I ma not sure that I really have a "special interest."  I may not be properly Aspergian in this respect.  My interests tend to be somewhat fluid, more like a Neuro-typical in this respect.  

One of my consistent themes is the idea of a cover-up.  I was fascinated by movies alleging cover-ups, such as "JFK" by Oliver Stone.  I also avidly listen to Dave Emory.  I think that cover-ups are a special interest that has been sustained throughout my life.  This may come closest to the "obsession" that I am supposed to feel if I conformed to any stereotype of an Aspie.

I have not really shared that interest here, for a number of reasons.  One of them is that these things get in to dark areas, areas that I would prefer to avoid.  Yet, one cover-up theory still piques my interest, even as my interest in conspiracies is slowly atrophying.  That is the possibility that there may be a NASA cover-up of life on Mars.

Now, to begin, I am no fan of violence.  However, I am glad that Buzz Aldrin did not take Bart Sibrel's nonsense lying down (I do not advocate punching, of course).  We landed on the moon, so don't give me any theories on that.  In fact, if NASA were engaged in a cover-up, the first thing they would do would be to hire someone like Bart Sibrel to create disinformation.  The same could be said for many UFO researchers, that they actually create disinformation around mind control experiments, making human manipulations look like they are alien in nature.  I doubt that real aliens look like the ones we see in popular UFO literature!

Yet, could an actual alien cover-up may exist, one dealing with microbial life on Mars?  Is THIS the reason that the Feds are so keen on reigning in people like Gary McKinnon?  Could there be a kernel of truth behind a lot of the UFO nonsense, a more mundane truth?  This sounds outlandish, until one remembers the Mars meteorite and how it simply disappeared from the news.

There are websites on this subject, some good and some nonsense.  Some are at the fringes, but some make sense.  As for motive, remember that NASA wants to colonize Mars.  The existence of life would make this colonization process complicated under international treaties.  There is a motive for a cover-up.  Even the past existence of life might suggest life still existing.


In any case, the Sabbath is almost here so I'd better go.  Feel free to discuss, and be brutally honest if you find the idea ridiculous.  I might at some point myself...

Almost certainly life (microbial) exists on Mars. The presence of methane and other processes seems to confirm this. However the necessary equipment for proper investigation has never been sent and that requires humans.

I have always enjoyed the theory that meteorites from Mars broght bacterial life to earth. Have a good Sabbath

The "coverup" crowd actually claims that this knowledge is now a given fact, but that NASA has covered it up at the highest levels.  They point to certain mysterious pictures on Mars.  Some are simply rocks made in to stupid theories about "bigfoot on Mars"

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001305/

(Actual NASA picture, mind you, but a rock in the opinion of most sensible people)

Yet, other pictures are more mysterious.  Although the sources may be questionable, the actual pictures are actual NASA photographs:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4480097/

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16978
(Richard Hoagland...hard to say, but I believe that the pictures are real even if his interpretations are, well...)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/colors2.htm
(more Hoagland)

http://www.david-sadler.org/archiveFP/FP200406.htm
(maybe)

The one intriguing notion that some people have is that NASA is covering up for a common assumption made by Creationists and Neo-Darwinists alike, that life on other worlds would be substantially different than life on Earth.  I thought this way once.  However, the Mars meteor from Antarctica seems to show bacteria similar to nanobacteria on Earth.  Life, far from originating by chance, seems to be a property of the Universe itself.  

If you believe in Intelligent Design as I do, then would this not suggest a cosmic template for life?  Of course life is diverse, but a cosmic template would provide the order in which diversity can flourish!  For Neo-Darwinians and extreme Fundamentalists of any religion, life on other planets following a similar template to life on Earth may be harder to digest...For me, it suggests cosmic unity.

Now, as for "ancient civilizations" or bigfoot, again, such ideas only discredit honest research, in my opinion, however much fun they may be.  They may even be a deliberate pollution of the waters, just as we find in JFK or Contra/crack research.

Of more interest is Jupiters moons, some of which have confirmed presence of liquid water under ice. However investigating them is a bit beyond current tech, but not impossible. There is a team devoted to figuring out a way to tackle the problem.

Mars if it ever had complex life, certainly wouldn't have any now. Basically the surface is sterile. However the presence of water including recent flows (which quickly evaporates) is well documented now. And that means the possibility exists of say, some sort of bacteria existing. There are archaic bacteria found in rocks at almost all depths in earth that bear an uncanny resemblence to the martian meteorite ones.

I seen the pics of the so called "alien artifacts" to me they look just like rocks much like one can imagine shapes in rocks as one does on earth. Just wishful thinking.

Yes, it may well be that Encaledus has more of a chance than Mars.

And yes, I am skeptical that there would ever have been anything more complex than bacteria or protista on Mars.  Whether it exists now or not is another question.  If there be liquid water, the possibility exists that life could exist on Mars.

I agree, however, that Encaledus or Titan may be more logical possibilities.

Water is not a necessity for life though. Not every living creature uses the oxydative phosphorylation (it's thanks to that we have ethanol (commonly called alcohol)). And again, for there to be life, a stable molecule is needed, for us, on earth, it was RNA which was later replaced by DNA, on which you can build a whole system. Ours may not be the only possibility. Basicly, what I'm saying is, there is no way to know until we get there.

Then there is another entire class of molecules called triplex aka triple stranded DNA. It is also more stable than DNA. That is also a possibility for life although life based on that would be very strange to us. It is artificial to us on earth though. However the same rules are followed.

Other organisms can use a different metabolic system than here. The question is what is the definition of life? Self replicating? Use a source of energy? Well we do that in the lab with nanotech and that cannot be alive. But acts as if it is.

I can't find the official definition but I know I have it somewhere. There are 7 criteria that must be met to be called alive. I'll try to find them.

There you go:

Order
Adaptative evolution
Reactions to environmental stimuli.
Homeostasis
Use of energy
Growth and development
Reproduction

If need be I'll provide a description of each of them.

I'm afraid I don't have much patience with the ideas of "cover-ups", generally because I don't have much faith in the ability of governments to keep anything secret in the first place!  However, I do think there may be other forms of life in the universe: it's such a big place.  But it's also so extremely hostile that I believe life would only exist in tiny "oases" of planets, as it were, that can support it, and will be so far apart from each other that I don't expect to find advanced alien civilizations for millenia yet.  
To sum up my view: I think the universe teems with life.  But each galaxy is life-poor.
Alison

A lot of good points here.  Organic life on Earth DOES seem to need water.  It is also carbon based.  Silicon based life, and other possibilities, are theoretical at this point.

Even the Mars meteor, if we take it as having actual microfossils, suggests water- based life.  (I am not sure about the carbon part, but I think that it probably does).  As for our definition of life, that is tricky.  It is very tricky.  Do we really know that all life reproduces?  What about a life form that could arise from a bed of some kind, and instead of reproducing, RE-introducing genetic material back to its bed?  It could function as an independent organism in all respects, except in reproduction.  Just a thought...

As for the galaxy being life poor, we do not know this.  If water is fairly common, and ethanol not unheard of, then we really cannot know how rich or poor our galaxy is.  We are discovering liquid water everywhere.  

As for government coverups, Alison, I would rethink your position.  The State has vast resources at its disposal.  What you consider government inefficiency is only the case on one level.  At levels above the bureaucracy you see, where private and public power interface, the story is very, very different.  But, to be sure, I do not have enough proof on this particular conspiracy notion to make a declarative truth claim that I would stand behind.  Other ones are more of a sure bet with me.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by that. Are you saying it would be immortal?

Anyway, the definition of what is alive isn't based on anything. Someone somewhere decided what he wanted to put in the "alive" bin and came up with things they had in common.

No.  I am suggesting that the organism might be part of a larger reproductive colony.  Perhaps that colony can reproduce, or perhaps not.  Or, perhaps the whole thing is conjecture.  I am merely saying that life=reproduction may be a simplistic formula.

reproduction includes: normal reproduction, auto-reproduction, cellular division, morphogenesis, etc. Even viruses's way of multiplying is considered reproduction.