96 replies to this topic

[sean6]

this is big, well kind of.

Viking robots found life on Mars in 1976, scientists say



New analysis of 36-year-old data, resuscitated from printouts, shows NASA found life on Mars, an international team of mathematicians and scientists conclude in a paper published this week.

Further, NASA doesn't need a human expedition to Mars to nail down the claim, neuropharmacologist and biologist Joseph Miller, with the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, told Discovery News.


http://www.msnbc.msn...cience-science/


just want to ask a question, do you think nasa lies about life in the universe.???

[Mallaliak]

I got a extremly strong feeling I read this about... 5 years ago. They found a bacteria, or remains after one on their equipment that had been to mars. But it diden't recieve more than a small side note in the news. But the question is..

If they did now actually find anything. Is it from Mars? Or is it from Earth?

[Sky Scanner]

I think this might have been what Lost_Shamen was talking about on another thread about a month or so ago....I missed the context in which he was talking about it, it intrigued me then, but I hadn't really heard about it before. Thanks for posting it, enjoyable read

[Conrad Clough]

From the article

Quote

The method has not yet been proven effective for differentiating between biological and non-biological processes on Earth, so it's premature to draw any conclusions.

I don't think that NASA is necessarily trying to hide anything, but until the results are verified there is really nothing to report... the findings are intriguing, and should more experimentation show that the method used is an effective means of differentiating between biological and non-biological processes I would expect there to be a larger news release of the findings.

[Hazzard]

Close, but still no cigarr.  

Edited by Hazzard, 12 April 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[grendals_bane]

sean6, on 12 April 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

this is big, well kind of.

Viking robots found life on Mars in 1976, scientists say



New analysis of 36-year-old data, resuscitated from printouts, shows NASA found life on Mars, an international team of mathematicians and scientists conclude in a paper published this week.

Further, NASA doesn't need a human expedition to Mars to nail down the claim, neuropharmacologist and biologist Joseph Miller, with the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, told Discovery News.


http://www.msnbc.msn...cience-science/


just want to ask a question, do you think nasa lies about life in the universe.???

"PASADENA, Calif. -- Experiments prompted by a 2008 surprise from NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander suggest that soil examined by NASA's Viking Mars landers in 1976 may have contained carbon-based chemical building blocks of life."

That is a quote from the NASA website here so I doubt they are trying to hide anything.

[keninsc]

grendals_bane, on 12 April 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

"PASADENA, Calif. -- Experiments prompted by a 2008 surprise from NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander suggest that soil examined by NASA's Viking Mars landers in 1976 may have contained carbon-based chemical building blocks of life."

That is a quote from the NASA website here so I doubt they are trying to hide anything.

Technology has advanced and the ability to interpret the data they got has improved greatly. I recall when they announced they'd found life then came back and said no we didn't then finally said........"we just don't know." I'm glad they took another look at the data.

[Ghost Pranto]

so much dumb.never ever can happen this.reason i don't know.But it never can't be.

[highdesert50]

Does one presume the voyage from earth to mars is sufficient to destroy earth borne bacteria? Or, are we actually in the process of seeding or bio-forming mars with simple robust organisms that might have paralleled the early introduction of life on earth.

[OverSword]

People refuse to see that this is how "disclosure" is done.  As directed by protocal developed in pre-NASA times by a think tank who was tasked to determine what action would be taken or what/when/how information would be released, should non-terrestrial life, or archeological evidence of it be found in our explorations.  The answer was the information would be released gradually.  

Remember a few months ago, NASA scientists were saying that rather than watery, earth-like worlds, we may be more likely to find life on dry, seemingly dead desert planets?  Disclosure.  Remember president Clintons announcement that bacteria had been found in a meteorite allegedly from Mars?  Disclosure.  The announcements, that  they have discovered water on both the moon and Mars?  Disclosure.  The initial findings of space exploration were everything is a lifeless husk but the Earth.  Then they wait a generation or two and release they've found traces of water and bacteria, then in another generation they'll release that the atmosphere of Mars may be slightly more breathable than we initially thought, then another generation finds out they may have discovered traces of insect-like life or maybe small lizards, etc.

I'm saying they've known all of this since the 60's or 70's.  Trillions of dollars in black budget money with no need to report how it's spent, I'd be surprised if they didn't already have manned military bases on the moon pointing weapons at our enemies on the earth.

