Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59

Thread: Another Fellow Claiming to Have Found Evidence of Life

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,571

    Another Fellow Claiming to Have Found Evidence of Life

    I've only skimmed his site, but he doesn't seem to be too wild eyed about it. He does provide links to the images on NASA's site, and isn't just using cropped versions of them.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,203
    Simply put, the "spherules" that have been found on Mars are clearly fossils of a primitive urchin-like echinoderm.
    My God, It's full of Starfish!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,181
    I can't view this site in full (I'm at work) but it's better than a woo-woo page that's for sure.

    From what I saw the claims and evidence aren't anything new - but his process is far more thorough.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by freddo
    I can't view this site in full (I'm at work) but it's better than a woo-woo page that's for sure.

    From what I saw the claims and evidence aren't anything new - but his process is far more thorough.
    Except that he is still using compression errors and pixellation as "data".

    It will never stop.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    774
    This one is interesting indeed. C2C had a guest this past weekend, Sir Charles Shults, who made similar claims about seeing Sand dollar and Sea Urchin type life forms in NASA pictures. This guy also came off as not being a woo-woo. His site and photos are linked on C2C's site and bring up interesting questions. Are they "proof"? The jury is still out, but he makes a compelling case. Time will tell.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    403
    Unless I'm mistake, at least one of the mars rovers has used its RAT to cut an in situ nodule in half, revealing it to have no discernable internal structure whatsoever. This would seem to rule out it being a fossil.

    This page looks like a lot of seeing faces in clouds to me.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,468
    Anybody go through all the pages?

    First, credit where credit is due. He starts off with the right attitude. His tone is fairly scholarly, and he is not screaming. He also doesn't begin with accusations of a huge NASA conspiracy to wipe out the fossils and cover it up. He gets points. Plus, it is a fairly ordered presentation - not like the jumble of Enterprise Mission at all.

    He also gets points for linking to the original images. And he employs a technique for image enhancement that seems valid to me. This is not staring at a CRT with a magnifying lens.

    However, by the end of the pages, his tone has taken on a strident tone, a certainty far above the meager evidence offered. His justification boils down to identifying what seem like repeated patterns over multiple blueberries, and details in suface features. However, when I look at his images and descriptions of the patterns, they greatly exceed my ability to identify the same patterns. He starts drawing lines on the images to enhance them, but I still don't see the features. I think he is overextending and imagining detail. But I could be wrong.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Toward the end he kind of lost me with the "crab-like" organism. But before that, the duplication of the markings on various rocks was very, very interesting. Is there a non-biological explanation for such duplication?

    I sure would like a closer look...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,571
    Quote Originally Posted by TinFoilHat
    Unless I'm mistake, at least one of the mars rovers has used its RAT to cut an in situ nodule in half, revealing it to have no discernable internal structure whatsoever. This would seem to rule out it being a fossil.

    This page looks like a lot of seeing faces in clouds to me.
    Yeah, but is the RAT designed to slice open the nodule in such a manner as to preserve the kind of internal structure which one might find in a fossil? (BTW, it's pretty rare for paleoentologists to hack apart fossils.) If the RAT wasn't specifically designed to do that, then it might very well erase some of the traces.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Squink
    Simply put, the "spherules" that have been found on Mars are clearly fossils of a primitive urchin-like echinoderm.
    My God, It's full of Starfish!
    That's it, you win the internet. =D>

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,468
    If they are fossils, they are rock-replacement. That is, the original material has been replaced by minerals - petrification. Thus the RAT grinding away should not destroy all signs of internal structure. Rather like slicing up a rock like a geode, that has crystals inside. Cutting the thing in half does not destroy the crystals all along the inner wall, only where the blade hits. Grind off part of the rock, the remaining interior surface should still be intact and show any layering from the formation.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you. :D

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,438
    I'd agree, faces in the clouds is what he's got.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    513
    Slightly off topic, but I wonder if 50 years from now or so, jewelery made from those 'blueberries' that will be collected from mars will be all the rage.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,571
    Quote Originally Posted by twinstead
    Slightly off topic, but I wonder if 50 years from now or so, jewelery made from those 'blueberries' that will be collected from mars will be all the rage.
    I hope it's a lot sooner than 50 years from now!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    14,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Darwin442002
    Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.
    Yeah? Like the broken one marked up on Chip Shults' "fossil" site? That one's hilarious.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    10

    martian fossil, apparently

    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001
    Yeah? Like the broken one marked up on Chip Shults' "fossil" site? That one's hilarious.


    ?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    That is NOT the picture I was referring to, TRY AGAIN

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,527
    I dunno, NASA doesn't think so. And I think they would have checked it out.

    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...es_040211.html

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    14,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Darwin442002
    Gentlemen, 4 Spherules have been ground down by the RAT to show cross section, all are on the site, all 4 show 5 pointed star geometry inside, not easy to spot, but once you see the 1st, & know what you are looking for, the other 3 really leap out at you.
    You had better notify NASA of your stunning discovery.

    Steve Squyres, in the June 25 press conference, in a question about RAT'ing through Meridiani blueberries, remarked that they've seen no internal structure when they've examined the insides of the spherules -- just as one would expect of concretions.

    By the way, there's something about your theory that's been bothering me. Can you really conceive of a 3D shape whose intersection by a plane at an arbitrary angle, always yields a shape with 5-fold symmetry in 2D?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    218
    For this absurd claims to be true the entire surface of Mars has to be littered in fossils. We dont have anywhere near this kind of fossil densities here on Earth. So common sense tells us it is all ridiculas.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    I'm sorry you got the wrong idea, I did not mean to suggest that the stars were all revealed at the same angle, they are not all perfectly symmetrical, the angles are arbitrary, but the stars are apparent, I promise to get you the picture in question ASAP, so the controversy can be settled, Fair Enough ?

  23. #23
    Guest
    I do find it hard to belive that "Martians" could possibly belong to any Earth phylum.

    As a skeptic, I would never rule out the possibility of uniquely Martian phyla. But - Earth phyla on Mars sounds highly improbable!

    Of course - I could have the "wrong end of the stick"? 8-[ 8-[ #-o

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    A sea, is a sea, is a sea, & form must follow function in a Martian sea as on Earth. I would expect Sea Life on any water world to be very similar, regardless of perhaps very different DNA coding alphabets. Only after the life has moved onto land, where the varieties of Preditor/prey relationships, Climate & other enviromental factors that drive evolution in various directions have come into play, would I expect the life to evolve very differently from on Earth.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Darwin442002
    A sea, is a sea, is a sea, & form must follow function in a Martian sea as on Earth. I would expect Sea Life on any water world to be very similar, regardless of perhaps very different DNA coding alphabets.
    Personally I would not expect there to be many similarities at all - decreased gravity (certain gases that can't escape Earth would escape Mars), different salt & mineral concentrations, different weather systems, less solar energy, plus lack of tides would make for a very different ocean. It is feasible for such an ocean to be unable to support life (say if it had little calcium and instead lots of copper and iron) and if it did have life it would certainly be unlike life on Earth.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    Elements that dissolve in water in Earth, or sink to the bottom on Earth, or float to the top on Earth.......... Will behave the very same in a water sea regardless of gravity........ are you thinking this thru ? We are not talking about the atmosphere at all, which in any case WAS much more Earthlike when these critters evolved . I see nothing on this site which is even remotely unlikely. The best volume to surface area ratio is the sphere, no matter what planet you are on, Spherical echinoderms ( Urchins ) are not surprising. that they would be in competion which each other, as on Earth, is not surprising, sea buscuits & sand dollars in a alien sea, is thus, not surprising, recall that the creatures of this era are considered part of the Cambrian EXPOLSION. If it happened on Earth overnight on the stellar or geologic timescale, there is utterly no reason why it couldn't have happened on Mars as well. This site barely streches the well versed imagination, Carl Sagan would have been a strong supporter of all these conclusions .

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    162
    Uh, I think Triange is saying that some gasses that would stay on Earth during formation would not stay on Mars. I.E. Earth lost most of its hydrogen and helium to space during its formation, because Mars has less gravity it would have lost even heavier gasses.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    14
    I reiterate, we are talking about a sea here, & not about the atmosphere, which , in order for there to be the sea that NASA concurs with, the atmosphere would have had more O2 & CO2 in those days than it has today. such gasses dissolved in the sea would not have been lost by solar winds, at least not until the Volcanoes died, the air pressure lessened, & the seas began to evaporate. Biological forces act far far faster than geologic forces, if not, life would have been unable to evolve even on Earth. these samples would not have been buried, petrified, & later uncovered by erosion after the Mars Atmoshpere was lost, In fact, if they WERE hematite, they would not have been uncovered at all, esspecially in such HUGE numbers. No, they must have been biological in origin, exposed by the evaporating seas, & left to freeze dry in the thin Martian air, The only erosion process left would have been dust driven by the thin but swift winds. I'm betting if you tried to pick one of these hollow limestone shells up, it would crumble in your fingers. Life is the simplest explanation that covers all the bases here. I'm convinced.

  29. #29
    Guest
    Are you talking "convergent evolution" here Darwin? If so - then, to a point, I agree.

    But, that said, a dolphin and a fish are fundamentally different - any similarity being no more than skin-deep? Even the oceans contain many different body-plans. Why would life on Mars have chosen any one of these in particular? They are not necessary for life.

    All I'm saying, is that I see no reason at all why life on another planet should conform to our Earth-bound body-plans. Of course - if it turns out that it does, then I'll be the first to accept it. I'm certainly not implying that it is impossible.

    At the moment though - the "jury is out"!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Darwin442002
    In fact, if they WERE hematite, they would not have been uncovered at all, esspecially in such HUGE numbers.
    This is an unfounded assertion. Abiogenic concretions can be formed and and are buried and unearthed on Earth in a variety of ways. Life is certainly not the only answer, and almost certainly not the best answer, for Mars.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-May-27, 12:50 AM
  2. If evidence is ever found
    By jhwegener in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-11, 09:20 AM
  3. Further Evidence Found for Dark Energy
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-08, 12:21 PM
  4. Further evidence for BB just found...(BB's sound waves)
    By gzhpcu in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-13, 08:15 PM
  5. Evidence of Rocks = Evidence of Life
    By skeptED56 in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-26, 12:04 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
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: