Talk:2462: NASA Award

Possibly a reference to this? (I'm sure there are other examples, though.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(Mars) 172.70.34.100 04:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

More likely it's this recent nonsense: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a36356445/mushrooms-on-mars-nasa-photos-life-on-mars/ 162.158.187.229 05:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, while many of us are still holding out for visible space fauna, practically every test we've constructed to check for the biochemical signs of life has returned positive results. Even as far back as the Viking landers, we've been sending out probes & conducting tests, designed to detect trace compositions only known to form via biological processes, & over & over we find those traces right where one would expect. From otherwise inexplicably high methane production, to complex sugars forming around a distant star, it often appears that the universe may be teeming with life, & we simply haven't collected it somewhere so observable as a petri dish, yet. As near as I can tell, the only reason we haven't declared "extraterrestrial life confirmed" is because we keep raising the bar for proving it. At this rate, I feel like we could discover martian sunflowers & honeybees, & somehow there would still be some question of "Yeah, but are they really truly technically & inarguably alive, exactly? What is life, anyway?" ... So far, I'm not aware of many chemical tests performed to check for signs of life in space which didn't detect signs of life? ProphetZarquon (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)