, if life can develop that is where you are going to find it."

A paper detailing the pack ice discovery will appear next month in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. A paper discussing formaldehyde was submitted to Nature by Professor Formisano but was rejected by "one referee out of three", the Rome scientist said.

And some researchers point out that the area of the spectrum in which formaldehyde appears in the PFS data coincides with an area of significant interference from solar radiation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4295475.stm

Published: 2005/02/25 09:23:26 GMT

© BBC MMV

Btimsah, I asked you why you were assuming that any aliens we encountered would be hostile, and what you said was this:

I am not assuming that. I am baseing it on the testimony of hundreds of people who used to work for the United States military. Individuals with highest security classification's. This is not based soley on my assumptions, but on those who decided to classify evidence of ETI as top-secret. I could hypothesis, or guess WHY they would, but that does little to offer much of any substance.

Now, your statement right there is that you are not "assuming" that any aliens would be hostile--you are saying that you KNOW any aliens would be hostile, and the reason you say that you know this is because "hundreds of people who used to work for the U.S. military", with "highest security classifications", think so.

And so my next, logical question is to ask you for proof of this statement, that there are hundreds of U.S. ex-military employees who believe that any aliens would be hostile.

And you are not able to provide this. Instead you merely say that it is your belief that the Top Secret Designation of ETI must be due to "TPTB" already knowing that the aliens that ARE out there, and are hostile.

I said it was my opinion that they must be hostile, in order for the top-secret designation of ETI to make sense to me.

That's an assumption, not a cite.

Also, where are you getting that there's a Top Secret designation somewhere for some kind of ETI information? What kind of ETI information do you think the military, or NASA, has?


Quit trying to argue, it's not working.
Eh? Did you seriously expect to start a "NASA is covering things up!" thread in a place like sciforums and NOT have feedback ("arguing")? YOU started this thread, with your (yes, it's a conspiracy theory, Btimsah) conspiracy theory.



http://www.answers.com/topic/conspiracy-theory
conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

NASA says they don't know whether there is life on Mars.
You assume there is life on Mars.
Thus, you assume NASA is either wrong, or is covering things up.
You assume, then, that the reason why we have not been officially informed by NASA that there is life on Mars is because they're covering it up. That's "a theory seeking to explain a disputed case as a plot by a secret group".

Your OP:
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!?

Why isn't NASA talking about life on Mars?

You: "Because they're know it's there, but they're covering it up, so we don't panic, and so they can reverse-engineer any alien technology they may find there, and because they already know the aliens there are hostile."

Me: Because they don't have proof that there is any.

Btimsah, Iris's well structured, logical post explains exactly why many of us think you have your head buried some distance up your rectal cavity.

NASA is brain dead.

This is why

Btimsah, I asked you why you were assuming that any aliens we encountered would be hostile, and what you said was this:



Now, your statement right there is that you are not "assuming" that any aliens would be hostile--you are saying that you KNOW any aliens would be hostile, and the reason you say that you know this is because "hundreds of people who used to work for the U.S. military", with "highest security classifications", think so.

And so my next, logical question is to ask you for proof of this statement, that there are hundreds of U.S. ex-military employees who believe that any aliens would be hostile.

And you are not able to provide this. Instead you merely say that it is your belief that the Top Secret Designation of ETI must be due to "TPTB" already knowing that the aliens that ARE out there, and are hostile.



That's an assumption, not a cite.

Also, where are you getting that there's a Top Secret designation somewhere for some kind of ETI information? What kind of ETI information do you think the military, or NASA, has?



Eh? Did you seriously expect to start a "NASA is covering things up!" thread in a place like sciforums and NOT have feedback ("arguing")? YOU started this thread, with your (yes, it's a conspiracy theory, Btimsah) conspiracy theory.



http://www.answers.com/topic/conspiracy-theory


NASA says they don't know whether there is life on Mars.
You assume there is life on Mars.
Thus, you assume NASA is either wrong, or is covering things up.
You assume, then, that the reason why we have not been officially informed by NASA that there is life on Mars is because they're covering it up. That's "a theory seeking to explain a disputed case as a plot by a secret group".

Your OP:


Why isn't NASA talking about life on Mars?

You: "Because they're know it's there, but they're covering it up, so we don't panic, and so they can reverse-engineer any alien technology they may find there, and because they already know the aliens there are hostile."

Me: Because they don't have proof that there is any.

Iris, I don't think you understand what an opinion is. So, I won't bother. If you can't even comprehend what I'm trying to say this won't get anywhere.

Nice try.

Btimsah, Iris's well structured, logical post explains exactly why many of us think you have your head buried some distance up your rectal cavity.

Although, I understand how you guy's operate with the group-mentality. A hypothesis is not good, unless one from the group hypothesis it. If someone outside the group suggests something interesting it's attacked.

The same was done here. Instead of taking my claim as a hypothesis it was taken as a fact by Iris. As is usual, Iris and Ophiolite decide to take my hypothesis and claim I'm saying it's a fact in a desperate attempt to win debating points.

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

Here's an interesting article relating to the possibility of life, and the growing evidence that there IS current life on Mars. Gil Levin is looking more and more like the godfather of this discovery. His experiment is the ONLY hard evidence we have that actually proves microbial life exists on Mars. What more do we need?

The Ice Storm? (http://www.enterprisemission.com/ice-bara.htm)

Gil Levin is looking more and more like the godfather of this discovery. His experiment is the ONLY hard evidence we have that actually proves microbial life exists on Mars. What more do we need?

We need a lot more. Levin's work is interesting and not without merit, but he hardly proves microbial life exists on Mars. What's interesting isn't so much your support of Levin's work so much as your inability to accept notions that even slightly counter your belief system. We discussed the whole Levin research already, and yet you still maintain that he "proves microbial life exists on Mars?"

The best that Levin's work has been able to do to date is give some very valuable insight on how to perfect the process of discovery. His experiment used on Viking wasn't conclusive for the very reasons that were already discussed.

But the inability to accept notions that are contrary to established beliefs, in spite of evidence, is called a close minded attitude, the very thing that woo-woo's consistently accuse the skeptics of possessing. I contend that it is quite the opposite.

By the way, I linked to some information about the story that Enterprise Mission abuses here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45114

Iris, I don't think you understand what an opinion is. . . I understand how you guy's operate with the group-mentality. A hypothesis is not good, unless one from the group hypothesis it. Instead of taking my claim as a hypothesis it was taken as a fact by Iris.You are missing something here. Three somethings actually. First, you did not express an opinion to Iris, you claimed a fact. You said that you knew aliens would be hostile, that hundres of experts supported that view. btimsah, that is a[n innacurate] claim of fact; not the expression of opinion. Iris understands what an opinion is, and now you do too.

You also believe that aliens would be hostile. While we accept that you believe this, we do not believe it ourselves. However, this leads to your second element of confusion. Believing something does not equate to proposing a hypothesis. It must explain an observation, and you have no observations that allow you to say, "I think that shows activity by hostile aliens."

Thirdly, you have no way of testing your belief. All you have are more beliefs. You believe NASA is covering up. You believe the military's in on it. You believe the government saw. You believe people would panic. btimsah, all these beliefs are fine. You are entitled to them. We don't share these beliefs, but then again, what large group of people always believe the same thing?

Your problem though is that all your beliefs do not amount to having tested your other beliefs. There is no test that you have proposed, and none that we know that you could propose, that would test some of your more interesting beliefs. Being unable to test your beliefs, meaning you have no way of disproving them, is a second reason that they are only your beliefs and not a hypothesis. Without a means of disproof you cannot have a hypothesis. Iris understands what a hypothesis is, and now you do too.

We need a lot more. Levin's work is interesting and not without merit, but he hardly proves microbial life exists on Mars. What's interesting isn't so much your support of Levin's work so much as your inability to accept notions that even slightly counter your belief system. We discussed the whole Levin research already, and yet you still maintain that he "proves microbial life exists on Mars?"

The best that Levin's work has been able to do to date is give some very valuable insight on how to perfect the process of discovery. His experiment used on Viking wasn't conclusive for the very reasons that were already discussed.

But the inability to accept notions that are contrary to established beliefs, in spite of evidence, is called a close minded attitude, the very thing that woo-woo's consistently accuse the skeptics of possessing. I contend that it is quite the opposite.

By the way, I linked to some information about the story that Enterprise Mission abuses here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45114

His findings WERE conclusive, as the compounding evidence that LIFE CURRENTLY EXISTS AT MARS continues to mount his findings appear more and more likely to have been geniune.

If you wish too fall on the old excuse NASA gave to dismiss his findings, then fine. I don't.

You are missing something here. Three somethings actually. First, you did not express an opinion to Iris, you claimed a fact. You said that you knew aliens would be hostile, that hundres of experts supported that view. btimsah, that is a[n innacurate] claim of fact; not the expression of opinion. Iris understands what an opinion is, and now you do too.

You also believe that aliens would be hostile. While we accept that you believe this, we do not believe it ourselves. However, this leads to your second element of confusion. Believing something does not equate to proposing a hypothesis. It must explain an observation, and you have no observations that allow you to say, "I think that shows activity by hostile aliens."

Thirdly, you have no way of testing your belief. All you have are more beliefs. You believe NASA is covering up. You believe the military's in on it. You believe the government saw. You believe people would panic. btimsah, all these beliefs are fine. You are entitled to them. We don't share these beliefs, but then again, what large group of people always believe the same thing?

Your problem though is that all your beliefs do not amount to having tested your other beliefs. There is no test that you have proposed, and none that we know that you could propose, that would test some of your more interesting beliefs. Being unable to test your beliefs, meaning you have no way of disproving them, is a second reason that they are only your beliefs and not a hypothesis. Without a means of disproof you cannot have a hypothesis. Iris understands what a hypothesis is, and now you do too.

Genius, I said IF ALIEN INTELLIGENCE IS BEING COVERED-UP OR IS TOP SECRET THEN THEY MUST BE HOSTILE. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE NO THREAT.

That's my opinion, based on the hypothesis that it IS BEING COVERED-UP.

His findings WERE conclusive, as the compounding evidence that LIFE CURRENTLY EXISTS AT MARS continues to mount his findings appear more and more likely to have been geniune.

If you wish too fall on the old excuse NASA gave to dismiss his findings, then fine. I don't.

Then it's not an act, you truly are that ignorant. I don't mean that statement as an ad hominem remark, but in the most basic meaning of the word "ignorant."

NASA didn't "dismiss" Levin's findings. A body of scientists, independent of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration did. Scientists from universities for instance. And they didn't so much "dismiss" his findings as come to the conclusion, based on further tests, that non-biological agents could not be ruled out and were even very likely to have affected it.

Are you saying that you conducted tests that show differently? Did you even read the literature in peer-reviewed journals?

Never mind. There's no sense in answering. You're too close-minded to look past your own limited belief system that clings to the notion that hostile alien intelligences are visiting our planet. Your characterization of NASA as an entity of conspirators and oppressors not only insults every legitimate researcher (including Dr. Levin), but it is also telling of the limitations in your own intellect.

His findings WERE conclusiveUh, no. Suggestive, yes. Conclusive, no. The findings were not conclusive because nonbiologic causes could not be ruled out. You want conclusive, not just unlikely.

Genius, I said IF ALIEN INTELLIGENCE IS BEING COVERED-UP OR IS TOP SECRET THEN THEY MUST BE HOSTILE. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE NO THREAT. That's my opinion, based on the hypothesis that it IS BEING COVERED-UP.While you said that, you also made other statements of fact that were incorrect.

There could be other reasons for a coverup of aliens besides their being a threat. While I agree that this is your opinion, you previously stated this as fact, which is why everyone is biting your ass over it. And again, you call it a hypothesis, but you have given us no observation whatsoever that needs explaining, and you have given us no means of testing your belief. Again.

What is the matter with you btimsah? Are you unable to understand what you read, or are you uable to process logical thoughts?

Interesting that you call me genius; you must be comparing me to yourself.