[booNyzarC]

The Sky Scanner, on 12 April 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

I think this might have been what Lost_Shamen was talking about on another thread about a month or so ago....I missed the context in which he was talking about it, it intrigued me then, but I hadn't really heard about it before. Thanks for posting it, enjoyable read

Yes, I remember that discussion as well and I think you're right.  This is probably the same thing.

OverSword, on 13 April 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

People refuse to see that this is how "disclosure" is done.  As directed by protocal developed in pre-NASA times by a think tank who was tasked to determine what action would be taken or what/when/how information would be released, should non-terrestrial life, or archeological evidence of it be found in our explorations.  The answer was the information would be released gradually.  

Remember a few months ago, NASA scientists were saying that rather than watery, earth-like worlds, we may be more likely to find life on dry, seemingly dead desert planets?  Disclosure.  Remember president Clintons announcement that bacteria had been found in a meteorite allegedly from Mars?  Disclosure.  The announcements, that  they have discovered water on both the moon and Mars?  Disclosure.  The initial findings of space exploration were everything is a lifeless husk but the Earth.  Then they wait a generation or two and release they've found traces of water and bacteria, then in another generation they'll release that the atmosphere of Mars may be slightly more breathable than we initially thought, then another generation finds out they may have discovered traces of insect-like life or maybe small lizards, etc.

I'm saying they've known all of this since the 60's or 70's.

Erm...  Disclosure?  As in the "ET is visiting us" kind of Disclosure?

OverSword, on 13 April 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Trillions of dollars in black budget money with no need to report how it's spent, I'd be surprised if they didn't already have manned military bases on the moon pointing weapons at our enemies on the earth.

Don't you think mounting a weapon on the moon is rather inefficient if your goal is to attack a location on the surface of the earth?  Wouldn't some kind of satellite in closer orbit be a little more effective?  Or maybe, oh I dunno, a plane or surface to surface missile?

[OverSword]

booNyzarC, on 13 April 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Erm...  Disclosure?  As in the "ET is visiting us" kind of Disclosure?




Don't you think mounting a weapon on the moon is rather inefficient if your goal is to attack a location on the surface of the earth?  Wouldn't some kind of satellite in closer orbit be a little more effective?  Or maybe, oh I dunno, a plane or surface to surface missile?

That is what most people mean when they say disclosure, I think context of what I posted about the disclosure protocals explain what I mean.  I may have been exagerating a bit about the weapons part, but then your comment had me thinking, what is the first thing you would want to do in a full scale ICBM war?  Take out your enemies ability to see (satelites), we have recently demonstrated our abilities to take out satelites so given that capability by the US do you really think China, Russia, India, Britain, etc. dont have, or are not woking hard on that capability also?   So sure, to me the moon as military asset for domination over the earth makes perfect sense.

[booNyzarC]

OverSword, on 13 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

That is what most people mean when they say disclosure, I think context of what I posted about the disclosure protocals explain what I mean.  

Well, you may think the context was sufficient, and I'm sure that it makes perfect sense to you, but I failed to pick up on it, which is why I asked for clarification.  Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but I still don't know whether you were talking about the "ET is visiting us" kind of Disclosure.  It is a yes or no question.  Would you be so kind as to clarify?

OverSword, on 13 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I may have been exagerating a bit about the weapons part, but then your comment had me thinking, what is the first thing you would want to do in a full scale ICBM war?  Take out your enemies ability to see (satelites), we have recently demonstrated our abilities to take out satelites so given that capability by the US do you really think China, Russia, India, Britain, etc. dont have, or are not woking hard on that capability also?   So sure, to me the moon as military asset for domination over the earth makes perfect sense.

Okay.

In my opinion the moon is too far away to be a viable military asset for global domination, but you are welcome to your own opinion.

Cheers.

[DBunker]

booNyzarC, on 13 April 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

In my opinion the moon is too far away to be a viable military asset for global domination, but you are welcome to your own opinion.

Are you sure about that?

http://trekmovie.com...-of-star-wreck/

[booNyzarC]

DBunker, on 13 April 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Are you sure about that?

http://trekmovie.com...-of-star-wreck/

Who can possibly argue with that?

I will have to watch that movie at some point.   I've been meaning to get around to it, but so preoccupied with other things lately.