Enterprise Mission has more on Mars. This time, there may be fossils of ancient marine life.

_________________

@Quixote

I'm sorry, I don't see fossils there. All I see are sand-blasted rocks. Also, I don't think the claim that the "fossil" was obliterated by the grinding tool holds water. The "comparative" photo's are totally dissimilar?to the point that I suspect that they are not even of the same piece of ground.

_________________
Life without the LORD is like a soap bubble without the soap. Without Him, you are nothing.

@Quixote

Off course they went to mars to destroy signs of life, they even photographed the evidence and then destroyed it to prove there never was life there.

Oh well another day another conspiracy.

_________________

@Quixote

Is it just me, or does the logo at the top of the page remind anyone of Blakes 7 ?

I found the rest of the website more difficult to take seriously when I saw that

Here's the proof :



Now compare that to :

It's amazing how quickly some popular "scientists" can jump to a particular conclusion, and then figure out how they can manipulate the truth to explain it. Real science is about being open-minded to all the possibilities and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, whether you like the conclusions or not. It seems that NASA can't publish anything without it being ripped to shreds by these people using groundless arguments and silly jump-before-you-look assumptions.

We all want to find life on Mars, but we have to avoid seeing things that aren't there. I'm not saying that there isn't a fossil in that rock, but this is just another in a long line of bizarre claims backed up by paper-thin evidence.

I'm surprised by how many people can take seriously someone who will so stubbornly preach that a few randomly-shaped rocks must be pieces of machinery or is convinced that a bunch of over-exposed pixels can only be explained by shiny glass structures...

A few years ago the Enterprise Mission posted an article that claimed a photo of a rippled surface on Mars was a photo of a lake or sea. They were adamant about that. There was no comment on the possibility that they were sand dunes (which of course they were). If the Enterprise Mission really stumble upon something significant, I'm sure it'll be verified by the larger scientific community.

I believe there's a chance we'll find fossils trapped in those rocks, but I'm waiting for some real evidence. There are too many people out there who are damaging the process with their pseudo science.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/bunny_on_mars.html?932004
They found a bunny up there aswell, and it is moving!

@AmigaOneProductions:

Their logo had to look like something. Why not something stylish? As for the name itself, they cover that here.

_________________

Matt_F mentioned:

Quote:

It's amazing how quickly some popular "scientists" can jump to a particular conclusion, and then figure out how they can manipulate the truth to explain it. Real science is about being open-minded to all the possibilities and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, whether you like the conclusions or not.

Mr. Hoagland has been investigating Mars, the Moon, NASA and related subjects for decades. That hardly qualifies as "jumping to a particular conclusion."

As you correctly point out, real science is about being open minded to all possibilities, and coming to conclusions based on the evidence, whether you like the conclusions or not. All too often, it seems that NASA doesn't like the conclusions.

Quote:

If the Enterprise Mission really stumble upon something significant, I'm sure it'll be verified by the larger scientific community.

The data which Enterprise Mission has presented in my original link is being verified by amateurs and experts in the field alike, as mentioned on the page supplied.

If we read the article, Mr. Hoagland relates correspondence with other scientists working independently from NASA, Enterprise Mission, and each other. They are in agreement that the images returned to JPL look strikingly similar to fossils found on Earth. Enough so to warrant further investigation, instead of NASA's knee-jerk dismissal.

In a recent press conference, NASA finally concurred that Mars once had liquid water, and lots of it. Enterprise Mission called the turn on that one years earlier. See here, here and also Mr. Hoagland's tidal model.

_________________

@Quixote

Why don�t you go to science publications and check out what real scientists write about it. enterprisemission is known for turning a grain of sand into a mountain.

_________________

@Tomas

Well maybe one of the sponsors were playboy magazine

_________________
Ralf.
Amigaone G4 XE / AOs4 beta update4
Post+1

@Quixote

You might be interested in how Hoagland's theories are being de-bunked in turn, then.

Bad Astronomy page
.
SlimJim

@Quixote

Well it's highly unlikely that it's nothing but a rock, or fake photo.

But.. If that photo would be real and not a fake, then I have to say that there is something strange in the shape of that "rock" I'm not geologist or paleontologist, but I would check that out. It looks a bit like what fiossil would look like.. But most likely it's just a rock

@ Gopal:

I do read what other science sites have to say, and enjoy their work as well. Enterprise Mission is also known for declaring "But father, the emperor isn't wearing anything."

_________________

@ SlimJim:

I am familiar with Mr. Plait's work. Much of his work is good, but when he encounters ideas contrary to his experience, his manner is abrasive and off-putting. He uses humor to attack the character of others when he doesn't understand their work. The points he cannot counter he ignores. Mr. Plait will put his own word's into other's mouths to make them seem silly, so that he can shoot them down more credibly.

For an example from your link, Mr. Plait claims that Mr. Hoagland had claimed that the Face and other structures on Mars, along with structures on the Moon, were built by aliens. In truth, Mr. Hoagland hasn't said that. Hoagland's model holds that these structures were build by humans, millions of years ago.

Though I suspect that Mr. Plait's heart is in the right place, I am no fan of his.

_________________

@ Miksuh:

Remember that the image is of the rock face, which has been exposed to the Martian elements for ages. We shouldn't expect that under those conditions it's shape would look as pristine as the fossils found in Earth museums.

Yet even with that degree of weathering and degradation, the shape is so recognizable to those in the field that even amateurs are noticing it. And independent experts, who would be able to see past any easy mistake that an amateur might make, are concurring with them.

_________________

try take a look at vid 1559
http://www.funnyplace.org/

that really proofs life on mars

@Quixote

Quote:

Mr. Hoagland has been investigating Mars, the Moon, NASA and related subjects for decades. That hardly qualifies as "jumping to a particular conclusion."

Yes, that's true. You have a point. Perhaps what I'm more concerned about it how quickly he can see a piece of machinery in a natural rock. Perhaps he has never looked at a photo of a rock-strewn desert on Earth. Otherwise he'd see the same shapes. Somehow they're only bits of machinery when they're on Mars?!

That kind of example only makes it harder to believe his other claims. He has already established himself as being either an idiot or someone who has set out to deliberately mislead and confuse the public.

Quote:

All too often, it seems that NASA doesn't like the conclusions.

To be honest, I think NASA has simply got bored of answering to Hoagland's claims. They are consistently attacked for releasing photos that are "obviously fake/retouched/manipulated to remove the evidence" (not an actual quote)... and almost everything that Hoagland claims is part of the consipiracy can actually be explained very easily.

NASA certainly would not dislike any real discovery of fossils in the rocks. That's a big part of why they're on Mars right now. What they don't need is someone trying to convince the rest of the world that they're deliberately hiding the evidence.

Quote:

The data which Enterprise Mission has presented in my original link is being verified by amateurs and experts in the field alike, as mentioned on the page supplied.

Yes, you're right. This certainly warrants further investigation, and I'm sure that's happening. I would be the last to claim out-right that there is no fossil in that photo. But the problem is that Hoagland has cried "wolf!" too many times. In many cases it's not the particular claims he makes (many of us can accept the idea that there was once life on Mars, for example), but it's the pictures and pre-school logic he uses to back up his claims.

I want to believe there are fossils on Mars. I want to believe that photo contains a fossil. It might do! But I've read enough of Hoagland's writings to know that if anyone knows how to find out what it is, *he* doesn't.

Quote:

In a recent press conference, NASA finally concurred that Mars once had liquid water, and lots of it.

Of course they did, because they found evidence for it and deliberated over it very carefully before coming to their conclusions. For a long time, many scientists have believed that were was flowing water on Mars in the past. Hoagland didn't have the monopoly on that theory. What he did have, however, were some of the most rediculous ways of trying to prove it. And then it's insulting the way he says things like "we were right all along", as if to say that everone else believed otherwise.

Quote:

See here, here and also Mr. Hoagland's tidal model.

His tidal theory. Yes, that was actually the very first piece by Hoagland that I ever read. I must admit that I was impressed and attracted by the theory, although I was a little skeptical of what seemed like a few "leaps of faith" towards the end of the study.

I then tried to find what else Hoagland had written, and found the rest of the Enterprise Mission page. Suddenly I was seeing claims of current flowing water on Mars (which may be possible, in the right circumstances) but it was backed up by an image of what was clearly a dune field just like many all over Mars and the deserts of Earth. If his logic was sound, then every single sand dune on Earth is actually a wave on the ocean. I've seen what he's written about the face on Mars. I wouldn't dismiss his claims outright if he could present some real evidence. But when he takes a photo with heavy JPG compression and claims that the compression artefacts are artificial structures, you know he's either stupid or lying. And I find it hard to believe he's that stupid!

What's so frustrating, really, is that the people who believe his claims rarely seem to comprehend the logic used to debunk his claims. How can you explain to someone that a bright pixel does not mean a shiny surface when it's beyond their understanding? Or that there can indeed be illumination of the surface even when the sun is below the horizon, due to atmospheric scattering, and that with an adequate exposure level / camera sensitivity you can make some sun-facing surfaces appear very bright?

The particular fossil issue in question is an interesting one. Unfortunately, most of his other work ruins his credibility.

Matt

@AmigaOneProductions

Blakes 7....now that brings back some memories. Did you know that the entire series 1 of Blakes 7 has just been released on DVD?

First of all hi to everybody, that's my first post.

I've red that thread and seen the photos on the link, and I've one great fear and one great hope.

Let's start from the fear:
there are some rumors that say this mars mission is a fake and the shots are taken from some terrestrial landscape and digitally modified. If the news we are talking about in this thread is true then maybe they are covering this fake... Why? Follow my argument: you're a scientist that send a probe on mars to discover if there has been life in the distant past, you discover something that might be a fossil and you GRIND it to dust? I think no, unless you're an idiot, or... unless that fossil is can give to the world the proof that your supposed to be mars mission is a great fake. That fear is even enlarged by the similitudes that supposed mars fossils have with terrestrial ones. How come that lifeforms evolved in such similar manners in 2 totally different environments on 2 different planets?

Then comes my hope:
I really hope that the fake is the news gave from that site you linked there. Then will mean that mars mission is real and we still have some hope to find some martian fossil...

_________________
God created Paula so that Allister Brimble and Dave Whittaker could do music

Check my Amiga gameplays (ITA)!

@ErikBauer

>Why? Follow my argument: you're a scientist that send a probe on mars to discover >if there has been life in the distant past, you discover something that might be a >fossil and you GRIND it to dust? I think no, unless you're an idiot, or...

Hmmm, it is my view that that Mars vehicle is an automatic thing. Even if we'd
believe this thing to be a real fossil (while I think it is likely it is just a peculiar
looking stone - ah, *was*... ) it could have been grinded automatically, as
surely the automatic system had no program telling it "Check every stone
before grinding if it is not a fossil" :)

>even enlarged by the similitudes that supposed mars fossils have with terrestrial >ones. How come that lifeforms evolved in such similar manners in 2 totally different >environments on 2 different planets?

Several arguments might pop up there. Of course only theories as this would be
difficult to prove (unless we find exterestrial life somewhere and can compare):

One theory is that life was brought to earth from comets. Now theoretically - if
we assume "Mars life" actually existed - life could have come from the same
"source". Okay, this would have been very "basic" life (amino acids or such),
but that could make the "basis" the same, at least "early" in the life/evolution
cycle. And maybe later-on things would still be "somewhat similar".

The second thing is that there has been theorized, that with somehow "similar"
conditions all lifeforms would ultimite evolve in a similar manner (Well, Mars
and Earth are probably quite different, but still if we assume Water and
Carbon and Oxygen as the Basis for Life, this *is* some similarity there...

(Of course - as sort of a counter-argument - SciFi-Authors have been giving ideas about Silicium-based - instead of Carbon-based - lifeforms and such for many years, due to similarities in functionality for the two elements :) )

Similarity could also come from that certain functionalities will be "solved"
in a similar way. And I guess especially with extremely basic lifeforms this
could cause similarities (while more complex lifeforms will probably differ).

All this is of course only theorizing... without any exterrestrial lifeform (or remains
of) being found one cannot be sure of such stuff...

It is interesting though that in the past of our own planet, when certain species
were isolated in certain areas sometimes they evolved in a similar way (though
some things definitely were different). Of course one could argue in this
case the environment was pretty identic, oh well...

Steffen