NASA Researchers Claim Evidence of Present Life on Mars

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I always have problems with space.com: in most cases it doesn't load, and if it does it loads very slowly. Strange, I have no other problems with other sites and a rather fast cable connection.

Edited to add:OK I've got the article PM'ed. Thanks ToSeek.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

If the study is found firm enough, would there still be time to incorporate a suitable drill on the MSL (or what's its name )?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

It's not just you Nicholas, I'm having problems here with that page too. Thought it might be my popup blocker but even turning it off doesn't help.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

Nicholas, got in on 2nd. attempt - you have PM

Edit: but I see I've been ToSeeked

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

Lemme summarize for you.

Same thing - methane signatures - that's already being discussed.
Additional assumptions based on the Rio Tinto investigation - and an amazing leap of logic. If it is present here, then it could be present there.

Article they have published has not been peer-reviewed.

Intriguing, but not "EXCLUSIVE EARTH-SHATTERING NEWS" (tm)

Too bad. Got my hopes up for something really exciting.

----
Ubi est kaboomi?
Where is my earth-shattering kaboom?"

Grizzly,

It was my impression that the article has not yet been published. It has been submitted to the editors of Nature for peer review. Pending that review, the article will be published in a future issue.

Aporetic

It's certainly not a secret that Stoker and Lemke really, really, really want to find life on Mars...they have for years. And when you really want something, it can cloud your judgement. One question...why did they have the "meeting" before their idea had been reviewed?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Martian Morlocks

On another front, a New Scientist article says Vittorio Formisano might be on the verge of discussing formaldehyde on Mars:

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I'm not going for the bait.

[-X

As for why they had their meeting before their article had been reviewed and published (or not)...

I suggest they went public to try to force Nature's hand. If their evidence is circumstantial at best (and apparently somewhat weak at that) their best bet is to get the lay public excited about it so that Nature can't help but publish the article.

Aporetic

Well I'm going for the agnostic stance till I see the paper.
The Aporetic approach seems rather like cynic http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philo...s/cynicism.htm begging the question to me: They cannot have anything good, because they are stirring emotion to cover up that they don't have anything good. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html :wink:
You could just as well argue, that they are so sure of their case, that they are willing to stake their reputations beforehand....
Lets read the publication and evidence before making any judgments at all.

Trob

__________________
second technician Rimmer, Arnold J., experienced what can only be described as a voyage to trip-out city

[-(

I saw this and started screaming, "They found life on mars!!!!!"

#-o

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Try yahoo news, they post space.com stories.

Also, see if this page will lead you to a way to get their news. Maybe it will also load more easily than the home page and you can go from there to any story you're looking for..

I wonder if the flash ads are slowing your downloads or blocking them in some way. Their web page is really full of junk.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Doesn't help that they can have as many as three pop ups with every new article.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

This worked well for Pons and Fleischmann..... #-o

I can't get used to publish by press release, though I agree with agnosticism at this point.

I will need a few cold ones before I venture over to enterprisemission.com any time soon, though. I shudder to think what Richard's ego is cooking up around this...


edited to add link

__________________
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!"
Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test

I sit corrected. (Can't stand - took a tumble running on the ice!)

----
Luctor et emergo
I struggle but I'll survive

That link loaded instantly. Clicking to "science" loaded instantly as well. Loading the article from there failed the first 2 times, went instantly the tird time, failed the fourth time etc. I only have had this isuue at one other website. It was one about car racing physics using a similar interface. When clicking on raticles, they wouldn't load unless I clicked the refresh button a random times. It seems like it has nothing to do with load times, and I don't get any blocked popup messages either. The site just seems to have flaws.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'm withholding judgment myself although I don't think it's that far-fetched of a concept. BTW, I see Hoagland has already latched onto this story and claims this is part of a gradual disclosure process by the PTB that will eventually lead to .. you guessed it, finally admitting that there are Martian ruins. :roll:

From what I gathered the speculation is leaning towards microbial life. So, just how did these microbes construct buildings? :roll: Microbial life does not necessarily mean that there is, or was ever, advanced life present on Mars. Hoagland seems to be just great at creating mountains out of molehills!

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Nor do I. I just think that it's best to wait until/if this idea is proven before all the shouting starts. If it is proven to be true, there wll be plenty of time for shouting.

They are very, very, very, busy microbes. :wink:

Hi all! Wonderful forum.

I caught Richard Hoaglund on the George Noory show this AM. His claim is that Mars was once a moon of a planet 2 or 3x the mass of Earth. At that time Mars was inhabited by intelligent creatures that created the Cydonia complex and other structures. THEN some hyperdimensional catastrophe cause the mother planet to explode, killing the civilization on Mars and driving the remaining life underground. He will explain the "hyperdimensiol" thing on another broadcast.

After reading Phil Plait's expose on this man, how can anyone take him seriously?

Regards, tbm

Well, hi right back at ya, and welcome to the board!

We feel your pain!

Yep...he really likes that word...it's like "technobable" from Star Trek.

I'm continually amazed that Hoagland can take himself seriously.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Then again, maybe they're intelligent microbes! Has anyone read this book? Sounds pretty interesting.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

UK Telegraph News in Brief:

Since non-bilogical processes can produce methane, what is Formisano saying -- or what did he say that the reporter garbled?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

This came up back in August when there was speculation about Formisano talking about formaldehyde at the ASI International Mars conference. Formisano changed the title of his presentation (from an early abstract which Hoagland et al had a field day with) titled "PFS Observation of methane Formaldehyde and HS: Extant Life on Mars?" ( http://www.asi.it/html/ita/news/Ischia1.pdf ) to "The results of the PFS Instrument".

The number quoted in the New Scientist article is staggering:
Some of the more recent studies estimate that methane occurs at 10 to 30 ppb according to ground based observations( http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/m..._04-04-02.html ), and from the previous work published by the PFS team, saying that methane ranges from 10 to 35 ppb depending on location. Given that methane has an expected lifetime of 300 years on Mars and formaldehyde has a lifetime of 13 *hours* according to "Atmospheric energy for subsurface life on Mars?", Benjamin P. Weiss , Yuk L. Yung, and Kenneth H. Nealson ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1395 ), the 130 parts per billion seems like an extraordinary claim. Given that, I would much rather read about this from a peer-reviewed journal, than an interview he did with a New Scientist reporter...

The Mars Express Ground Penetrating Radar will show up where the Morlocks live.

http://science.slashdot.org/article....5&amp;from=rss

Hoagland will say it's all orchestrated. Hoagland knows that they've already found them, but they concocted the story about not deploying the radar because they were afraid to tell everyone about what it shows.

With Hoagland's penchant for claiming cover-ups, he doesn't have to worry about going out on a limb like this. Never mind the fact that his Cydonia claims had nothing to do with microbial life on Mars (I've read his "Monument" books and don't recall him writing anything about present microbial life), he can claim "I told ya so" - which he's doing now anyway - if this thing pans out and, if it doesn't, it's being "covered up." All one does is have to hearken back to the Martian rover pics and his m/o. He's shrewd and counts on most people not having long memories, skepticism regarding extraordinary claims, or the savvy to do some independent research themselves. I used to get annoyed with C2C for giving him a platform but in the long run, maybe it's not all bad. Most people are skeptical by nature and if they care enough about a subject to research it, they learn things. When that happens people gain something at the expense of those like Hoagland. Gotta love the irony when that happens. :wink:

I'll be on Coast to Coast tonight at 10:00 Pacific or so to talk about this. Turns out, we haven't been told the truth here. I'll have more info later.