Confirmed life on Mars on MSNBC?

[Parsons]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47031923/ns/...e-science/

I dunno how reputable msnbc really is these days, but this struck me as an interesting tid-bit, maybe a primer for more revelations?

[Ashim]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47031923/ns/...e-science/

I dunno how reputable msnbc really is these days, but this struck me as an interesting tid-bit, maybe a primer for more revelations?

They info is interesting but not exactly 'little green men in shiny suits'.
I'm not sure if our media establishments will be involved in the disclosure process, I tend to think that the larger revelations will be from another source.
Most people will only believe something if it's on tv so the medium
is ideal in any case.
If our house was burning down my wife would only believe it if it was on the news.

[Parsons]

If our house was burning down my wife would only believe it if it was on the news.

Haha, I know that feeling only too well.

[zenmaster]

Most people will only believe something if it's on tv so the medium
is ideal in any case.

Not sure what your point is, but most people don't subscribe to science journals.

[Ashim]

Most people will only believe something if it's on tv so the medium
is ideal in any case.

Not sure what your point is, but most people don't subscribe to science journals.

What I am speculating on is the most effective way of mass education. I'm not even sure that the appearance of craft in our skies would even 'phase' most people. Firstly I don't know of too many folks who stare at the sky for any length of time. If they do then they are possibly the ones that may encounter a contact of sorts.
What I'm trying to articulate is that scientific crumbs of 'new' information will pale in the light of true science, true mathematics, true meta-physics and....the one probably most difficult for the human race to digest, true history.
I just find it difficult to imagine the BBC broadcasting truthful documentaries on Tesla or the pyramids etc.
I should give them a chance however, miracles are possible.
They did get building 7 to' time travel' now didn't they?

[3DMonkey]

(piggyback post) Let's call it current news reports-

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16032/contentd...d=GOpQQVzV

[zenmaster]

It would be more compelling if they used the same technique to merely differentiate between biological and non-biological processes on Earth.

http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-lif...20412.html

[Parsons]

It would be more compelling if they used the same technique to merely differentiate between biological and non-biological processes on Earth.

http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-lif...20412.html

That's why I decided to post the article: why didn't they figure this in the late 70's? Why would they suddenly realize there was life? What if its A) a distraction they had chambered, like when they officially killed Osama Bin Laden, or more optimistically, B) trying to prep people for the reveal of intelligent ET life?

[zenmaster]

why didn't they figure this in the late 70's? Why would they suddenly realize there was life?

The idea suggested for the revisit is based on recent discoveries about the Martian environment from probes:

...in recent years, biological interpretations of the LR experiment have become more acceptable with the discovery of equatorial methane-generating regions on Mars overlapping areas with extensive sub-soil water ice deposits and atmospheric water vapor (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express...DYD_0.html). Furthermore, study of terrestrial extremophiles, including methanegenerating microbes in desert sub-soil [25] indicate that such organisms can thrive in arid sub-soil environments comparably harsh to the Martian environment. It has been proposed by Levin and Straat [26] and later by Miller et. al, [19] that both the persistence of methane in the Martian atmosphere and its required sink can be explained by the possible presence of methane-producing and methane-consuming microorganisms similar to those on Earth.

And probably based on the growth in the fields of data-mining/knowledge discovery/complexity analysis lately.

---

Most people will only believe something if it's on tv so the medium
is ideal in any case.

Not sure what your point is, but most people don't subscribe to science journals.

What I am speculating on is the most effective way of mass education. I'm not even sure that the appearance of craft in our skies would even 'phase' most people. Firstly I don't know of too many folks who stare at the sky for any length of time. If they do then they are possibly the ones that may encounter a contact of sorts.
What I'm trying to articulate is that scientific crumbs of 'new' information will pale in the light of true science, true mathematics, true meta-physics and....the one probably most difficult for the human race to digest, true history.
I just find it difficult to imagine the BBC broadcasting truthful documentaries on Tesla or the pyramids etc.
I should give them a chance however, miracles are possible.
They did get building 7 to' time travel' now didn't they?

What in the world does any of this have to do with this paper?