Reply
Thu 7 Jul, 2011 12:49 am
Three years ago, NASA’s Phoenix lander ceased activities on Mars. By that time Phoenix lander had sent back dozens of good atomic-force microscopies (AFM) that magnified Martian particles up to 100,000X (notes 1 & 2). The microscopies are by far the best evidence for Martian life in NASA’s history. However, two years after that, NASA still has not made public those microscopies. Why?
Could NASA have blocked their publication? I considered the following reasons for the delay in releasing the AFM microscopies to the public and found NASA must have other unexposable reasons.
1. Lack of fund: Impossible. Considering the extreme importance of the AFM, relatively small is the fund needed for preparing, studying, interpreting the microscopies.
2. Lack of time: Impossible. It does not take over 12 months to prepare, study, and interpret 12 good microscopies, unless they were delayed by incompetent people or people with self-conceived vested interest.
3. Lack of experts: Impossible. There are many people who can readily identify fossil cells, even those found in dinosaur turds. If the microscopies were handed to a geologist for analysis, he should know in a few days that the job is for an anatomist rather than for a geologist, unless the geologist pretended he could do the job.
Note 1: Dr. Peter Smith, the Principal Investigator for the Phoenix mission, publicly revealed this information. In all, about 100 atomic-force microscopies were beamed back to NASA.
Note 2: The following is one of such microscopies, interpreted by Dr. Smith as showing no life at all:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
@bewildered,
Reason #4 Dr. Smith was telling the truth, there's nothing to cover up.
(funny how the obvious answer is the one you fail to list.)
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:The microscopies are by far the best evidence for Martian life in NASA’s history.
This is the best evidence they've got?
bewildered wrote:Note 2: The following is one of such microscopies, interpreted by Dr. Smith as showing no life at all:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
Pictures of rocks confirmed by the lead scientist as showing no life at all?
Call me crazy, but it sounds like slightly weak evidence to me.
@bewildered,
NASA and ESA are covering up a lot of **** on Mars for reasons known only to themselves. Worst case is that Hale crater, I've checked that one out myself. You can actually download the ESA image which shows nothing but rocks and sand, convert to grayscale, zoom a bit and adjust brightness and contrast and, voila, a city with tall buildings and infrastructure.
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2005/084/hale-civ-evidence.htm
@bewildered,
I should mention that there is no reason to think Mars has been inhabited recently. It appears to have been home to some high civilization in ages past, anything you'd find alive there now would be trees, lichens, and possibly a few cockroaches or mice and rats, living mostly underground.
@gungasnake,
It's completely incredible that NASA, so short of funds as it is as to now have us depending on Russian heavy rockets to get anything in high orbit, would conceal such a discovery. Broke as we are we could still find the money to finance a manned mission to Mars - iff what you write were even remotely true.
@High Seas,
It's more than remotely true. There are a number of similar claims which I've not had the time to check out and then there are the new images of Phobos which show the thing to be made of metallic strakes:
Moons and satellites are not supposed to reflect light all over the place like that; the thing appears to be the remains of an ancient space station or some such, fifteen miles across.
@High Seas,
Then again, Bork obunga has told NASA that their main mission in life is helping muslims with their self esteem issues. If China or Iran gets to Mars while NASA is doing that sort of thing, then anything resembling an American leadership position in the world will vanish forever on that day.
@rosborne979,
The lead scientist, Dr. Peter Smith, described a "spheroidal particle at the center" (see caption of Fig. S4 at
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed). That "particle" is actually a hole, not a particle. So, the lead scientist did not interpret anything. He just described what a boy saw in a picture.
Anyway, how can a geologist know anything about collagen fibril?
Thank God Gunga is here to add credibility to your arguments.
@rosborne979,
Somewhere around this forum there was a thread about a manned mission to Mars - do you think you could locate it? I'm not happy about a barren decade until our private rockets get payloads to high orbits, and even less happy about having to depend on Russians - if only Gunga and Bewildie were right
@bewildered,
Smithhad the evidence of additional aerial spec work that the rovers had on board. When all the returns have been alkaline salts or metallic oxides or silicates, we dont jump to a conclusion of "life", let alone sub tissue structures.
You are daffy.
You dont have ANY geologic training so you dont know when there is a rock in front of you. Stop being such an asshole.
@gungasnake,
That picture of Phobos is part of a stereo pair and youve put up the side where the reflectance looks "shiny" when its actually 3D structures youre looking at.
You and bewildered make a team.
@engineer,
Thanks very much - it's the second one of those I was looking for.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:Thanks very much - it's the second one of those I was looking for.
Now that Bewildered has discovered evidence of herds of mammals on Mars, and Gunga has identified buildings on Phobos, Mars is looking like a slightly more interesting target than the moon.
@farmerman,
Don't use chemistry to identify fossil cells:
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
@bewildered,
Why, in your view, don't your great discoveries get more attention than they do? Why do you personally think everyone with any kind of scientific training finds your posts hilarious? I'd really like to find out. Thanks.
@farmerman,
One thing I'd note and no sane person would have wanted the Nazis to win WW-II, but if they HAD won, the latest date I could picture for human feet having been on Mars (again) would have been around 1990. Those guys didn't have the problem with cajones which NASA seems to have.
@High Seas,
What do you mean by "hilarious"?
Most people are afraid of new discoveries of this kind, which will endanger the vested interests of many people.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace