Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Black Red Devil

NASA close to huge reveal about life on Mars

41 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Black Red Devil

A top scientist at NASA says the agency will soon disclose something “revolutionary” about alien life forms.

Planetary science division director Dr Jim Green boasted the agency was close to “making some announcements” about finding life on Mars — but that we’re not ready for it.

link

A story a month old that I hadn't heard of before and, after brief search, didn't find previously posted on UM.  The article seems to lead someone to believe they may have evidence and will announce it within the next couple of years but when reading through the article, it sounded more like another 'we may find' prediction.

What do you think?  Do we have another ' we may find' story or an exciting 'we have found' evidence?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Teaser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Teaser

life did exist on mars that was totally  destroy by the biggest volcano in our  galaxy.   and sent a seed to the our  Earth

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

 destroy by the biggest volcano in our  galaxy.

Maybe you mean our Solar System ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

This is going to go down like the “science rocking discovery that will overturn decades of established understanding” that happened a few years ago and it was the shock revelation that Mars’ iron content was higher than expected.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Maybe you mean our Solar System ?

yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I kind of resent him saying we aren't ready for it. The public is. Maybe scientists aren't, but they are always debating ideas so I don't see the issue. They will debate and sort it as always and come to a general consensus, as they always do.

If the ideas that science has about how life began here are valid to any degree, then there has to have been some start of life on Mars, too, imo. I have no clue as to if it still exists as extreme as it is there now, but, surely fossils of early, primitive water critters are worth hoping for someday.

What will be a challenge is if it is similar to things here and then we have to wonder - is life the same or similar everywhere, or did Mars seed life here?

I would like them to reveal some new facts as far as they know today.

I lean toward the similarities and life being seeded, but that is purely armchair hobbyist ideas. I dearly want some facts if they have any.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Mars_gmap.png

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I kind of resent him saying we aren't ready for it. The public is. Maybe scientists aren't, but they are always debating ideas so I don't see the issue. They will debate and sort it as always and come to a general consensus, as they always do.

If the ideas that science has about how life began here are valid to any degree, then there has to have been some start of life on Mars, too, imo. I have no clue as to if it still exists as extreme as it is there now, but, surely fossils of early, primitive water critters are worth hoping for someday.

What will be a challenge is if it is similar to things here and then we have to wonder - is life the same or similar everywhere, or did Mars seed life here?

I would like them to reveal some new facts as far as they know today.

I lean toward the similarities and life being seeded, but that is purely armchair hobbyist ideas. I dearly want some facts if they have any.


Good points, if they have evidence why do they have to wait a couple of years before announcing it to the world anyway?  Prepare people for what and more importantly, what's going to change in 2 years?  Who cares if some people won't accept the truth.  What, progress gets delayed because some archaic individuals want to hold onto backward beliefs?  What a joke!

If they don't have proof why come out with more monotonous claims we've heard all before? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Basically, he's of the personal opinion that we are close to finding proof that there is/was simple life on Mars - assuming, of course, that such proof exists - and, again, in his personal opinion, it will be a massive shock to a great many people.   He may or may not be right with his first conjecture, but in my opinion is way off the mark with the second - frankly I think 99.9% of the world's population couldn't care less.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This idea that people are not ready for learning that there is life elsewhere in the universe is lame. It is not supported by the evidence.

1. The War of the Worlds broadcast did not cause widespread panic as Disclosure fanatics think it did.  Personally I don't think it is a good example because it was a show.

2. People are used to aliens with the large number of movies and TV shows containing aliens

3. The president of the US, Clinton, talked about a fossil in a Mars rock and that caused no stir at all (see docyaut2's post above)

4. The pope stated that aliens existing has no effect on religion

 

The evidence is pretty clear - no one will be upset. As Essan stated above " frankly I think 99.9% of the world's population couldn't care less "

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

Basically NASA is a money sink and a public relations organisation for the government. The word has come down from the top that they are ready to move on to the next stage in the disclosure and so we can have another drop of our drip-feed. Whoopy-doo. Its pathetic really.

Anyone who believes NASA does anything more than these two things is not seeing the real picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, ocpaul20 said:

Basically NASA is a money sink and a public relations organisation for the government. The word has come down from the top that they are ready to move on to the next stage in the disclosure and so we can have another drop of our drip-feed. Whoopy-doo. Its pathetic really.

Anyone who believes NASA does anything more than these two things is not seeing the real picture.

That's really funny. But I wouldn't give up your day job to hit the comedy circuit.

Disclosure is a pretend thingy made up by fringies. It's that carrot dangling out front that is never reached.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard

I know this one... Mars used to have liquid water and microbial life.

There, thats it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tortugabob

OCpaul20  said, "Basically NASA is a money sink and a public relations organisation for the government. The word has come down from the top that they are ready to move on to the next stage in the disclosure and so we can have another drop of our drip-feed. Whoopy-doo. Its pathetic really."

Paul you wouldn't be sitting there typing on your computer if it wasn't for some of the technology developed by NASA. So don't make a fool of yourself and with statements like the above.

 

 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
2 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

OCpaul20  said, "Basically NASA is a money sink and a public relations organisation for the government. The word has come down from the top that they are ready to move on to the next stage in the disclosure and so we can have another drop of our drip-feed. Whoopy-doo. Its pathetic really."

Paul you wouldn't be sitting there typing on your computer if it wasn't for some of the technology developed by NASA. So don't make a fool of yourself and with statements like the above.

 

 

Bletchley Park was the first computer. Technically.:ph34r:

But you're right, pretty much all the tech NASA invented during the space race is the reason why the world is so advanced today.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20
On 11/11/2019 at 10:58 AM, ocpaul20 said:

Basically NASA is a money sink and a public relations organisation for the government. The word has come down from the top that they are ready to move on to the next stage in the disclosure and so we can have another drop of our drip-feed. Whoopy-doo. Its pathetic really.

Anyone who believes NASA does anything more than these two things is not seeing the real picture.

Notice I never said that they were a bunch of useless guys just spending money. I recognize that any government money spent goes into the economy and helps the economy stay afloat. The salaries of everyone paid by NASA get spent at the local store and supermarket helping to pay the wages of numerous others along the line. So, just because something is a money sink does not make it useless. PR is useful too if you want to spread an agenda.

How do I know this? Well, the articles are often speculative (using 'may', 'perhaps', 'could', etc) and sometimes even present opposite points of view at different times. The Mars mission has had many ooportunities to investigate really important aspects of the search for life outside our planet, yet opportunities have been passed by or overlooked. The grinding down of the 'fossil' was one such event, and for the articles I suggest you investigate "cleaning events" and wind strength on the rovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

It is also inconceivable to me that the reported triangular craft and cigar-shaped craft are NOT military (although they may be alien as well), yet NASA still has a whole bunch of future projects based on rocket and jet technology. If thats not a money sink, then what is?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
9 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

Notice I never said that they were a bunch of useless guys just spending money. I recognize that any government money spent goes into the economy and helps the economy stay afloat. The salaries of everyone paid by NASA get spent at the local store and supermarket helping to pay the wages of numerous others along the line. So, just because something is a money sink does not make it useless. PR is useful too if you want to spread an agenda.

How do I know this? Well, the articles are often speculative (using 'may', 'perhaps', 'could', etc) and sometimes even present opposite points of view at different times. The Mars mission has had many ooportunities to investigate really important aspects of the search for life outside our planet, yet opportunities have been passed by or overlooked. The grinding down of the 'fossil' was one such event, and for the articles I suggest you investigate "cleaning events" and wind strength on the rovers.

The articles are not speculative. They are reported correctly.

The qualifiers are used to show that the material appears to be correct, but as with all science it cannot be proved, only supported. If something changes then science reports the change. NASA put Apollo on the Moon. I don't see other countries getting their landers without humans safely to the lunar surface. NASA has sent probes past the outer planets. Anyone else doing that? NASA has more successful Mars landings than all other countries combined on landing on a planet. You seem to rely on some odd ideas about innuendo rather than on accomplishments.

So what "grinding down of the 'fossil'" are you referring to?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
15 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

It is also inconceivable to me that the reported triangular craft and cigar-shaped craft are NOT military (although they may be alien as well), yet NASA still has a whole bunch of future projects based on rocket and jet technology. If thats not a money sink, then what is?

ocpaul, don't you get tired of handwaving?

Like *any* big organisation, NASA gets stuff wrong, wastes money etc.  So do YOU.  But most of the stuff they do is awesome (and it is VERIFIED over time by other countries space organisations - even the countries that hate the USA..).

Why not post your very best example of a NASA lie/screwup?  (Actually, I can guess why you won't wish to do that.. but prove me wrong)

I will happily agree with you (I have my own list of NASA errors/bad decisions) if your example is a good one, but beware if it is not...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20
5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why not post your very best example of a NASA lie/screwup?  (Actually, I can guess why you won't wish to do that.. but prove me wrong)

I gave examples, read the post. Maybe you post a few, because I doubt you will either - prove ME wrong.

 

ChrLzs you quoted the piece about the advanced craft but what does it have to do with your post? You have not explained anything or why you think NASA may still be using rockets and jet technology.

Edited by ocpaul20
advanced craft
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
14 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

I gave examples, read the post. Maybe you post a few, because I doubt you will either - prove ME wrong.

NO you dam well didn't, you gave vague handwaves, like this garbage:

14 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

The grinding down of the 'fossil' was one such event, and for the articles I suggest you investigate "cleaning events" and wind strength on the rovers.

...

NO.  Properly CITE the example.  Do you know what that word means?  CITE. C-I-T-E.  YOU provide the link and then we'll go look at your claim.  Just remember that the one you choose first will be regarded as your best example..

Let me try putting this another way - you do NOT get to 'cite' things by asking us to do vague Google searches - I'm not wading thru pages of results and then (we know the tinfoilhat drill) you just say "That's not what I'm talking about..".  We're wise to those lame tactics, oc.

 

So, get off your lazy backside and CITE the link.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

Why would I want your approval. Thats really sad to need approval from a bunch of guys on a forum.  I dont care if you approve my claim or not. Thats your problem, you think I care to get approval from you. Well, I dont. I am not here to prove anything, I am just joining the discussions as you are. My opinions are as good as yours so unless you tell me you work at some top lab somewhere (which I would doubt anyway), then really we are all just gassing our opinions to the wind.

um...were you going to comment on that quoted piece in your last post #22 ? No, I didn't think so.

I realise you want to engage and discredit, but that only works if others need some validation for their theories, and I dont care if you believe me or not. Sorry mate.

Edited by ocpaul20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.