Nasa Chief Says "Life most likely once existed on Mars, and may have life now

[Lunica]

He actually says, Mars is the most likely planet live once existed.

And may have life now....

I think this is a pretty remarkable statement?

[ArMaP]

I don't think so.

[rdunk]

I don't think so.

I know so! The NASA photos absolutely reveal his statements of the possibility as fact, in spite of the chorus of debunking!! ........................... And this kind of statement from NASA management is likely simply laying the groundwork for future public news announcements in this regard.

For instance: The Mars ET!


                                                               

[Sinny]

Well, considering they supposedly found microbes on Mars 40 years ago, I'm not surprised... Although I get a sense of some of public disclosure happening - shlowwwwlyyy.

Rdunk, if anything your looking at a statue - there's been quite a few recently, I keep meaning to send them to you.

[rdunk]

Well, considering they supposedly found microbes on Mars 40 years ago, I'm not surprised... Although I get a sense of some of public disclosure happening - shlowwwwlyyy.

Rdunk, if anything your looking at a statue - there's been quite a few recently, I keep meaning to send them to you.

Yes Sinny, "still photos" always present a statue look for sure. I will look forward to seeing those statues you mention. The Mars "Ancient Egyptian" looking statue is pretty remarkable, as is the damaged "bird face" statue I have posted here in the past. All across Mars, there is so much photo evidence of life, it is pretty astounding that there hasn't already been a public announcement/release of Mars Life evidence .

[Wrabbit2000]

Well now, isn't this just odd as a turnaround in NASA's attitude over time? You know what I really find interesting though? When dramatic evolution comes in science or officially held opinions? There is usually a fairly clear path to explain that evolution of thinking.

What happened here from the last time NASA was really firm about 0 proof and 0 evidence yet found to suggest otherwise .... to today, when this isn't the only statement made that all but allows for it as an accepted but as yet unproven fact?

Let's see... We've had rovers at ground level...but wait.. We've had satellites in an atmosphere MUCH clearer than Earth's, with photographic power as good or better than our spy satellites. So...what precisely have the rovers SEEN which wasn't clearly visible to high resolution (probably a lot higher than we've seen, and protected for Earth based uses of the technology, if nothing else)? These rovers haven't had science to address the life question, have they? They don't have the equipment on-board which has that focus...do they?

So.... If we can't find missions with important milestones for that thinking to evolve, and the rovers haven't (that we know of) come across so much as a fossilized bird turd from old times....why the turn around? "Change" is a pretty BIG word in real science and where these guys live. So...what gives?

Just how much do THEY see in forming these new opinions..which we obviously do not?