This article has reminded me of some earlier pictures I saw of 'Martian trees' and other patterns that looked like life on the surface. Has there been any follow up on those? Shouldn't Mars Express be looking at those places and trying to detect methane? if I can find the link I'll post it here, pretty cool stuff.

Yea here's one. Notice the shadows cast by these objects. They would have to be above the ground and not depressions.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/science1/mars-trees/pics/forestmh.jpg

Ok here's another that is close up.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=v_mars_banyon_02.jpg&cap=Odd%20looking%20structures%20on%20Mars%20look%20like%20Banyan%20trees%20explains%20noted%20writer,%20Arthur%20Clarke.

This link features the Dark Dune Spots (DDS) that some claim could be life. Notice that the spots seem to avoid direct light on the tops of dunes. If these were some kind of lichen feild then their spores would be spread eveywhere, but perhaps we see them more in the shadows because they can't stand the harsher UV. Think of ferns, if aliens saw ferns on Earth they would think they didnt like sunlight, and they do, just not tons of it. this image is from the south polar region. If this were life, then it makes sense for it to be there. The poles would naturally get less UV than the equator and there is more water vapor present there at least seasonally.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_06Mars211_02.jpg&cap=A%20picture%20from%20a%20latest%20MOC%20image%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20third%20winter%20(Ls=174°),%20on%20the%20dune%20hill%20of%20a%2020%20km%20diameter%20phantom%20crater.%20It%20shows%20very%20clearly%20that%20dark%20dune%20spots%20(DDS)%20DO%20NOT%20first%20appear%20on%20ridges%20most%20exposed%20to%20sunlight.

I can imagine how NASA will poo-poo this latest evidence of present day life on Mars. No excitement, no breathtakingly inspiring statements, nothing approaching the actual ramifications. Just a "Ho-Hum". I wonder what it would take for them to give this paradigm blowing evidence its props, let alone the evidence for previous intelligent habitation!

Even a microscopic Martian WHO from Martian WHO-VILLE holding up tiny little sign stating "We're here, we're here" won't suffice.

NASA: "We need 12 more probes sent to Mars to confirm the sign exists, and then we'll have to send an aditional 12 probes to confirm that the message exists, and then another 12 to confirm that the Martian "WHO" exists, and then by 2035 we'll send humans to Mars to confirm all previous confirmation. Our final conclusions whether there is life on Mars will be reached tentatively by 2075, after 12 human missions" (and more tax payer money in NASA and associates pockets).

NASA needs to be honest! There is evidence for present day life on Mars that goes all the way back to the Viking probe in 1976 a la the Labeled Release experiment of Dr. Gilbert V. Levin.

http://www.biospherics.com/Mars/index.html

Mike Moore claims to have a Mars rock with little "glassies" growing out of it! The "Mars Revealer" interviewed him last year and it was facinating. Nobody at NASA will even consider touching Moore's rock with a ten foot pole!

http://www.marslife.com/compareglassies.htm

Marnews.com featured an article about Moore recently:

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2004/04/06/headline_news/news02.txt

Hmm, Moore's rock may very well be from Mars but I personally doubt it. As for the dozen or so seperate lifeforms in the rock, all I can say is, if there were that many different critters in one rock then why arent we seeing some of them in Spirit and Opportunity's images? Perhaps the rock was originally from Mars and then became saturated with Earth life. Gilbert Levin is another story. I do believe that his experiment did find microbial life. Levin is suffering from a static view of Mars in that NASA is still making assumptions based on ideas like:

1)Liquid water can not exist on Mars today.
2)The amount of UV radiation Mars recieves makes life impossible.

Well we now know that:

1)Liquid water can and does likely exist on the surface of Mars wherever it is salty enough. And the possibility of underground liquid water has been made stronger with evidence of 'recent' volcanic activity and the detection of Methane in the atmoshpere.
2)If life had evolved on Mars billions of years ago, wouldnt some species be able to protect themselves from UV like some Earth organisms or maybe even use it as an energy source?

I like to think of scientific pursuits as falling somewhere on a 1-10 scale. 1 being careful not to jump to conclusions, and following a vigourous application of the scientific method. But also being blind to obvious facts and unyeilding to new possibilities.
A 10 on the other hand is the pure dreamer. Someone with grand visions floating on little or no proof.
The middle ground is where everyone should be but NASA tends to get a 3 in my book. Mike Moore would get a 7 or 8.

Well, Wadda ya know. Mike Moore's rock merits a 7 or 8?

Where's the science there?

The scientific method can only add to knowledge if and when it is actually used.

Moore's rock is being ignored because of scientific prejudice and paradigm blindness. Dr. Gilbert V. Levin's experimental results have been ignored for decades for the same reason.

Presently it's thought that Moore's rock does not have Mars life growing on it. So what. The scientific method requires CURIOUSITY. We don't know the probability that his rock has Mars life on it.

We should neither be jumping to conclusions nor ignoring evidence. To get to the truth of the matter requires tests to verify or falsify Moore's claims. This is what he has been trying to get scientists to do for the past seven years. This is all that is required.

Where are the scientists that are skeptical but willing to say "But what if it is true? Let's find out based on tests and experiments". They're certainly not at NASA.

Because a thing SEEMS unlikely doesn't make it not true.

Oceans on Mars SEEMED unlikely until we recently probed it to get evidence of oceans. Scientists did the due dilgence to get the data and evaluate it to come to such a conclusion. This is what I am saying .This is all that is required.

Ok Eric, say we protest and we get the Frass Meteorite examined. Who would we take it to? Surely not NASA, it seems that any decision by NASA would be ignored by a decent amount of the population if it didn't suite their personal desires. NASA took more photos of the famous 'face on Mars' and there are just as many people who claim they are lying. NASA's job isn't speculation. The part they play in any scientific inquiry is raw data collection. The rovers didnt radio back to earth 'hey, there used to be oceans here', scientists examined the evidence and a concensus was reached. The reason so many people are upset about Hubble not being serviced anymore is because the concensus seems to be that Hubble should be serviced and yet one man has made the decision. Should NASA examine Moore's rock, in a perfect world the answer would be yes. But how many people have made requests of NASA at the same time, they can only do so much, and this we have to keep in mind. Perhaps i will look over Moore's evidence again. I recall that last time i looked at his site i couldnt find much of anything proving it was from mars in the first place.

Great photo's, worth thousands of words. Some are as if taken from some of the worst areas on Earth such as near deserts and other extreme places.

The questions of life or that there is none should not take more than two more probes but yes all the great shot's by the rovers have kind of spoiled things for what men would have said that they were the first to see.

Question for those in the know, where are these photos in relationship to the rovers and could they get there if everything went well with either of them.

I would say to NASA, prove that any of these is not what others would think that they are(signs of Life).

Harold, I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, neither rover would be able to reach either of these locations as they are hundreds of miles away. Spirit & Opportunity will rack up about 3 miles each from January to September. The good news is the if the next rover is big a step forward over these two as they are to Pathfinder, then the chance is there. Hopefully NASA will choose a site not too far from the south pole and drive towards it. Not only would we learn a great deal about a wetter mars, we would also be examining better preserved geology since a lot of these rocks would spend more or all of their time protected in the ice from wind and dust erosion. From a publicity stand point, I think the transforming terran over time from dry and red to wet and white would hold the publics intrest more. NASA's mantra is 'follow the water' after all. Public support should increase too as most people only think of Mars as a dry desert. The mobile lab could rather easily scoop up ice, melt it, and take microscopic pictures of whats in the water. Intresting things should stand out better when you dont have all that dirt to look through.

Zach, Thirst question: Do you think NASA will drop a new rover in an area where liquid water by very small chance could excist (like near the poles or active volcanos). It would be kind of stupid if the next rover would drop in a very salty lake.
Second question: Do you think that NASA might try to avoid areas where life by very small chance could be present (like near the "banana trees").

Either way I think NASA is doing a great job. Anyone who disagrees: Why don't you get you own rover up there and do it your way.

It amazes me that there is such a lack of perspicacity about life in this universe even among learned scientist. There is more life out in the universe than there are hydrogen atoms in the oceans of this world.

Prozac, the chances that NASA would drop a rover into a salty lake are slim to none. Orbital photos are taken of a predetermined landing site before a site is choosen. Unfortunately, I believe we have to consider at least the possibility of 'hidden' marsh-like spots where the surface is rather like quicksand. Local dust could make a flat area deceptively safe looking.

As for the 'trees' I believe that NASA is engaged in primarily a geology quest at this point. Under NASA's new approach all missions should focus on understanding Mars' variety of surface conditions. This is the essential to NASA's directive to make all missions human oriented. I believe that NASA has already taken the position that the 'trees' are just intresting geological patterns so a mission in this area wouldn't be a risk to native life.

As for how NASA is doing, I agree that the successes have been more than worth the losses. NASA should have a budget worthy of their goals, and they don't. Making the situation worse is that NASA suffers from the same over-charging from government contractors that all agencies do. The rockets NASA has to use are expensive and rockets being a huge cost of sending probes means that NASA is sending fewer probes for the buck.

John, I know how frustrating that can be, but don't forget it's natural. Teenagers face a lot of turmoil over conflicting desires to both be an adult and stay a child. Right now the world is like a child that doesn't want to look beyond it's own backyard. As long as we don't look up, we are the kings of our little world. Once the overall desire becomes a hunger to deal with superiors and be considered among them, only then will we be reaching maturity as a species.

Thanks for your answers Zach.

More missions to Mars, manned missions to have more control over the landing, have more intelligence and speed during research. Start a hunt there for ice or water so next missions can be cheaper.
Men at Mars at 2009, a biospere at 2014 and a colony at 2021. Then we need so many spacecrafts (and rockets) that they will be as cheap as T-Fords.
So first we have to begin to act as adolecents and spend as much money of our parents as we can .

Exactly Prozac, NASA needs to begin testing equipment that uses local resources. I had always hoped that the next rover (the mobile science lab) would contain equipment to extract martion ice, seperate it into oxygen and hydrogen, and then use it to power a sample return. If NASA is going to put as much money and equipment into this rover as they have planned, why not go ahead and test this vital tech? It makes no sense to me to seperate the science lab from a sample return mission or to use only one rocket in a sample return mission. If they would use local resources then they could launch 6 samples and greatly improve their chances for success.

It is out of the question to accept any dangers of getting whatever might be dangerous to Earth from Mars to our planet. Remember: so far it seems that Mars once was hospitable to life as we know it, but know for some reason it is not.
Is there a way to make absolutely sure that noting "realy bad" hitch hikes back to Earth?

For example take the Viking Labeled Release Life Detection Experiment (more about this at: http://www.biospherics.com/Mars/PosterSlidesonMarsforWeb_files/frame.htm). They did a test that "proved" life on Mars. Dispite of this test nobody is sure there realy is life up there.

Can the difficulties that we have accepting signs of life at Mars lead to careless actions and risky sample return missions?

Prozac (like the name), I was unable to open your link but I know you are referring to Gilbert Levin's experiment package for the Viking Landers. I agree that precautions should be taken, but the risks of some martian organism 'conquering' earth have been severly overstated to be kind. We know of no case when an organism has found itself in a different environment and replaced life that has evolved to best suit that environment.

But lets take it seriously for a minute. What areas of Earth would prove most Mars-like and therefore make a descent home for martian life? I can think of high-altitude mountain tops, the air is thinner, there is less water vapor, and more UV radiation (like Mars). However, life is very scarce in these conditions for a reason, it is hostile. And this is the most 'mars-friendly' environment we have. Imagine how hostile sea level is to a martian bug. In cases where we have found life living in very extreme conditions (ocean floor, acidic hotsprings, high altitudes) and have removed them from their homes and placed them in more 'friendly' environments like the room you are in now, they have all died because to them, our environment is hostile to the extreme.

Also, there is the matter of cross-contamination already taking place both past and present. Long before Goddard built his first rocket there were rocks falling to earth that originated from Mars and vice versa. Now if there was a martian bug that could take over at least small portions of Earth, then it would have already happened (and maybe it has, we might very well find our ancestry still living on Mars today).

However I agree that we must not be careless and bring our own life to Mars just yet. More material has been transferred in Mars-to-Earth incidents than Earth-to-Mars because we are closer to the Sun and have more gravity. About 10 rocks from Mars fall to Earth for every 1 Earth rock that makes it Mars.

In a sane world where NASA gets more money than a military not defending our country (Iraq? Who gives a damn...) it would be ideal to bring samples back to the ISS for examination and not risk contaminating Earth.

Harold, Prozac, Emil, John and Eric, what we can do is try and get people intrested in Mars and in our space program. All of us have younger family members so we need to try and inspire them to support space exploration and science in general. It is in our nature to like fighting and war, but we are not helpless to it. We have brains to reason and think with and we must use them to better our world. We must not blindly 'support our troops' when they participate in murder of innocent people. We must not 'stand united' behind leaders who's main intrest is money. Let us united behind a cause worthy of all the men and women who died to bring us to the point we are now. Let's stop looking down on our fellow man and look up to the universe that awaits us if we are brave and humble enough to rise to the challenge.

Yes. Now the link must work:

http://www.biospherics.com/Mars/PosterSlidesonMarsforWeb_files/frame.htm

Since we are talking about another planet, we must be prepared for anything and not just Earth related life or life that acts like the life on Earth. I don't think any chances can be taken during sample return missions.

As for Iraq: Free Sadam if they keep behaving like barbarians and let them live their sorry lives with this teethles dictator. And yes, more money available to space missions.

I agree with Zach that we have to interest other people for space missions, with our own enthousiasm and by collecting data from the universe that will interest everybody for this massive space that holds all the answers to all of our questions.

Prozac, thanks for the new link....very intresting stuff here. I suggest everyone check it out.