• You still have a chance to win a Celestron Telescope! Click here to learn more!

It's Still Not Aliens: 'Mars Bug' Claim Could Damage the Search for Life

Nov 21, 2019
2
0
10
This will result in taking a closer look at objects along the way to determine if there is photographic evidence to support the researcher's suggestion that insect life existed on Mars.
 
Nov 21, 2019
4
0
10
Another contra-argument is the extreme unlikelihood that complex creatures on another planet with a totally different evolutionary history would in any way resemble complex creatures on Earth.
 
Nov 21, 2019
2
0
10
This article talks like scientific consensus is the reality check of science. Experiment is the sole reality check of science. The article raises conformity above freedom of speech. The scientist may be wrong because the evidence is misinterpreted. However there is no cause for panic.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
TO SEE THE VIDEO LINKS BELOW, YOU MUST CLICK ON THE "VIEW ALL n COMMENTS" BUTTON! (DO SO AND YOU WILL BE VERY GLAD YOU DID.)

Professor Romoser is correct, and a great deal of evidence he himself has not even seen is forthcoming in a volume of the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series of books: http://www.prophecyhouse.com/#SASet
Superior images to those presented by Romoser have also already been made available (in a very obvious even if shaky cell cam recording) as well as a half-hour interview with someone who claimed to have been on Mars in the 1970s and 1980s. Here are the links:
  1. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3KA2MF8K2E&t=3828s
    (watch the last twenty-seven or so minutes of this, all the way to the very end)
  2. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ROWhPrRB_Y
NOT "just rocks," and anyone who says otherwise is a) a liar, b) too lazy to bother to watch the above videos, or c) a total idiot, or d) a combination of a, b, and c.
 
Nov 21, 2019
1
0
10
Another contra-argument is the extreme unlikelihood that complex creatures on another planet with a totally different evolutionary history would in any way resemble complex creatures on Earth.
Why is that extremely unlikely?

I would find it more likely than not, if said life was on Mars.
The closest planet to Earth's specifications in our solar system, and only one planetary hop from Earth.

Sure, if you're talking interstellar life, yeah, way different, but Earth and Mars share material.

Meteoritic material from Mars makes it's way to Earth, and vice versa.

Past mega impacts, have undoubtedly shared material between these two celestial bodies.
(Chicxulub impact would have been able to put a mountain into orbit, no doubt some Earth material made it to Mars, and that wasn't that long ago. Who knows what ancient impacts of the past were capable of.)


Besides, life on Earth evolved as it has, because of advantages over hundreds of millions of years. Over a long enough time span, wouldn't all creatures approach similar advantages, with a similar over-arching specification.

"In a Universe with gravity. On a planet with a central sun. Same base elements and periodic table. etc..."


You would really have to prove to me, that there is some magical difference between life on planets... When we only have one data set.

I'm not making a sweeping generalization. I'm making observations based on our only data set.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
No, Susan, they did NOT evolve, but were actually seeded as hybrids from Earth thousands of years ago by the Nephilim. This is covered in the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series. You should ask questions before jumping to errant conclusions. These creatures do in fact resemble life on Earth, though usually appear as obvious hybrids. However, once in a while, there are creatures of completely identical appearance to life on Earth. Google "Mars iguana" for example to see a fossilized (mud-caked and stoic) iguana standing on the surface of Mars; these images are available directly from NASA.
 
Nov 21, 2019
1
0
10
Reminds me of how Percival Lowell saw "canals" on Mars - and saw them better when seeing conditions were bad. Our minds fill in details when the details aren't present.

As for the possibility of insect life, insects do not get very big on Earth because their respiratory systems are inefficient. On Mars, with a much, much thinner atmosphere, and little, if any, available oxygen, they would have even more trouble surviving.
I think he is seeing clods of dirt and seeing in them what he wants to see.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
Reminds me of how Percival Lowell saw "canals" on Mars - and saw them better when seeing conditions were bad. Our minds fill in details when the details aren't present.

As for the possibility of insect life, insects do not get very big on Earth because their respiratory systems are inefficient. On Mars, with a much, much thinner atmosphere, and little, if any, available oxygen, they would have even more trouble surviving.
I think he is seeing clods of dirt and seeing in them what he wants to see.
Given that you have not bothered to watch the videos I shared (see my earlier post), in which creatures on Mars are completely evident, your opinion does not count for anything. Also, life on Mars is hybridized (i.e., was genetically altered), and creatures there, partially due to the lower gravity, can actually get gargantuan in size, including insects. Moreover, NASA has lied to the public about Mars' real atmosphere, which has considerably more oxygen than the agency admits, and this is covered in the related volume in the upcoming Solar Apocaypse series of books. Here's what I earlier posted (watch the videos before commenting further in ignorance):

Professor Romoser is correct, and a great deal of evidence he himself has not even seen is forthcoming in a volume of the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series of books: http://www.prophecyhouse.com/#SASet
Superior images to those presented by Romoser have also already been made available (in a very obvious even if shaky cell cam recording) as well as a half-hour interview with someone who claimed to have been on Mars in the 1970s and 1980s. Here are the links:

  1. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3KA2MF8K2E&t=3828s
    (watch the last twenty-seven or so minutes of this, all the way to the very end)

  2. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ROWhPrRB_Y
NOT "just rocks," and anyone who says otherwise is a) a liar, b) too lazy to bother to watch the above videos, or c) a total idiot, or d) a combination of a, b, and c.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
I suspect claims of life on Mars will continue for many years to come. Various claims of life on Mars, currently does not meet the same standard of scientific testing that Galileo used and applied to argue against the geocentric universe teachers. The observable and testable heliocentric solar system in astronomy - eventually falsified the geocentric teachers just like the spherical Earth observations falsified the flat earth teachers. The ability to test and falsify or show is true is the heart or foundation of the scientific method. Claims of life on Mars is still pending confirmation and verification.
 
Nov 21, 2019
4
0
10
This article talks like scientific consensus is the reality check of science. Experiment is the sole reality check of science. The article raises conformity above freedom of speech. The scientist may be wrong because the evidence is misinterpreted. However there is no cause for panic.
I agree that there is no reason to panic when the media play up stories with little scientific backing. They do that all the time because they are motivated by number of reads rather than rigid adherence to reality.

I disagree that controlled experiments are the only reality check of science. If that were the case, nearly all the sciences other than physics and chemistry would not be considered science. These other sciences must, by the nature of what they study, be observational sciences. There is no way you can experiment with the weather, climate, galaxies, paleozoic fauna, etc. And there can be moral issues with zoological experimentation.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
The scientific method requires the ability to test claims, e.g. show the claim or hypothesis is accurate and factual or false, otherwise the argument may never rise above a theory or a fact. If this methodology cannot be applied to life on Mars claims and is abandoned as it seems in some of the discussion here - there is no reason to consider the Earth is a sphere, it could be a flat disk and immovable with the Sun moving around the Earth. So far, the scientific method does not show life on Mars is there today, or even billions of years ago - *confirmed* like the tests and observations for the heliocentric solar system and round Earth.
 
Nov 21, 2019
4
0
10
The scientific method requires the ability to test claims, e.g. show the claim or hypothesis is accurate and factual or false, otherwise the argument may never rise above a theory or a fact. If this methodology cannot be applied to life on Mars claims and is abandoned as it seems in some of the discussion here - there is no reason to consider the Earth is a sphere, it could be a flat disk and immovable with the Sun moving around the Earth. So far, the scientific method does not show life on Mars is there today, or even billions of years ago - *confirmed* like the tests and observations for the heliocentric solar system and round Earth.
True, but my point was that the scientific method does not always require EXPERIMENTATION to test claims. For most science, observation must be sufficient. There is no controlled experiment that can prove that the Earth is a sphere. Nor is there any experiment that can prove that plate tectonics explains phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and continental drift. Evolution can be proven by selective breeding, but the age of trilobites can only be inferred through observation, stratigraphy, and radioactive dating.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
Susan, "There is no controlled experiment that can prove that the Earth is a sphere." We had the Flat Earth International Conference in Dallas TX this month (14-15th), these folks have much to say about the flat disk earth as the true shape. If we cannot show the Earth is a sphere, then the astronomical unit cannot be defined either because it uses spherical trigonometry in measuring the solar parallax and distance, just like other parallax measurements for the Moon, e.g. the lunar parallax determined by telescopes in the 1800s showing the distance to the Moon or how GoTo telescopes work on equatorial mounts and motors using the spherical Earth that spins (and the telescopes work). You said - "For most science, observation must be sufficient". From my thinking, life on Mars claims does not have the same standard of *observations* like heliocentric solar system astronomy or measuring the distance to the Moon. I do not place claims for life on Mars on the same footing as these other observations in astronomy. Someday astronauts may walk on Mars and confirm - or show life on Mars is not factual at all and never was there. Until those days, arguments for life on Mars remain very tentative based upon current observations published. This is my main point here.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
I suspect claims of life on Mars will continue for many years to come. Various claims of life on Mars, currently does not meet the same standard of scientific testing that Galileo used and applied to argue against the geocentric universe teachers. The observable and testable heliocentric solar system in astronomy - eventually falsified the geocentric teachers just like the spherical Earth observations falsified the flat earth teachers. The ability to test and falsify or show is true is the heart or foundation of the scientific method. Claims of life on Mars is still pending confirmation and verification.
You are offering your opinion without having bothered to look at available evidence, making your view worthless actually. Specifically, see the videos in the below message (which I earlier posted); these have very convincing photos of both fossils and current life on Mars, much better than the images Professor Romoser tried to use:

Professor Romoser is correct, and a great deal of evidence he himself has not even seen is forthcoming in a volume of the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series of books: http://www.prophecyhouse.com/#SASet
Superior images to those presented by Romoser have also already been made available (in a very obvious even if shaky cell cam recording) as well as a half-hour interview with someone who claimed to have been on Mars in the 1970s and 1980s. Here are the links:

  1. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3KA2MF8K2E&t=3828s
    (watch the last twenty-seven or so minutes of this, all the way to the very end)

  2. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ROWhPrRB_Y
NOT "just rocks," and anyone who says otherwise is a) a liar, b) too lazy to bother to watch the above videos, or c) a total idiot, or d) a combination of a, b, and c.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
NFPC, my views about life on Mars are based upon the science and observations that led to the overthrow of the geocentric firmament and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system as my standard for testing. The claims presented for life on Mars do not rise to that level of scientific verification. Galileo used his telescope in the early 1600s and documented 4 lights moving around Jupiter that shocked the geocentric teachers. Using my telescopes today - I can still see this very observable evidence, more than 400 years later so no, life on Mars claims does not have this history of repeated testing. I note this about a comment you made earlier concerning life on Mars - "No, Susan, they did NOT evolve, but were actually seeded as hybrids from Earth thousands of years ago by the Nephilim. This is covered in the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series." The teaching of the Nephilim I find common among the flat earth community teachers and very much depends upon the book of Enoch. In the book of Enoch, the Nephilim giants on earth are some 4,000 or 5,000 feet tall. Until your comments today, I was not aware that the Nephilim played a role in life on Mars teaching.
 
Nov 21, 2019
4
0
10
Susan, "There is no controlled experiment that can prove that the Earth is a sphere." We had the Flat Earth International Conference in Dallas TX this month (14-15th), these folks have much to say about the flat disk earth as the true shape. If we cannot show the Earth is a sphere, then the astronomical unit cannot be defined either because it uses spherical trigonometry in measuring the solar parallax and distance, just like other parallax measurements for the Moon, e.g. the lunar parallax determined by telescopes in the 1800s showing the distance to the Moon or how GoTo telescopes work on equatorial mounts and motors using the spherical Earth that spins (and the telescopes work). You said - "For most science, observation must be sufficient". From my thinking, life on Mars claims does not have the same standard of *observations* like heliocentric solar system astronomy or measuring the distance to the Moon. I do not place claims for life on Mars on the same footing as these other observations in astronomy. Someday astronauts may walk on Mars and confirm - or show life on Mars is not factual at all and never was there. Until those days, arguments for life on Mars remain very tentative based upon current observations published. This is my main point here.
Here's one cute experiment that could prove that the Earth is a sphere. Place phone calls to many different places on Earth at the same time. Ask the person who answers,"What time is it, and what season are you in?" The only way to explain the different times and seasons is if Earth is a sphere. But for Flat Earthers, there is no point in such a demo. Their minds are made up, and no experiment, demonstration, or anything else will convince them that you are right and they are wrong. They're best ignored.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
NFPC, my views about life on Mars are based upon the science and observations that led to the overthrow of the geocentric firmament and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system as my standard for testing. The claims presented for life on Mars do not rise to that level of scientific verification. Galileo used his telescope in the early 1600s and documented 4 lights moving around Jupiter that shocked the geocentric teachers. Using my telescopes today - I can still see this very observable evidence, more than 400 years later so no, life on Mars claims does not have this history of repeated testing. I note this about a comment you made earlier concerning life on Mars - "No, Susan, they did NOT evolve, but were actually seeded as hybrids from Earth thousands of years ago by the Nephilim. This is covered in the upcoming Solar Apocalypse series." The teaching of the Nephilim I find common among the flat earth community teachers and very much depends upon the book of Enoch. In the book of Enoch, the Nephilim giants on earth are some 4,000 or 5,000 feet tall. Until your comments today, I was not aware that the Nephilim played a role in life on Mars teaching.
You say "The claims presented for life on Mars do not rise to that level of scientific verification." Prior to the upcoming "Solar Apocalypse" series of books, you would be correct. However, that series will more than meet such levels of scientific verification, and in fact, nearly all its image-related findings will be independently verifiable at a level previously not possible as well. So, your views are going to be forced to change once that series is completed and released. But really, that should happen now from the images shared in the linked / referenced YouTube videos anyway. I take it you did not bother to watch those prior to writing the above?
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
NFPC, YouTube is no place to learn science and astronomy. I can see the Galilean moons and orbits today using my telescopes, the same moons that Galileo observed in early 1600s. There is no history of observation and verification like this for Mars life reports so until astronauts report definite yes/no - Mars life has no rigorous verification standard and no Nephilim on Mars or people visiting Mars in the 1970s or 1980s. I know viewing Mars like last year during the Mars opposition in July 2018 - I did not see Nephilim walking around but did see the dust storm :)
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
NFPC, YouTube is no place to learn science and astronomy. I can see the Galilean moons and orbits today using my telescopes, the same moons that Galileo observed in early 1600s. There is no history of observation and verification like this for Mars life reports so until astronauts report definite yes/no - Mars life has no rigorous verification standard and no Nephilim on Mars or people visiting Mars in the 1970s or 1980s. I know viewing Mars like last year during the Mars opposition in July 2018 - I did not see Nephilim walking around but did see the dust storm :)
No one said it was, but that does not mean good quality content or new information that is valid is lacking on YouTube. Your argument is poor and without thought, and does not respond at all to the content of the videos at the referenced links (i.e., the very unambiguous NASA photos of creatures and fossils on Mars). Also, you digress from the topic at hand in your response, which is incorrect. But that just shows you did not bother to watch the videos and felt free to offer your opinion without knowledge or information, which is a sign of arrogance on your part. I recommend you watch the videos, per the provided links, and then reconsider your views. As for a "rigorous verification standard," actually, that IS available, and is found throughout the upcoming "Solar Apocalypse" series of books, where everything presented is and will be independently verifiable, including the fossils and examples of present complex biological life on Mars.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
Okay NFPC, we can wait here on the series of books supporting these claims that *will be independently verifiable* about Mars life, fossils, and complex life on Mars reports. I have seen all types of claims about life on Mars over the years. Meteorite ALH84001 is an example from the Clinton Administration time, this was a NASA effort. Others, a dog weeing on a rock on Mars during Viking landers in the 1970s. The latest report that sparked all the discussion here, was bugs on Mars. The scientific content you offer for life on Mars features Nephilim on Mars seeding the planet and an individual who visited Mars during the 1970s or 1980s. I started a Mars telescope observation campaign on 06-Jan-18 through March 2019, tracking and observing Mars using my telescopes from 10x with binoculars to 216x using my 10-inch telescope. I observed Mars during the opposition of July 2018 and documented my observations in my log. I have much more confidence in my observations of Mars as factual and valid science than social media reports of life on Mars or YouTube reports.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
183
14
85
FYI, during the period I mention about observing Mars, I viewed 57x observing Mars through its retrograde motion and visible, changes in the telescope and constellation position changes near the ecliptic as well as the close conjunction with Neptune on 07-Dec-18 at 200x in Aquarius. Both planets visible in the eyepiece view. I stand on these telescope observations as verifiable and valid that I mention in the discussion.
 
Nov 21, 2019
7
0
10
Okay NFPC, we can wait here on the series of books supporting these claims that *will be independently verifiable* about Mars life, fossils, and complex life on Mars reports. I have seen all types of claims about life on Mars over the years. Meteorite ALH84001 is an example from the Clinton Administration time, this was a NASA effort. Others, a dog weeing on a rock on Mars during Viking landers in the 1970s. The latest report that sparked all the discussion here, was bugs on Mars. The scientific content you offer for life on Mars features Nephilim on Mars seeding the planet and an individual who visited Mars during the 1970s or 1980s. I started a Mars telescope observation campaign on 06-Jan-18 through March 2019, tracking and observing Mars using my telescopes from 10x with binoculars to 216x using my 10-inch telescope. I observed Mars during the opposition of July 2018 and documented my observations in my log. I have much more confidence in my observations of Mars as factual and valid science than social media reports of life on Mars or YouTube reports.
Man, what is going to take for you to actually view the linked YouTube videos, which are NOT reports, but show clear and unambiguous images of complex biological creatures and fossils on Mars taken by NASA rovers. You keep responding, but doing so without having bothered to take the time to view the noted images. Your "confidence" in your own observations is simply misplaced and unfounded, being based upon an actual lack of information and facts. Check out the two videos. Also, the upcoming "Solar Apocalypse" series reveals multiple individuals who were on Mars, not just one, some of whom were there together in the 1980s, and provides independently-verifiable evidence of the same.
 
Nov 21, 2019
2
0
10
I agree that there is no reason to panic when the media play up stories with little scientific backing. They do that all the time because they are motivated by number of reads rather than rigid adherence to reality.

I disagree that controlled experiments are the only reality check of science. If that were the case, nearly all the sciences other than physics and chemistry would not be considered science. These other sciences must, by the nature of what they study, be observational sciences. There is no way you can experiment with the weather, climate, galaxies, paleozoic fauna, etc. And there can be moral issues with zoological experimentation.
I never used the term controlled experiments. It would not be wise to repeat the asteroid collision with the earth that killed the dinosaurs. However many observational experiments proved the result. Once again experiment is the sole reality check of science.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts