Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 314

Thread: No doubt about life on Mars anymore

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy
    Would someone put an L in the thread's title?
    As soon as something that actually resemples Life appears the "L" will be inserted.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    90
    I seem to recollect that they were considered to be small nodules with high metallic content.

    Ahh. Link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040405.html

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,454
    Quote Originally Posted by N C More
    More photographic evidence of life on Mars!
    Priceless!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,370
    All I see in those pictures are interesting rocks, though in one of them I do see some dark patches that look like bacterial/algal mats (which would be what life on Mars, should it exist, would probably take the form of). However, I don't think that's what extrasense is asking us to look for.

    Still, I'd give this fellow an "A" for effort.

    - Maha "only on Saturday nights" Vailo

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Yes, here we have absolute Proof of Life on Mars.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Draconis
    I seem to recollect that they were considered to be small nodules with high metallic content.
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040405.html
    Since Apr 4,2005, a lot of time has passed.
    Do you think a potato has same content as the surrounding ground? A strawberry?

    We have here on Earth much more dirty water, than Mars has or had,
    but have no similar 'nodules' at all.

    e s

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Maha Vailo
    All I see in those pictures are interesting rocks, though in one of them I do see some dark patches ..
    I guess you do not use 3D glasses. This would be a problem, since the pictures are 3D

    e s

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by extrasense
    We have here on Earth much more dirty water, than Mars has or had,
    but have no similar 'nodules' at all.
    Sure we have.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
    Sure we have[/URL].
    I am quoting from your link:
    """""Biogenic Aspects in Manganese Nodule Genesis
    In 1928, Butkevich first reported the discovery of some specific iron bacteria in manganese nodules from the Arctic basin bottom. Later, in manganese nodules, other species of microorganisms were found which were capable of accumulating iron and manganese. Although the function of microorganisms in manganese and the mechanism of oxidation are still under debate, it is believed that the biogenic factor determines to a considerable extent the manganese destiny on its ways to the ocean"""""

    The picture in the article shows quite different from spherical Martian berries objects. So it is not exactly the example that one would look for.
    Anyway, even such remotely similar entities are of biogenic origin. If you insist they are the right example, you must admit that Martian berries are likely to have a "biogenic aspect" to them too.

    es

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,273
    The bottom line here is that seeing stingrays, fish, and lizards in these rocks is simply pareidolia. Here's the BA's take on pareidolia.

    Now, all of this has me singing a little song...Aretha Franklin is sure to understand.

    P-A-R-E-I-D-O-L-I-A (to the tune of Respect)

    What it means to me!
    rock it to me, rock it to me

    Oh! Rock it to me
    A little pareidolia (rock it to me)
    Whoa, Babe (just a little bit)

    A little pareidolia (it's what I need)
    I get tired (just a little bit)
    Keep on tryin' (just a little bit)

    You're runnin' out of fossil foolin' (just a little bit)
    And I ain't lyin'
    (pa' pa' pa'...pareidolia)
    When we get to Mars
    (pa' pa' pa'...pareidolia)
    Just land on down...

    You'll have to have (just a little bit)
    A little pareidolia...'cause fossils just ain't there
    But you can keep on tryin'
    Rock it to me, Rock it to me!

    P-A-R-E-I-D-O-L-I-A
    What it means to me!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,586
    extrasense what are your credentials? What papers have you published and where did you earn your PhD in biology?

    If the answer is, "nowhere" that's ok because we are all amateurs on this forum - but if that's the case then I have to ask, what makes you think that you know better than a pack of NASA scientists (and scientists all over the world) what life looks like? Just think about it. There are literally thousands of scientists all over the world who would love to be the Richard Owen (who coined the term Dinosaur) of the 21st Century. They'd be famous. Their name would be in every science textbook. It'd be a dream come true!

    So, I'd really you to think about this and give me an answer. If all these Mars photos have blindingly obvious signs of life in them, why aren't scientists everywhere scrambling to get the fame and notoriety that would come from identifying it?

    Isn't it very likely that you just don't have the education or the expertise to know what a rock should look like? Isn't that the Occam's Razor, "most likely explanation"

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by N C More
    seeing ....in these rocks is simply pareidolia.
    You are entitled to your opinion. Then again, that opinion can be simply narrow-minded-ness

    e s

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651

    King Kong looks like a Gemini capsule

    I looked up the photograph where some posters saw a gorilla-like shape. To me the shape suggests something artificial rather than something organic. It looks for all the world like a fuzzy photograph of one of the early Gemini capsules, resting at a small angle on its heat shield.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by extrasense
    You are entitled to your opinion. Then again, that opinion can be simply narrow-minded-ness
    Have you read my sig. line by any chance?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by tofu
    what are your credentials? What papers have you published and where did you earn your PhD in biology?
    I form my opinions based on the data presented, including the excellent site in question. The site author has obviously published a number of articles, as seen from the reference sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by tofu
    what makes you think that you know better than a pack of NASA scientists (and scientists all over the world) what life looks like?
    Well, I am a scientist too, and I trust my judgement as to what is correct and what is not. They apparently do not trust their judgement enough to come forward, seeing how those who do it are treated

    es

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    I looked up the photograph where some posters saw a gorilla-like shape. To me the shape suggests something artificial rather than something organic. It looks for all the world like a fuzzy photograph of one of the early Gemini capsules, resting at a small angle on its heat shield.
    I assume that you are looking at the self-made pictures of this thread, instead of 3D images from the Proof site. Of course, you need 3D glasses to do that

    The subject in question might be a statue- an artificial object as you suggest.

    es

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by extrasense

    The subject in question might be a statue- an artificial object as you suggest.
    What? If not fossils, then statues?

    And pray tell, *who/what* created these statues???

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy

    Would someone put an L in the thread's title?
    Anything for you, Candy.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by N C More
    What? If not fossils, then statues? ...*who/what* created these statues???
    So you've get me. I do not know ...
    Probably creatures that had appearance alike those statues - if they are in fact statues and not the originals themself!

    e s

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    90
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm told that the website you refer to as your evidence is your own.

    That's a trifle disingenuous, don't you think?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Draconis
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm told that the website you refer to as your evidence is your own.

    That's a trifle disingenuous, don't you think?
    That, and some rather fallacious reasoning as well. The premise appears to be a consequence of the conclusion (begging the question).

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    90
    Most certainly. Circular reasoning of the worst order.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    Does it matter?

    The photograph is a genuine photograph, isn't it?

    And there is something strange in it. Though, to me, it looks like a piece of machinery rather than either a lifeform or a piece of art.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Draconis
    Most certainly. Circular reasoning of the worst order.
    Well, after completing the circle, one can always go around again, so circular reasoning is always of infinite order

    N

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    ...And there is something strange in it. Though, to me, it looks like a piece of machinery rather than either a lifeform or a piece of art.
    I guess it's subjective, as it looks like a rock to me.

    Richard Hoagland sees all sorts of machinery...which all still look like rocks to me!

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    Does it matter?

    The photograph is a genuine photograph, isn't it?

    And there is something strange in it. Though, to me, it looks like a piece of machinery rather than either a lifeform or a piece of art.
    That is ultimately the problem with this type of "analysis", is that it comes down to "it looks like a ______ to me". Even if by some chance there is actually something to it (which I personally don't believe), it is impossible to distinguish it from "that cloud looks like a horsey". So no amount of looking at blurry, blown-up pictures will ever prove there were fossils or machinery or art on Mars. It will require some other sort of proof (biological, chemical, actual fossil specimens).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    442
    I wonder if someone analyzing ground photos taken from inland Antarctica would interpret signs of macroscopic life. Or the moon. There's a rock pile in my friend's backyard that looks like parts of Mars, if you tune out the colour.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift
    That is ultimately the problem with this type of "analysis", is that it comes down to "it looks like a ______ to me". Even if by some chance there is actually something to it (which I personally don't believe), it is impossible to distinguish it from "that cloud looks like a horsey". So no amount of looking at blurry, blown-up pictures will ever prove there were fossils or machinery or art on Mars. It will require some other sort of proof (biological, chemical, actual fossil specimens).
    That's it, exactly. Looking at pictures and saying "this IS" is ultimately fruitless. Or fruity, depending on how you look at it...


  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Draconis
    That's it, exactly. Looking at pictures and saying "this IS" is ultimately fruitless. Or fruity, depending on how you look at it...
    Can you read at all? Or you are just looking at the pictures, as a child?

    e s

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    90
    Why yes, I did look at them. I don't really see anything terribly notable there. And I don't happen to have possession of "3-D glasses" either. I'm supposing you do.

    Can I read? I'm responding to you, aren't I?

Similar Threads

  1. Study Casts Doubt on Water on Mars' Surface
    By Centaur in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2016-Jul-31, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-May-27, 12:50 AM
  3. Prior life on Venus? Future life on Mars?
    By tdvance in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2006-May-02, 11:47 PM
  4. More doubt cast on life in 1996 meteorite
    By ToSeek in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-May-06, 08:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •