More NASA Lies?

[MoonToMars]

After reading this http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ne_040824.html article at Space.com, I am starting to feel NASA does deminish the findings of various facts regarding alien life-forms. This down-talk has a reason.

The reason is actually in the article. Toward the end, NASA scientists try to suggest that not only does Methane not mean life, but that we should wait till their "later" missions before we jump to conclusions.

I suppose I find it interesting how they seem to suggest that Volcanic activity is taking place on Mars, and how they want to suggest volcanic activity over organic life-forms. Why? There is as much evidence to suggest volcanoes on Mars as there is that of life. In 1976, the LR experiment tested positive for life. So, why is it such a leap that perhaps due to the findings of Methane in the atmosphere, that it does add to the mounting evidence for microbial life on Mars?

My belief is that NASA does this to ensure continued funding for their programs. They discredit or down-talk every discovery of alien life and drag it out, untill they are late in announcing what we allready know, in order to keep the "need alive" for that next mission. If you don't believe me, look at how they've operated the last 60 years.

So, we have to wait on the issue of life on Mars. Till their next mission. You might as well forget this issue every being solved anytime soon if NASA has anything to do with it.

I am completely biased, I admit it. I even think NASA know's alien civilizations visit our world. They've seen and have acknowleged them outside our space shuttle for years, but have dismissed them. It's also my theory that when the "space tours" start, many people will come back with images or video of strange crafts outside our world. In fact, they will appear everywhere. If that happens, NASA will have hell to pay. Everyone will ask - What has NASA been doing? They've never seen this before? Just think about it. Now, I know a lot of you are going to say - this won't happen. How could we justify the spending of trillions of dollars to send a rover to mars when we have alien life outside our world visitiing us daily? We can't!

[Musashi]

How does this ensure funding? Wouldn't the discovery of life ensure much more funding?

[MoonToMars]

How does this ensure funding? Wouldn't the discovery of life ensure much more funding?

No, because the future missions are supposed to "discover life". If we've allready discovered it - no need for it.

[Musashi]

Ok, so imagine that life has been discovered. Don't you think that there will be new missions with new funding to explore this?

[SciFi Chick]

How does this ensure funding? Wouldn't the discovery of life ensure much more funding?

No, because the future missions are supposed to "discover life". If we've allready discovered it - no need for it.

Are you kidding me?! If we discovered life, there would be unlimited funding for future missions. The military, the scientists and the governments of the world would be obsessed with getting more information . No doubt about it.

[MoonToMars]

Ok, so imagine that life has been discovered. Don't you think that there will be new missions with new funding to explore this?

Well technically life on Mars was discovered in 1976. There was no great funding to find life on Mars following that. It's almost as if NASA slows down the discoveries untill were ready for it? I don't know, but it is frustrating.

But to more directly answer you're question: Yes there would be more funding for different missions. However the missions we have planned would have to be scrapped.

Why would you look for water in Mars past when you can just send 1 rover to find life?

[MoonToMars]

How does this ensure funding? Wouldn't the discovery of life ensure much more funding?

No, because the future missions are supposed to "discover life". If we've allready discovered it - no need for it.

Are you kidding me?! If we discovered life, there would be unlimited funding for future missions. The military, the scientists and the governments of the world would be obsessed with getting more information . No doubt about it.

No, I was referring to the missions which are designed to find the life on Mars that we allready know is there. So NASA is pretending "we don't know for sure" so we should make sure these missions continue. You are correct that if life is detected we would have different missions...

[Musashi]

Seems silly to me.

[MoonToMars]

Seems silly to me.

It seems silly to me too! :roll:

[Musashi]

It also seems unlikely.

[MoonToMars]

It also seems unlikely.

That's a compelling argument, I will take into consideration. J/K

We can agree to disagree. ;-)

[Musashi]

I would consider it at least as compelling as your argument, if either of our opinions can even properly be called arguments.

Do you have anything to add to why NASA would hide life other than the fact that you think they are hiding it?

How about some explanation of these statements:

If you don't believe me, look at how they've operated the last 60 years.

I am completely biased, I admit it.

I even think NASA know's alien civilizations visit our world.

They've seen and have acknowleged them outside our space shuttle for years, but have dismissed them.

[Peter B]

No, because the future missions are supposed to "discover life". If we've allready discovered it - no need for it.

Are you kidding me?! If we discovered life, there would be unlimited funding for future missions. The military, the scientists and the governments of the world would be obsessed with getting more information . No doubt about it.

No, I was referring to the missions which are designed to find the life on Mars that we allready know is there. So NASA is pretending "we don't know for sure" so we should make sure these missions continue. You are correct that if life is detected we would have different missions...

G'day MoonToMars, welcome to the BABB. Do you remember the Mars meteorite which was revealled as possibly containing fossilised life forms back in the 1990s? There was a stir of excitement as a result of that. To suggest that NASA is following a strict sequence of missions seems a little bizarre. It's like saying that someone who owns a 2 bedroom house wouldn't buy a 4 bedroom house until they'd bought a 3 bedroom house first.

In other words, if the circumstances are right, I'm sure NASA would skip or alter missions to meet the situation. They showed that with Apollo, altering the mission schedule in months to meet an evolving situation.

[aurora]

I would consider it at least as compelling as your argument, if either of our opinions can even properly be called arguments.

Do you have anything to add to why NASA would hide life other than the fact that you think they are hiding it?

How about some explanation of these statements:

If you don't believe me, look at how they've operated the last 60 years.

I am completely biased, I admit it.

I even think NASA know's alien civilizations visit our world.

They've seen and have acknowleged them outside our space shuttle for years, but have dismissed them.

Not to mention the "more" in the subject line, which implies that the OP'er wishes to imply that simply everyone knows that so many things are covered up. It's a conspiracy, don't ya know.

:roll:

[Stinger]

..Not to mention the "more" in the subject line, which implies that the OP'er wishes to imply that simply everyone knows that so many things are covered up..

I picked up on that too. What's ironic is that most of those that make these claims use NASA releases when asked for citations.

[sts60]

Welcome to the board, MoonToMars. I have a few comments on your OP:

After reading this http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ne_040824.html article at Space.com, I am starting to feel NASA does deminish the findings of various facts regarding alien life-forms. This down-talk has a reason.

The reason is actually in the article. Toward the end, NASA scientists try to suggest that not only does Methane not mean life, but that we should wait till their "later" missions before we jump to conclusions.

Or maybe they're just not jumping to conclusions. That would make it good science, not a conspiracy.

I suppose I find it interesting how they seem to suggest that Volcanic activity is taking place on Mars, and how they want to suggest volcanic activity over organic life-forms. Why? There is as much evidence to suggest volcanoes on Mars as there is that of life. In 1976, the LR experiment tested positive for life. So, why is it such a leap that perhaps due to the findings of Methane in the atmosphere, that it does add to the mounting evidence for microbial life on Mars?

The Viking experiment gave both positive and negative results. Saying it "tested positive for life" is too strong an assessment.

My belief is that NASA does this to ensure continued funding for their programs. They discredit or down-talk every discovery of alien life and drag it out, untill they are late in announcing what we allready know, in order to keep the "need alive" for that next mission. If you don't believe me, look at how they've operated the last 60 years.

A. NASA hasn't even existed for 60 years.
B. There have been few pieces of evidence supporting extraterrestrial life during NASA's actual existence. The "WOW" signal, the Viking experiment, and ALH840001 are the only ones that come to mind... and they've gotten wide play in scientific circles and the media.
C. NASA held a national press conference, with the Administrator himself participating, to announce the JSC team's conclusion that ALH840001 contained traces of earlier life on Mars. How exactly is that "discrediting" or "down-talking" the discovery? The microbiology community at large gave it a lukewarm reception, but that's hardly NASA's fault.

So, we have to wait on the issue of life on Mars. Till their next mission.

We'll have to wait until there's some good evidence, for which NASA, ESA, and many scientists are actively looking. That may be one of the current rovers, it may be a future probe such as MSL, it may be a manned mission, it may be never.

You might as well forget this issue every being solved anytime soon if NASA has anything to do with it.

That doesn't make any sense at all; in fact, you have it exactly backwards. Nothing would guarantee popular support, political support, and funding for NASA like the excitement of finding life elsewhere than Earth.

I am completely biased, I admit it.

That is evident from your posting and your title "More NASA Lies?" My bias is generally pro-NASA and pro-space, but I am even more strongly biased in favor of objective truth. The truth is that NASA has every reason to trumpet discovery of ET life, and none to conceal it.

I even think NASA know's alien civilizations visit our world.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this. Your opinion or suspicion does not constitute evidence.

They've seen and have acknowleged them outside our space shuttle for years, but have dismissed them.

You say they've both acknowledged and dismissed "them" at the same time. That's logically impossible.

What I believe you mean is that astronauts and TV cameras see things from the Shuttle, and acknowledge that, but don't claim them as ET life. That's because they're looking at things like paint chips and ice crystals which reflect light and move when hit by an attitude jet, etc. That's the prosaic reality of it.

It's also my theory that when the "space tours" start, many people will come back with images or video of strange crafts outside our world.

That's your opinion, not a theory. My opinion is that when space tours start, people will come back with images of paint chips and ice bits reflecting light, just like we see from the Shuttle, and that some people will immediately identify these as "strange crafts".

In fact, they will appear everywhere.

If they're "everywhere", how come there's no other evidence of them? How come the Russians on Mir never said anything? How come the recent Chinese astronaut never said anything? Or are you about to tell me that they're part of the grand NASA conspiracy too?

If that happens, NASA will have hell to pay. Everyone will ask - What has NASA been doing? They've never seen this before? Just think about it. Now, I know a lot of you are going to say - this won't happen.

No, I quite agree some people will continue to get all lathered up about bits of light, or the "UFOs" in SOHO images, or the "cities" and "machinery" on Mars, etc. They won't be any more correct than they are today, but they'll be just as energetic.

How could we justify the spending of trillions of dollars to send a rover to mars when we have alien life outside our world visitiing us daily? We can't!

The MERs cost less than a billion dollars put together. As for alien life visiting us daily, you need to have some actual evidence to sway us. Misinterpretations of downlinked Shuttle images is not evidence. Sorry.

[tuffel999]

In 1976, the LR experiment tested positive for life. So, why is it such a leap that perhaps due to the findings of Methane in the atmosphere, that it does add to the mounting evidence for microbial life on Mars?

It tested positive! Hurry get them some antibiotics..........or antivirals.....we have an extraplanetary infection going on!

Seriously though I must have been napping to miss that they conclusively proved life on Mars in 1976. How did they prove this?

What test was used?

[R.A.F.]

I was referring to the missions which are designed to find the life on Mars that we allready know is there.

Really?? Just who is this "we" you're speaking of??

So NASA is pretending "we don't know for sure" so we should make sure these missions continue.

I'm not sure what you're reasoning is here...NASA is "not telling us" so that these particular missions will continue??

You are correct that if life is detected we would have different missions...

Not only different, but there would be more funding, the missions themselfs would be BETTER, finding life would be a very good thing for NASA...I see absolutely no reason why they would want to delay that!

Edited for wording.

[Stinger]

.. Seriously though I must have been napping to miss that they conclusively proved life on Mars in 1976. How did they prove this?

What test was used?

As sts60 mentioned, the results were inconclusive. Dr. Levin, one of the scientists involved in the 76 Viking project believes we did although many scientists/astronomers dispute this. Here's a Space Daily article that discusses Levin's POV and touches on the testing.

[Yorkshireman]

After reading this http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ne_040824.html article at Space.com, I am starting to feel NASA does deminish the findings of various facts regarding alien life-forms. This down-talk has a reason.

The reason is actually in the article. Toward the end, NASA scientists try to suggest that not only does Methane not mean life, but that we should wait till their "later" missions before we jump to conclusions.

This is surely just good science going on. NASA already has later missions planned, this isn't angling for additional missions on the back of methane. It's just saying that there needs to be more evidence gathering.

I suppose I find it interesting how they seem to suggest that Volcanic activity is taking place on Mars, and how they want to suggest volcanic activity over organic life-forms. Why? There is as much evidence to suggest volcanoes on Mars as there is that of life.

Again that's just good science. There are at least two possible hypotheses for methane in the Martian atmosphere - present volcanic activity, and life. We know Mars used to have active volcanoes, and until we get more evidence, we can't make a definite call that it's life and not some residual, present day volcanism causing methane. An additional factor is that we want there to be life on Mars, as human beings, so as sceptics we must try to spring-load our science to try out alternative, geological hypotheses at least as strongly as the life hypothesis. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In 1976, the LR experiment tested positive for life. So, why is it such a leap that perhaps due to the findings of Methane in the atmosphere, that it does add to the mounting evidence for microbial life on Mars?

LR, PR (Pyrolitic Release) and GEX (Gax Exchange) tested positive, but the GCMS found no organic matter at the parts per billion level. And the results of the LR, GEX and PR experiments have since been duplicated through non-life chemistry, such as peroxides. The results are in dispute, and will be until they can be retested with more sophisticated instruments. But it's bad science to claim life when the GCMS result contradicts it. You can't just ignore the GCMS result because it doesn't support your preferred conclusion.

My belief is that NASA does this to ensure continued funding for their programs. They discredit or down-talk every discovery of alien life and drag it out, untill they are late in announcing what we allready know, in order to keep the "need alive" for that next mission.

Your belief is not backed by credible evidence. What you call 'discrediting' or 'down-talking' is normally called scepticism or caution. Imagine the embarassment if NASA had trumpeted life on Mars in 1976, and after securing a huge funding for a manned mission, we got there - to find no life, and inorganic clays. Congress would have cut out their livers!

Rob

[ToSeek]

LR, PR (Pyrolitic Release) and GEX (Gax Exchange) tested positive, but the GCMS found no organic matter at the parts per billion level. And the results of the LR, GEX and PR experiments have since been duplicated through non-life chemistry, such as peroxides. The results are in dispute, and will be until they can be retested with more sophisticated instruments. But it's bad science to claim life when the GCMS result contradicts it. You can't just ignore the GCMS result because it doesn't support your preferred conclusion.

Parts per billion sounds like a severe threshold, but the GCMS could still have missed a concentration of millions of bacteria per gram of soil. And the LR Principal Investigator still claims that his results have not been duplicated by anything other than life.

All in all, I think it's high time we sent another mission to Mars with experiments to look for life. I think NASA interpreted the Viking results too negatively.

[TravisM]

It's like saying there's still dinosaurs in the brazilian rain forests because of missing loggers.
I'll find the link. It's hillarious.

[Ut]

I'm tired, stinky, and covered in dried sweat and far too much sun screen, so I'll actually read the bulk of the thread later. In the meantime, I'm going to pretend I know what's going on, and start from here.

Presented idea: NASA has found life, but isn't telling anyone, so that they can get more funding for their upcoming satellites to find life.

Counter idea: NASA has more and more trouble getting their budget increased due to the fact that there are "more important" uses for the money (some that I feel are legit, and some which I think are less so), and fewer and fewer people thinking finding little wiggilie microbes on a ball of rust is a wise investment of taxpayer's money.

Mixing these ideas together, one is left to assume that by telling a public that is more and more wary of what has seemed like a more and more futile search that has been going on for decades that they've been unsuccessful again and again and again, NASA can get more and more funding, and will not seem like the crazy old man that lives down the street who insists that if he had just a little more time, and a little more money, he really could have made that gaudy pile of steel and rubber bands in his back yard fly.

Last I heard, NASA's one and only goal wasn't to find life on Mars. Once it's been confirmed that there's something living there, they're not going to lock their doors and fire their engineers. If nothing else, life on Mars means that NASA can get some real funding to actually go to Mars. With real people.

And let's not forget that the probes, satellites, and rovers that are currently in production would probably get a major budget boost. People would want confirmation -- people on both sides of the "Aww, isn't Earth SPECIAL~!" argument. These new missions would get big upgrades -- not only would they be there to confirm life on Mars, they'd be studying it, too. No one wants to wait another 10 or 15 years so NASA can send a fleet of probes up there to find life that's already been found before they begin studying it.