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.
No matter what you say about Nobel Prizes, in myopinion and experience, scientists who have a good salary and a good pension are not going to risk being wrong until they are sure they are at least likely to be correct. They are also unlikely to talk to colleagues about controversial issues if it does not have the approval of the organisation. They have probably learned early in their careers that you do not rock the boat as it gets pretty chilly when you are out-of-favour for voicing things which should be kept quiet.
You're ignoring a lot of statements by scientists wondering about the nature of puzzling things found in Mars images. An example is the possible bacterial mat I linked to (you did read that article, right?); other examples are the vigorous reaction to water added to a soil sample by Viking, which at first piqued scientists' interest but then it was pointed out that a non-biological reaction involving soil perchlorate might cause the reaction. More recently, some have taken another look at the Viking results and said, hey, maybe they DID find life. Another would be a biological-looking helical thing found by (I think) Spirit. There are the methane results, and various other things I've pointed out. In every one of these cases, the interest of scientists was raised by the evidence. The difference between people posting things here and a NASA scientist is, the scientific method requires investigation and replication to determine there aren't other explanations for the evidence.
And if there are multiple explanations, you have to design experiments to determine which of them is right.
A recent example on Mars: it appeared there was some sort of light shining up in the background of a rover picture. This got a lot of people excited, until it was discovered there was no such image on the other camera on the rover. It was a hardware glitch.
Without further data, it's interesting evidence. So are the pictures you've presented, as others have pointed out. But they're not proof of anything. As I've said, proof will require up close and personal examination of the objects in question.
When I studied environmental science at the University of Virginia in the 1970s, the head of the department was a geologist who was one of the last holdouts against continental drift. He was hardly a pariah in his field. A well-known terrestrial ecologist in the department had an extensive collection of data on sasquatch (he suggested a fellow grad student and I who were interested in cryptozoology might look into writing a grant to study the ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest). There were meteorologists who were defenders of cloud seeding for weather modification, and other meteorologists who thought cloud seeding was nonsense. My experience of scientists is that they are contentious, argumentative, guardians of their turf. None of the scientists I've known fit the "don't rock the boat" milquetoast image you're wanting to apply to scientists.
Without further data, it's interesting evidence. So are the pictures you've presented, as others have pointed out.
engage and divert.
Can we discuss the evidence presented and put forward suggestions as to what these images show please?
If you feel they show inorganic material, perhaps you can find other examples which lead you to this conclusion? Otherwise your assertions they are inorganic have as much credibility as mine do they show organic plant life.
I found Vasily's post informative and useful (and interesting). I have an opinion too and that is that there are some interesting pictures that could possibly but not necessarily indicate some form of life on Mars. I have this idea that life is not just possible or perhaps probable but rather, life is inevitable. If it can, it will (kinda like Murphy's law). But we are talking about proof here and I find it somewhat lacking.
One would think of gasoline as being a rather hostile environment for life yet there is stuff that lives in it and eats it! Diesel fuel needs special additives to kill the stuff that lives in it and eats it. So why not Mars? As enthusiastic and optimistic as I am, I'm somewhat doubtful but I'm hoping to proven wrong. The emphasis being on 'proven'.
engage and divert.
Can we discuss the evidence presented and put forward suggestions as to what these images show please?
If you feel they show inorganic material, perhaps you can find other examples which lead you to this conclusion? Otherwise your assertions they are inorganic have as much credibility as mine do they show organic plant life.
Woodrow posted links of some very good examples of inorganic material that look organic. Here's another one. Moss agates (here on Earth) often appear to have organic material embedded inside, but it's just minerals that have seeped into tiny cracks and become trapped. 2.4" Green Moss Agate Sphere, Crystal Ball Moss Agate | KrohsNest Jewelry & Stone
There's nothing wrong with speculating that there might be some small life forms such as plants on Mars, but there hasn't been anything found yet. None of the rovers that have been sent to Mars, including the MSL "Curiosity" rover, are not designed to search for organic forms of life. It has been suggested that a future rover, maybe the next generation to be sent, to be better equipped for detecting life forms, whether living or long dead.
It would be great if the rovers could stop to examine every oddity that is captured in pictures of the surface along the way and spotted by interested people like yourself. Unfortunately, the rovers have been designed to for specific missions and to conduct specific experiments. Could some of the "blueberries" be plants? I don't know but I kind of doubt it because there are explanations other than plants. Why would only some be plants but others that look identical are not plants? Once we get more information about the planet, we'll be on a better position to start looking and examining some of the oddities that raise questions, perhaps be able to better answer whether or not there are or ever were any life forms on Mars. I still think it will probably require going underground to find it though. I also think it will require some seriously different kinds of robotics, autonomous robots, or to send people there to better explore. Until then, we're going to be stuck with lots of unanswered questions.
Any ideas of how to conclusively determine if an oddity is a plant or just a rock formation? Some objects, like the "Victorian woman" have already been determined by pictures of the same object from different positions. Just rocks and shadows.
But we are talking about proof here and I find it somewhat lacking.
Doesn't proof require repeatability? How can space exploration provide repeatability and certainly has not done so yet - unless you mean meteors and the Moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Waiting for proof will probably be a waste of your time as I cannot see humans arriving on Mars anytime soon. Planning human missions is merely an exercise, a 'what-if' scenario which they do all the time.
Night Bazaar
So, in your opinion these images show inorganic structures? Even though nothing has happened on Mars for millions of years, these small inorganic structures can survive the radiation bombardment and the weak wind and atmospheric conditions over that time?
I think that plants actually have some structure whereas random cracks and fissures in rocks probably dont have much. This is how botanists identify plants by the shape of their leaves etc. So are you honestly telling me that scientists cannot tell the difference? You yourself are not giving them much credit. These 'plants' are miniscule in size and would have eroded by radiation bombardment over millions of years by now. Besides I have seen more plants with two leaves growing out of holes, so although it is not a movie of growth as you would like, it is the next best thing to have an adult plant and a seedling.
Quote:
Any ideas of how to conclusively determine if an oddity is a plant or just a rock formation? Some objects, like the "Victorian woman" have already been determined by pictures of the same object from different positions. Just rocks and shadows.
Is this what you think they are? Rocks and shadows? You appear to be saying that we need more than one image of the same feature before it can be taken seriously. Ideally, yes and with different angles and sun positions, but since we have a number of different examples of spherules and buds it is not so important in this case.
On January 24, 2014, NASA reported that current studies by the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers will now be searching for evidence of ancient life, including a biosphere based on autotrophic, chemotrophic and/or chemolithoautotrophic microorganisms, as well as ancient water, including fluvio-lacustrine environments (plains related to ancient rivers or lakes) that may have been habitable. The search for evidence of habitability, taphonomy (related to fossils), and organic carbon on the planet Mars is now a primary NASA objective.
I was wondering how NASA intend to detect life on Mars? Alien life forms are likely to have different physiology and may not even be carbon-based lifeform. Organic to us means carbon-based, what does organic mean to an alien (plant) lifeform?
engage and divert.
Can we discuss the evidence presented and put forward suggestions as to what these images show please?
If you feel they show inorganic material, perhaps you can find other examples which lead you to this conclusion? Otherwise your assertions they are inorganic have as much credibility as mine do they show organic plant life.
Read everything I said again. A major point I made is that from a few pix you can't tell WHAT you're looking at. As others have said, evidence is not proof.
So you ask the question, what would convince us skeptics, we tell you so you post a bunch of pictures and when we point out they're not convincing you accuse us of not playing the game the way you want us to. And "looks like plants to me" proves nothing by your own admission. Whatever your motive for the original post, you're essentially admitting it was pointless.
I'm not going to waste my time providing point by point evidence why your claims are groundless. I'll point out two things in particular: if you look at pix of terrestrial concretions ("Utah berries") you'll find some that have holes in them very much like what you're claiming are stem attachment points. And without multiple shots of the same thing appearances can be deceiving:
Night Bazaar
So, in your opinion these images show inorganic structures? Even though nothing has happened on Mars for millions of years, these small inorganic structures can survive the radiation bombardment and the weak wind and atmospheric conditions over that time?
You continue to make assumptions. You are assuming that these structures are the same as they were millions of years ago instead of just a snapshot of what they were on the date and time the picture was taken.
Old Guard
As we have pointed out in this thread, the environment on Mars is very different to Earth. The weathering takes longer, the atmosphere is thinner, the wind is weaker, and there is very little evidence of current weathering of rocks. So, yes, many things are going to be the same as they were a long time ago - maybe not millions of years ago.
Mathguy
I have posted pictures. Read the thread.
Vasily
Quote:
So you ask the question, what would convince us skeptics, we tell you so you post a bunch of pictures when we point out they're not convincing you accuse us of not playing the game the way you want us to. And "looks like plants to me" proves nothing by your own admission. Whatever your motive for the original post, you're essentially admitting it was pointless.
Why does anyone need motives apart from the obvious ones explained in the title?
Quote:
I'm not going to waste my time providing point by point evidence why your claims are groundless. I'll point out two things in particular: if you look at pix of terrestrial concretions ("Utah berries") you'll find some that have holes in them very much like what you're claiming are stem attachment points. And without multiple shots of the same thing appearances can be deceiving:
But...you ARE wasting your time, over and over again on this thread. Why try so hard to keep refuting the pictures I posted? Maybe I need to ask your motives for that?
Like I have done, show me the concretions with holes and something growing.coming out of them please? What you are saying is similar, is not similar. They are different, so just because something is round you are comparing it to an orange? I thought you were science-trained. How scientific is that?
I never said I wanted proof. You all said you needed 100% proof which will never happen until you get your hands on the sample and until it has been peer-reviewed. How unlikely is that - which you know.
So basically you are saying it is like we (scientists) say, and you cannot prove it otherwise. Thats totally arrogant.
Thank you for your contributions everyone. I'm done.
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.
