3
   

Who can debunk life on Mars?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 08:48 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

If I didnt know any better Id think that you are one of these guys at Sandia or Brookhaven who post real crap on the web in some sick attempts at being humorous.
There are guys at Sandia or Brookhaven doing that? What type of stuff have they posted? The arboreal octopus? Was that them?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 08:58 am
@rosborne979,
yep, although some of the Sandia folks teach at UNM and they have weird sense of humor out there. Some guy at Brookhaven once published some piece about discovering paleo hiways in New England
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:03 am
@farmerman,
"By the way, what happened to the animal that only keeps leaving blood and blood vessels laying about?"
See Martin animal flesh at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/slide_21.html
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:17 am
@bewildered,
You're fuckin' incredible. Your linked sources clearly states that it shows igneous rock--rock formed from cooling lava. Yet you claim it shows Mars "flesh." Can you say, cognitive dissonance?
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:55 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
By the way, what happened to the animal that only keeps leaving blood and blood vessels laying about?

Killed by the porcupines?
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:57 am
@Setanta,
I see what you cannot see. Muscle tissue (flesh) is visible if you turn the image (the high resolution version of the image), look at the top edge, near the middle you will find dark brown remains of muscle fascicles, which were muscle tissues as they were bundles of muscle fibers.

Search google images for muscle fascicles and compare them with what I just uploaded to my last album (go to the last photo).
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:03 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

I see what you cannot see.


We know that. You see what you want to see, not what is really there.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:05 am
@bewildered,
Uh-huh . . . how do you allege that these "fascicles" survived the exposure to molten lava?
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:05 am
@parados,
This image proves that Michael Jackson was really a piece of toast.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648528_toast2_203.jpg
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:08 am
@parados,
He sure is toast now. Hey . . . what you're basically saying is, MJ was a Martian, right? Let's comb those NASA photos, i'm sure with just a little imagination, we can find more proof!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:25 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

This image proves that Michael Jackson was really a piece of toast.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648528_toast2_203.jpg
I think I see a blood vessel in that toast.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:31 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
I see what you cannot see. Muscle tissue (flesh) is visible if you turn the image (the high resolution version of the image), look at the top edge, near the middle you will find dark brown remains of muscle fascicles, which were muscle tissues as they were bundles of muscle fibers.

I see it now! You don't notice it at normal resolution ...

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/851/slifs21.jpg

But if you enhance the photo, zoom in, and look very carefully in the upper-right corner ...

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8650/aom8.png
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:49 am
@bewildered,
From McKays own presentation about ALH 84-001, the rock is a pyroxene and nickel with some secondary deposited magnetite. The CARBONATES are also secondary deposits on the surface of the meterorite, this giving the posibility of remnants of life. However, Siderite doesnt need to be deposited by bacteria, it can also be the result of a water environment and chemical weathering of the surface of the rock.
Heres what MAcKAy says about this:
Quote:
18. ALH 84001

This meteorite, source of the possible traces of ancient martian life, was collected in the Allan Hills area of Antarctica (slide #13) during the 1984 ANSMET field season. As originally found, ALH 84001 was brick-shaped, 17 × 9.5 × 6.5 centimeters, and weighed nearly 2 kilograms. It was quite unusual, and so was the first meteorite of the season processed at the Johnson Space Center. Its name reflects this history: “ALH” for the Allan Hills find site, “84” for the field season, and “001” for being first. It is not much like any of the other martian meteorites and is very similar to one kind of meteorite from the asteroids. So it was classified as a “common” asteroidal meteorite, and its martian origin was not discovered until 1993. It then became the twelfth known martian meteorite.

The other martian (SNC) meteorites are “young” volcanic rocks, less than 1.3 billion years old; ALH 84001 is much older, having solidified from lava about 4.5 billion years ago (slide #19). As the planets (including Mars) formed only about 4.55 billion years ago, ALH 84001 formed very soon (in geologic time) after Mars itself did. Then, about 4.0 billion years ago, ALH 84001 was heated nearly to melting. This probably happened when a large asteroid hit Mars, leaving behind one of the huge impact craters that pock Mars’ surface (see slide #2).

Some time later, carbonate minerals and possible remnants of ancient martian life were deposited in ALH 84001. Many researchers think that the carbonate minerals (slide #22) were deposited when the rock was saturated by martian groundwater. The water was rich in carbon dioxide gas, possibly from Mars’ atmosphere. As the water flowed through ALH 84001, it deposited rounded patches and spheres of carbonate minerals (slide #22). These carbonate spherules contain all the possible microfossils and other possible traces of life described by McKay and his co-workers in Science magazine (Science, August 16, 1996). Then, only 16 million years ago, a comet or asteroid impact on Mars ejected ALH 84001 off Mars and into its own orbit around the Sun. Over time, its orbit changed until it crossed the Earth's orbit; 13,000 years ago, it collided with the Earth and landed as a meteorite in Antarctica.

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:59 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Nobody's tried to "debunk" life on Mars. I think everyone is open minded toward evidence that is being collected by the last Rovers. Evidence to date primarily includes a strong case for a past water filled planet. Minerals that have been found could have been deposted as salts in brine or other water masses.


Did the Mars Rover find evidence of bacterial life?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 09:19 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Did the Mars Rover find evidence of bacterial life?
Unfortunately, no. Unless you include the presence of Methane in unusual quantities in the atmosphere. But there are no smoking guns yet.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:35 am
@rosborne979,
Rovers found strong evidence for CONDITIONS that could have supported life in the past. The edge shots by McKAy sowing the carbonates are very similar to types of single and multicelled lifeforms that populated (and still do) the aters of our planet.
The entire Rover projects findings has been a search fr similitude on earth
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:17 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Rovers found strong evidence for CONDITIONS that could have supported life in the past. The edge shots by McKAy sowing the carbonates are very similar to types of single and multicelled lifeforms that populated (and still do) the aters of our planet.
The entire Rover projects findings has been a search fr similitude on earth
Agreed. And I think what they did find was very exciting, but it wasn't direct evidence of any actual organisms (as I'm sure you know).

I wouldn't think Bewildered's claims were delusional if all he claimed was some form of bacterial structures in the rocks (although that would still require much more rigorous proof than he's presenting), but claiming a high level structure (blood vessel) from a multicellular organism, specifically a Mammal, is obviously complete insanity.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:19 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Bewildered's claims were . . . complete insanity.


Or, rather, religiously motivated self-delusion--a distinction without a difference.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 04:52 am
@bewildered,
There was a typing error in "Muscle tissue (flesh) is visible if you turn the image (the high resolution version of the image), look at the top edge,...."

The correct wording should be " Remains of muscle tissue (flesh) is visible if you reverse the image (turn the image into negative effect), look at the top edge,..."

Use the high resolution version of the image in order to see the flesh remains clearly.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 05:02 am
@Setanta,
The muscle tissue was fossilized billions of years ago. It turned into minerals and could possibly survive intense heat. The igneous rocks might not be formed from molten lava. Remember it was on Mars, not Earth, when all organisms there died out suddenly. This kind of mass extinction never happened on Earth.
Maybe some parts of the "igneous rocks" resulted from electric discharge, rather than from volcanic events.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 12:47:46