I have to admit though, that my very first reaction to the pictures of the Martian spherules was 'Wow! those look biological!", but I took this as evidence of my lack of experience in geology. I’d dearly love for these objects to be fossils (or better still, actual living organisms), but I refuse to go all SeeThruArt about it.
Quoth Mangetout:
More than just appropriate food, you’d want to provide the little beasties with all-around the best environment you could for them. Give them the temperatures they want, and the atmosphere, and the light-dark cycle, and everything else. Except that the ideal environment for currently-living Martian critters would presumably be rather similar to present-day Mars. So skip the Petri dish; you’ll learn just as much just by looking directly at the Martian rocks.
And not only would we not expect to see echinoderms on Mars (possibly something filling a similar ecological niche, which might have similar structure due to convergent evolution), but those quotes are waffling back and forth between echinoderm and arthropod. If you can say with equal confidence that something is an echinoderm and an arthropod, then probably it’s neither.
(perhaps one of you with special expertise out there) to analyize the available JPL pictures and data, to conclude ANYTHING with regard to the presence of life on Mars (ancient or living)? What sort of observations might help in making this determination. It’s not that I don’t trust Nasa to tell us, but like Reagan once said it is good to “trust but verify”. After all there was a Brookings Institution study years ago which concluded that our society “basically couldn’t handle” life on other worlds being proven. However, as Art Bell often says on his program about SETI (he often interviews Seth Shostak and Michael Kaku who believe in life on other worlds as a strong possibility) “if there IS intelligent life out there why can’t you find some evidence of it?” Basically, Art Bell is simply restating Fermi’s famous line of “where are they?” with a SETI spin.
I think everyone above has done a good job rebutting the claims of Sir Charles Shults. I don’t have much more to add, than he may be right, but likely he isn’t. After all, the purely geological processes thought to give rise to the “blueberries” are what make so many scientists confident that the area Opportunity surveyed was once wet. A biological explanation isn’t necessary. Heck, I saw very similar little beads in volcanic rock near a beach in New Zealand not too long ago. Geologists are so excited because they’ve seen these very kinds of things on earth, and know inside and out how they formed. Life isn’t directly part of the equation.
If I were Sir Charles, I’d be a bit more excited about the recent confirmation by the Mars Express orbiter of methane in the Martian atomosphere. There are, so far as anyone knows, only two ways to explain the presence of this methane on Mars: Active volcanism, or active microbes. No fooling. Everything we know about geology leaves only those two possibilities. I can’t understand why people aren’t more excited by this. I mean, if there’s some kind of geological/geothermal activity detectable above the surface of the planet, that means there’s plenty enough energy around in places for life to survive quite easily. And if Mars is geologically dead, then life is the only known explanation! Either way, this confirmation, coupled with the observations made by the Mars rovers, makes the possibility of life on Mars, today, truly real. Here’s something perhaps just as exciting: The rock “Bounce” looks nearly identical to some rocks found in…Antarctica! These rocks harvested from the Antarctic ice have been thought for years to be ejecta from Mars. We may now have direct confirmation of that hypothesis. Add this to some recent data that confirms that bacterial spores can survive the harsh conditions of space if they are encapsulated in stone, and the possibilities become downright amazing.
We already know some bacteria on earth live quite happily inside of rock. We know we could throw a chunk of this rock into space and, despite the vacuum, cold, and radiation, viable spores can persist perhaps indefinitely. It seems amost certain that rock from Mars made it to Earth. Nothing says the opposite couldn’t have happened (though the gravity well of the Sun makes the Earth-to-Mars trip more of a challenge). Back, around the time life first arose (the latest confirmed estimates), the Earth and Mars experienced relatively heavy meteorite bombardment, so lots of rocks were being thrown around. Is it a coincidence that life arose on Earth during this epoch? Could some of this life have survived an interplanitary catapult from Earth? Stranger still, could the opposite have occurred? Wild!
There’s methane on Mars, enough that we can be pretty sure of what its source(s) must be. Sir Charles may be a crackpot, but life on Mars isn’t a crackpot idea any longer.
expressed concern about a future Mars mission supposedly planned within the next (five?) years. He said that NASA is planning on taking samples and RETURNING them to Earth. His concern is that IF there IS any bacterial or viral life on Mars that it may find the Earth to be a very good place to live. He said that we can’t even stop athletes foot fungus, how would we stop an organism that could survive the conditions on Mars (cosmic radiation, cold, low oxygen ect). However, I had one BIG problem with his observation. HOW could NASA be planning on RETURNING a sample to Earth? Do we even have the technology for something to Escape Mar’s atmosphere after landing there? It was all we could do to LAND safely and then get Spirit and Opportunity working properly. I’m not aware of any program that involves the technology to then take off, and RETURN to Earth. This comment brought his entire argument into question with me.
Dude. It’s Art Bell!!
Possibly, but maybe not; it isn’t at all impossible that the putative Martian bugs would respond positively to conditions of abundant resource.
Absolutely! - the guy is just parading his ignorance and naiveté.
If they returned anything living to Earth, it would most likely be quarantined in orbit or on a lunar base(yeah, right).
As far as the technology is concerned, yes, it would be possible to return some samples; it could be done with a lander that carries a small(ish) capsule which has only enough power to ascend to a low orbit, where it would rendevous with a larger vehicle capable of return to Earth. Making the system sufficiently autonomous is probably the biggest technical hurdle.
planned. Therefore, if this is not the case (in other words there are no published NASA missions to bring a sample back to Earth) it throws his entire credibility into question! I checked the JPL site and Space.com and could find no reference to a mission of this nature. Then again I don’t have Sir Charles top security clearance from doing secret governmental work no doubt in conjunction with the infamous Bob Lazar on UFO’s (okay that last comment may have been uncalled for). If this guy is a FRAUD (rather than just being wrong) then I really am pissed. It’s fine with me that Art Bell does “fringe” subjects (in fact I LIKE listening to these types of shows) however, that doesn’t mean he can’t do basic DUE DILIGENCE to ensure that someone is who they say they are.
Our own The Bad Astronomer has often appeared on Coast to Coast AM to debunk the normal run of guests. You should check out his impressive website.
The simple fact is that the program is pure entertainment. Neither Bell nor Noory are going to make any effort at all to check out the guests, because the loonier they are the better it is for ratings.
A few debunkers are invited on because the arguments also make for good entertainment. But the default assumption is that anyone who is not a debunker, i.e. anyone who makes a claim on the show, is loony until proven otherwise. And none of them have ever been proven otherwise.*
Sir Charles may be a fraud. He may just be deluded. He may be too old to do good science. He may be missing the limelight and needing a shot of attention. But what he may not be is right.
*There may be an exception to this rule, but you’ll have to provide tons of evidence.