Life on Mars?

Not necessarily ammonia - hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide will do, or I guess, even an absence of oxygen. That latter may be more like a neutral atmosphere, though. I think that current opinion is that Earth's early atmosphere didn't have much ammonia - it was perhaps nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide dominated.
But I haven't been keeping up with that stuff like I should, either.

In Solid form. Which allows for life to exist below it's surface. If it sank in solid form then progressive layers of water would freeze intil the whole mass would be solid.

I am sure it is possaible for life to evolve without water.... then again it depends on how life is really defined

Hi everyone this is my first time posting anything! Has anyone read The Mars Mystery - Graham Hancock. it might provide an interseting perpspective on everything. Question... Even with some speculation as to the valdity of the 'Face on mars" and the Pyramids that where suppossed to have been discovered, why as of yet have none of the rovers or surveyors seriously been put to task, to disprove these theories once and for all. is it not important enough?

---

We're not all there, that's why we're here... Anon

They disproved it with the orbiters some time ago. If you look at the formations from another angle, they don't look like anything but rocks. It's just a trick of the light - and a trick of your brain - that made them look like anything in the first place.The reason you probably didn't hear about it is because disproving myths rarely gets into the papers. Most people would rather ignore the refutation rather than face up to a disproved conspiracy. Just look at the "fake moon landing" people.

thanx for that,have you read the book? Mr Hancock already makes mention, that Nasa very quickly and hastily used that same refutation, Tricks of light, etc... Well if the same tricks of light made them look like something in the first place, how can one use the same method again to refute it.I think that at least a different method should be used like... actually standing next to the object in question, and showing it for what it is or isn't. Can you enlighten me on the criteria used to choose the landing areas in the first place.

---

We're not all there, that's why we're here... Anon

Because if they were really faces, or really pyramids, they'd look the same no matter what the light was like, or what angle you viewed them from. That's not a different method, though. That's the same method of "looking at it from a different angle", and they already did that. As I don't work at NASA, I can't give you the exact criteria. Mostly I suspect it has to do with the capabilities of the lander. Based on what they built the lander to do, I imagine they select a site with the potential to answer the most questions about the geologic history of Mars.

"disproving myths rarely gets into the papers"...
It's funny you say that Crash, I saw a interesting show that cataloged voyages of merchant ships from 3 abitrary points well away from the Bermuda Triangle and low and behold alot of vessels sank due to bad seas. When researched further it seemed that a large number of "mysterious ship dissappearances" was due to weather. The reports just tended not to mention the bad weather which perpetuated the Myth of the Bermuda Triangle. The truth just doesnt sell as well as hype I guess.

Why don't you go to the nasa sites to find out? In fact, the refutation of the "mars face" was using orbitors with much, much better cameras to get a better look.Are you really willing to believe that, if there was any hint at all that those things were artificial, NASA wouldn't have jumped all over it and landed rovers right next door? Geez!
face on marsThe current sites were chosen (this is off the top of my head) for:

• low enough latitude to supply solar power
• safe enough terrain to give the lander a chance not to get mashed on rocks
• sites that suggested from orbit that there was a chance of finding evidence for water

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-08-2004]

thanx for that bit of info noseyned!Quote -Are you really willing to believe that, if there was any hint at all that those things were artificial, NASA wouldn't have jumped all over it and landed rovers right next door? Geez!Yes...actually, i think that i am that nieve to believe that any information that might just blow everything we know about creation and/or evolution right out the water, would be kept secret. If it were proven, the establishment would have to embark on a major rethink
to maintain control. Their authority and credibilty would be shaken to it's foundations. In this light i think that mars is the most important research project since sliced bread.Be gentle that's just my opinion.

Hey Capt! Welcome to the nuthouse, err, I mean evcforum.You stated: I'm not sure this tracks logically. People have been dreaming about life on other planets, including Mars, for quite awhile. It would be a stupendous impetus to evolutionary theory if we could find evidence of life on another world. I think NN is right when he says that NASA would be drooling over the possibility - how much new funding do you think they'd get out of it? We'd ALREADY have some kind of manned mission going. There'd be international competition to get there first! Think of the prestige to the nation or consortium that proves life on other worlds! Besides, NASA leaks like a seive - they can't even keep their minor screw-ups secret. Think they'd be able to keep a MAJOR find like this under wraps? For an hour? Evolutionary theory is really impoverished to only have one example so far. It'd be great to have another to compare earth-life to. We could finally find out if we were right about natural selection, etc. The theological implications might be a bit more problematic, but the more flexible theists shouldn't have much problem with it. The six-day-creationists would be buried, however.

"6 day creationist will be buried..." Come on Quetzal, you know life on Mars is mentioned in Genesis, Leave it to a imaginative literalist to find you the chapter and verse. If it is indeed proven to exisit there.

Are you suggesting that life on Mars, even intelligent life would be a problem for some sort of "establishment"? You didn't say which establishment. I don't see how it is necessarily a "problem" for anyone. It certainly isn't for any of the sciences.In fact I think you'd find that a large number of scientists would agree with my assessment that the question of life other than earth based life is one of the top few questions that we would all like answered. To ask about intelligent life ("Are we alone?") is an even more exciting prospect. If there was any hint that the "face" was an artificial construct you'd have 100's of otherwise very sane scientists volunteering for an trip to Mars (even one way).Could you be a bit clearer and give some details and what you do think?

Hee, hee. Too true. Still, it'd take some serious wiggling to figure out a way to hold on to the "man is the epitome of the escala naturae but one step removed from God" which they've been clinging to for the last 1500 years or so.

NosyNed writes:

quote:

---

The current sites were chosen (this is off the top of my head) for:

​

low enough latitude to supply solar power

​

safe enough terrain to give the lander a chance not to get mashed on rocks

​

sites that suggested from orbit that there was a chance of finding evidence for water

---

Nothing to disagree with here, but I would put your last criterion first. From what I've read and seen about this mission I think the technology which culminated in these landers was developed to deliver what scientists most needed and wanted. In other words, scientists chose where they wanted to go on Mars first, then the engineers designed the landers and, working with the scientists, chose the precise locations according to your first two (and probably many other) criteria.