Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not that is was not picked up by the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter , but that it was not newsworthy or they decided not to draw attention to it. Remember NASA is primarily a public relations organisation which feeds the public what we are supposed to believe.
I wonder how many methane spikes they will need before they admit there is cellular life on Mars? Still a way to go before they do that I guess.
They detected another methane cloud a while ago too didn't they? I forget what they explained it as, maybe rotting vegetation from the time before Mars lost its atmosphere(millions of years ago).
I know for a fact that there is at least fungi there (see below).
This, from a City Data thread where I get pummelled into the ground for daring to suggest such a thing and the thread is eventually closed, but it clearly shows what looks like a fungi stalk in the NASA photos.
Not that is was not picked up by the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter , but that it was not newsworthy or they decided not to draw attention to it. Remember NASA is primarily a public relations organisation which feeds the public what we are supposed to believe.
I wonder how many methane spikes they will need before they admit there is cellular life on Mars? Still a way to go before they do that I guess.
They detected another methane cloud a while ago too didn't they? I forget what they explained it as, maybe rotting vegetation from the time before Mars lost its atmosphere(millions of years ago).
I know for a fact that there is at least fungi there (see below).
This, from a City Data thread where I get pummelled into the ground for daring to suggest such a thing and the thread is eventually closed, but it clearly shows what looks like a fungi stalk in the NASA photos.
They detected another methane cloud a while ago too didn't they? I forget what they explained it as, maybe rotting vegetation from the time before Mars lost its atmosphere(millions of years ago).
The current whiff has dwindled away. While methane could indicate potential life such as bacteria, methane could also be the result of a chemical reaction. Keep in mind that Curiosity was not designed to directly search for any life forms. The 2020 rover is expected to be better equipped to conduct such a search. One of the continuing problems with the methane question is that it doesn't seem to hang around very long. There's a whiff of it now and then, then it quickly fades away. It doesn't hang around in the atmosphere long enough to pinpoint the source. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...way/ar-AADpz2r
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I know for a fact that there is at least fungi there (see below).
You know for a FACT there is fungi on Mars? That's a mighty big claim to make. No, you DO NOT know that for a FACT. Your "FACT" is based on pareidolia from a few images you posted in the "Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal" forum. That's not very factual and falls along the lines of remnants of ancient buildings, pyramids, faces, rodents, lizards, mysterious women, floating spoons, part of clocks, glass tunnels, etc., on Mars. You might assume such things, but you certainly can't know it as a fact. Just because something might look like a fungi stalk is not conclusive evidence that it is in fact a fungi stalk.
Personally, I wish such things could be examined more carefully and in greater detail to determine some of the oddities some people see and claim is "proof" of life on Mars. Chances are it'd just show it was an illusion because of shadow, shape, or perspective. But if it was in fact something living or the fossilized remains of something that had been alive, that'd be pretty incredible and cool to know.
It seems that I need a lot less to convince me of "facts" than you do. Yet, you accept as fact many of the space scientists assertions - often based only on photograhs from remote rovers or spacecraft along with articles on NASA websites online.
It is fine for them to write opinon pieces filled with the common speculation-words, could be, may be, etc. You only have to read some of the NASA articles to see these and they only have to repeat it a few times before it becomes accepted 'fact' in the mind of the public. You included.
Yes, I have posted a number of images showing whole and partial examples of what I believe is photographic proof of plant life on Mars and why I think it is not pareidolia. There are stalks, there are matching stubs at the end of the stalk and indentations on the fruiting body where it has broken off from the stalk. There are images of whole stalk+fruiting body together to show how they grow. This is like any biology book which shows the leaf, root, flower and seedpod of plants to identify them.
As you well know, we humans are not likely to get to Mars anytime soon to obtain hands-on examination of the evidence. Now, if it is good enough for scientists to make speculations (worded in such a way as to be ambiguous), then what is the point of you guys shouting for proof all the time? You will never get it in your lifetime.
