Egyptian Statue on Mars?

Stryder,

As for micro-organisms, if they existed there would be the potential of oil. But I'm pretty sure the landers would have taken soil samples and used microscopes to look for either living organisms or fossilised remains. Since there has been no public announcements on the subject, it would suggest they either didn't build that sort of equipment into the landers or there was nothing found of significance in regards to lifeforms or evidence there has ever been life.
Click to expand...

From what I understand they did not install the equipment needed to test for life, which makes no sense at all. Spending all that money and effort and then to not look for life is absurd.

Until you see something like this:

http://www.physorg.com/news87401064.html

To me this confirms that they knew then, otherwise they would have built that capability into the rovers.

That is essentially now and not in Mars ancient past, but I don't take it so far that the evidence gathered insures anything beyond microbial life.
 
If Mars ever had life, it would have been billions of years ago. "Millions" of years ago it was more or less the same as it is now, cold and dead.
 
Norsefire said:
If Mars ever had life, it would have been billions of years ago. "Millions" of years ago it was more or less the same as it is now, cold and dead.
Click to expand...

Define life.

Apparently they found it in the 70's. I would suspect it is there now on a microbial level. We have living organisms in places here on earth that we would deem too harsh for anything to survive.
 
Orleander said:
may have had? Well, they may have had an entire civilizations that packed up and moved to Earth, right. Can you discourage that fact??
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Your very ancient hairy hominid ancestors could have had martian origins. I have see them on the subways and barbershops in New York and Los Angeles.
 
Burada said:
Sorry, ancient petrified wood or not, you'll have to do better than that to discourage the fact that Mars may have had some ancient life forms (microscopic or otherwise) that evolved during it's wet period.
Click to expand...
You are either foolish, uneducated, or dishonest.

I was not challenging the possibility of microscopic lifeforms in the Martian past, or present. I specifically said "For the record I strongly suspect that microscopic life does exist on Mars".

I was challenging the possibility that the object observed in the subject photo was 'driftwood'.

You seemingly fail to understand
a) That the object is clearly part of the bedrock.
b) There is a vanishingly small possibility that trees could evolve from scratch on Mars in a couple of hundred million years.

Such failure is strong evidence for foolishness, ignorance, or deliberate lying.
Which is it?
 
Ophiolite said:
There have always been two camps in regard to the amount of water on Mars in the distant past (definitely a lot, but the actual amount and the rate of loss have always been disputed) and at present (very little, or quite a lot preserved frozen at depth).

Simplified media reports may give the impression of inconsistency, but those two contrasting threads have been in place for decades. Why? Insufficient data to arrive at a firm conclusion. As we get more and more data the "warm, wet Mars in the past/much buried water today scenario" has become more solid.

This is just good science being applied in a frontier area. If you don't understand that, or can't be bothered to read the original research rather than absorb popular media interpretations, then that's a reflection on you, not on the science.
Click to expand...

Always a pleasure talking with you these days...kindly put me on ignore please.
 
Ophiolite said:
You can assume whatever you want. Making assumptions is not very scientific behaviour, but if you wish to indulge yourself, go ahead. There is certainly nothing in my post that gives any clue whatsoever as to my view on the possibility now, or in the past, of life on Mars.

What my post very clearly reveals is that I am skilled enough in the interpretation of photographs of geological features to be able to recognised a segment of bedrock lying in situ. We know there is bedrock at or close to the surface over much of the planet, so finding some here is hardly surprising and says nothing, either way about the possibility of life.

If there were something here that was not so obviously part of the bedrock then you might look for alternative explanations for its character. Since it is so obviously, to the trained eye, part of the bedrock there is no need to consider alternative explanations. (I do not stand at the roadside, look at an approaching truckand think 'That might actually be an illusion brought about by refraction through a cloud of fine dust stirred up by the wind. It should be safe for me to step in front of it.)

Moreover, the possibility of trees developing on Mars are vanishingly remote for the following reason:
It took over four billions years for trees to evolve on Earth. On Mars the planet was effectively dead after one billion years. So there never were any trees on Mars.

For the record I strongly suspect that microscopic life does exist on Mars and that it was detected by experiments on the Viking landers, then ignored and explained away because of the ambiguous nature of data. Equally I would not be surprised to learn that this was not the case. My mind is open on the issue, I merely lean in one direction until the data are clearer.

That, however, is a long way from deluding yourself with the fantasy of high speed evolution generating trees in two or three hundred million years from scratch and compounding it with an amateurish misinterpretation of some simple geology.
Click to expand...

Keep leaning..........
 
The Viking missions to Mars were exciting, but the problem was that as soonas positive info started coming back it was realized that the tests were not what one might expect. Fairly soon other proposals came forward that cast the positive life tests into disarray. Someone coming forward 35+ years later with words of wisdom on this subject are simply 35+ years late.
 
stereologist said:
The Viking missions to Mars were exciting, but the problem was that as soonas positive info started coming back it was realized that the tests were not what one might expect. Fairly soon other proposals came forward that cast the positive life tests into disarray. Someone coming forward 35+ years later with words of wisdom on this subject are simply 35+ years late.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I understand they came out recently about it was the detection of properties that would have made their additional tests invalid, essentially they were what disproved the first.

NASA had agreed that if the tests indicated positives for life, they would take that stance, but went back on that after the results of the second, which were actually tainted.

Oops. My issue isn't so much that, because I would want the science to be sound. It's the typical politics getting in the way of the science crap that I can't stand. But scientists are people and prone to the same control issues as everyone else.
 
kmguru said:
For Mars to have intelligent life, I think, the Sun's output has to be higher...say 200 million years ago....or even 65 million years ago. I read somewhere that giant forms of life on Earth was due to high output of the Sun....something to noodle through....:D
Click to expand...
I was watching discovery science channel and they said that insects were larger in the past due to the earth have a higher oxygen level in the past.
 
nietzschefan said:
Always a pleasure talking with you these days...kindly put me on ignore please.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no intention of ignoring posts that are replete with ignorance, yet written in excellent English. Such posts are liable to mislead those less well versed in science, or in the specific topic area. I attack your posts not because I have any great expectation that you will recognise the errors they contain, but to diminsh the risk that others will be deceived. If you do not like such attacks you have two options:
1) Place me on ignore.
2) Stop posting nonsense.


burada said:
Keep leaning..........
Click to expand...
Keep ignoring the facts. It seems to be your greatest skill.
 
eddie23 said:
I was watching discovery science channel and they said that insects were larger in the past due to the earth have a higher oxygen level in the past.
Click to expand...

Does that mean, we may have had giant humans then? A large number of world myths say, giant humans roamed the earth....(I think Oxygen content was 35% then - or possibly higher)
 
kmguru said:
Does that mean, we may have had giant humans then? A large number of world myths say, giant humans roamed the earth....(I think Oxygen content was 35% then - or possibly higher)
Click to expand...

Yea.........Some of those dinosaurs back then didn't get that big by just eating eggs and bean sprouts.
 
Burada said:
Yea.........Some of those dinosaurs back then didn't get that big by just eating eggs and bean sprouts.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we create a special house with a constant 35% Oxygen and have a baby grow up to see how big he or she gets...21 feet woman ?
 
so was Michael Jackson from Mars or was he a time traveler??
MJbust.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top