Your decrying of the whole subject is merely because you accept what NASA tells you as gospel truth and will not look with an open mind at the presented evidence which others have submitted.
As you well know, we humans are not likely to get to Mars anytime soon to obtain hands-on examination of the evidence. Now, if it is good enough for scientists to make speculations (worded in such a way as to be ambiguous), then what is the point of you guys shouting for proof all the time? You will never get it in your lifetime.
It is not necessary for humans to go to Mars to obtain proof of life, supposing it even exists. Scientists use carefully calibrated instruments to test most of their hypotheses, which in this case are provided by robotic spacecraft. In some respects these robots are better than humans for the purpose, since they can be more thoroughly cleaned of potential contaminants.
As for this "shouting" for proof all the time: this is a fundamental tenet of science, which requires independent venerability. As such, it is a shield against human ignorance and superstition. Scientists make speculations to form hypotheses, which then must be tested and verified before they are accepted. These tests require expensive funding, so they must have at least some plausibility to gain support among the scientific community. Yelling some half-cocked claims about mushrooms on Mars isn't going to gain funding.
Yelling some half-cocked claims about mushrooms on Mars isn't going to gain funding
Half-cocked to you, it may be.
How can the science done on Mars be independently verified? NASA is the only one with a rover up there. Science uses data from multiple sources to add weight to the scientists argument for or against something.
There is already methane detected which may point to life processes. There is already water detected. Image evidence shows what appears to be fungi. The 'fossil' NASA "accidently" ground down may have been a living organism or may have been a fossil. All-in-all, there are a number of indicators which could (if anyone was brave enough to go out on limb) be used to put a case together for funding for more research if that was the aim.
OK, then I speculate that the items in those images may show fungi stalks and fruiting bodies as well as perhaps moss-like structures. I can speculate just as well as the scientists.
The spherical concretions found in large numbers in some areas of Mars - In my speculation, they could be fruiting bodies from fungi which is growing in that area and NOT hematite, although there may be a few much smaller number of concretions mixed in there.
If you look carefully at many of these concretions, you will see small indentations which match the ends of the stalks sometimes seen in images, and the concretions look as if they are dessicating, losing water and shrinking. The ground around them often appears to be filled with fungal spores which adds weight to this argument.
There I have put my case (which includes methane) for the existence of plant life on Mars, now you argue for hematite concretions being small 5mm chunks of hematite as NASA says they are. Where are the rocks the concretions 'fall' out of when they get worn away by weathering and erosion? Where is the pile of concretions at the base of these rocks? Nowhere, thats where.
There I have put my case (which includes methane) for the existence of plant life on Mars, now you argue for hematite concretions being small 5mm chunks of hematite as NASA says they are. Where are the rocks the concretions 'fall' out of when they get worn away by weathering and erosion? Where is the pile of concretions at the base of these rocks? Nowhere, thats where.
Here are some that are still partially embedded in rock. Captured by Opportunity rover.
I realize you believe this is what they are - hematite concretions, but we do not know these ARE hematite concretions in these rocks, do we? I know NASA has used the RAT to wear away rocks showing these spherules inside, but it does not give us data that all spherules are this. Besides, as I said in the previous post, where are the piles of spherules left on the ground at the base of rocks they have eroded out of.
I am told, the wind is supposed to be too weak, the atmosphere too thin to blow these small 5mm balls around - otherwise we would see piles of them behind rocks where the wind should have blown them. But.. we dont, which suggests to me they might be sticky on the outside perhaps? Anyway, in some photos there are literally millions of these spherules just lying around on the ground, but none are blown into piles, and there are no large rocks nearby where they could have come out of. Think of how long (millions of years since water existed on Mars!!) they have supposedly being lying there without rain, wind, erosion, so why are they spread all over the place?
I agree, the images show these spherules are embedded in a rock-like substance(which is possibly the plant they come from?). How can we discuss methane being detected when we will not discuss one of the possible sources of that methane - life on Mars?
If this really IS a science forum, then we all need to start asking questions about what we see and coming to logical answers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
