Alien Intrusion Page 11

  The Red Planet — the best hope for ET life

  Now we shall look at the evidence for life in our own solar system — a bit closer to home. In the early days of the UFO “explosion” (1950s–1970s), speculation was rife that aliens were visiting us from planets within our own solar system. For example, famous “contactees” such as George Adamski, Frank Stranges, and Howard Mengler stated that ETs lived on planets such as Venus and Jupiter. Police patrolman and alleged abductee Herbert Schirmer claimed that his visitors, although from another galaxy, had bases on most of the local planets.

  But Mars has always held a special fascination, and with continued interest in water on the surface, Mars has become a “hot prospect” for extraterrestrial life once again. Recent reports suggest that huge volumes of water exist just below the Martian surface. NASA’s Odyssey instruments had been trained on the Martian surface for nearly a year before Bill Friedman, one of the project’s scientists, declared:

  In fact, there’s enough water to cover the entire planet to a depth of at least five inches [12 cm], and we’ve only analyzed the top few feet of soil.[27]

  Mars

  Many others believe that further discoveries will reveal even greater quantities of water, a cause for celebration because, supposedly, “where there is water there will be life.” One of Australia’s most prominent scientists, Professor Paul Davies, exclaimed:

  I believe not only that Mars has harboured life, but it may actually be the cradle of life… . We don’t know where life began, but a kilometre or two below the surface of Mars seems a good place.[28]

  Water would explain many of the seemingly water-made geological formations seen on the surface. A Martian exploration craft called Beagle 2 (named after the ship that took naturalist Charles Darwin around the world), and two NASA vehicles (Spirit and Opportunity) were sent to Mars to examine the soil, looking for water and also any signs of life, past or present.

  Sadly, and after much hype, the European Space Agency’s Beagle 2 went AWOL[29] on Mars and remains “lost in space.”

  However, after several weeks of transmissions from their Martian rovers, on March 2, 2004, NASA scientists announced that at least one part of Mars appeared to have a persistently wet environment that may have been hospitable to life.[30] But any basic understanding of chemistry will tell you that life does not spontaneously arise just because of the presence of water.

  There is more to the Mars life hypothesis than a simple obsession with water. Billion-dollar budgets in the name of science have a religious significance — they offer the answer to the question of origins, and thus, something about the meaning and purpose of life.

  A real visitor from outer space?

  Belief that life existed, or still exists, on Mars was seemingly vindicated some years before the most recent landings, courtesy of NASA’s “Martian Rock,” alluded to in chapter 1. To date, it is the “greatest” single piece of evidence for life on Mars.

  In August of 1996, headlines screamed the biggest news story of the year: “Life on Mars.” A 4.2-lb. (1.9-kg) lump of basalt rock that was originally discovered in Antarctica in 1984 was reported to have arrived on the earth between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago. At the time, many scientists maintained that it contained fossilized microbial life — bacteria — from Mars. Technically known as ALH84001 (Alan Hills 84001), this potato-sized rock purportedly made its way to the earth after being ejected from the Martian surface as a result of an asteroid or comet impact, or possibly even a volcanic eruption. In considering these spectacular claims, one should realistically consider the incredible odds of there being an impact in just the right location that was capable of generating sufficient force to escape the Martian gravity. Volcanoes, for example, simply do not eject objects at this speed. Although Mars has less gravity than Earth, this would require an escape velocity of 18,360 km per hour (5.1 km per second, or 5 times the speed of a rifle bullet). Scientists then postulate an even more unlikely scenario in which ALH84001 supposedly took up orbit around the sun for an indeterminate period, until it eventually encountered the earth.[31]

  One of the strongest reasons given for the rock’s origin on Mars is the composition of gases trapped inside its pores. It is supposed to resemble the chemical composition of samples taken from the Mars Viking Lander. However, its mineral composition differs from 11 other meteorites that are supposed to be Martian.

  .

  Model of Viking Lander

  Physical chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has commented on another popular piece of evidence:

  The rock contains a mineral called magnetite, also called lodestone (which was used in the first compasses), as well as another mineral similar to “fool’s gold.” These minerals can be formed by living organisms or by processes having nothing to do with life. It is the occurrence of these minerals together which suggests (to some) that they were formed by living cells. But the researchers haven’t ruled out all possible non-living processes.[32]

  The rock also contains molecules known as PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to be common in many asteroids, adding weight to the theory that the rock came from space. However, they are also found in common soot or diesel exhaust, and these fossil fuels have an Earth-bound biological origin.

  The rock also has microscopic, fossilized worm-like whiskers that are supposed to have been once-living organisms. Sarfati comments again:

  A huge problem with the alleged fossil bacteria is their tiny size — many times smaller than all known free-living bacteria… . Most people don’t know that another team which analyzed the same rock found that it lacked a key sign of biological activity. The leader, Jim Papike, director of the Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico, said: “When we looked at the ratio [of two types of sulfur], there was no evidence that it was in a ratio for life forms.” In fact, he said that the ratio pointed in the opposite direction [emphasis in original].

  These “whiskers” are composed of carbonate materials similar to limestone or marble. Back in 1996, Sarfati suggested that the globules could have been formed by processes completely unconnected with life, and that they showed evidence of rapid heating. Then in 2002, a rock in the Auckland Domain Museum was discovered to contain “life crystals” similar to ALH84001. The only problem for NASA and its pro-Martian life advocates was that this new rock was known to have come from a volcanic eruption in New Zealand in the mid–19th century. The conclusion from this newly discovered rock was that it had been ejected in a hot state and rapidly cooled in icy conditions. This process produced fossil whiskers that look identical to those in the Martian meteorite.[33] Perhaps Sarfati was right all along.

  The evidences for the “Martian rock” are anything but conclusive. Yet they have apparently added up to be the most convincing evidence for extraterrestrial life ever seen. But even Professor Colin Pillinger, lead scientist on Beagle 2, admitted:

  This doesn’t actually prove that the evidence in the meteorite is for life on Mars. We cannot say absolutely, hand on heart, that this is something which happened on Mars until we find organic matter in a genuine Martian sample. We have to go to Mars and if there is doubt we will have to bring samples back. If there is still doubt, we will have to send a person there to carry out the experiments in situ.[34]

  One may well ask how this really came to be such an earth-shattering discovery. Sarfati again comments on the whole affair:

  It was certainly a coincidence that the first “life from Mars” fanfare in 1996 came just as the U.S. Congress was proposing to cut NASA’s funding, although they had collected ALH84001 back in 1984. The noted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle argued that it was perhaps a publicity stunt to gain more government money: “Considering NASA is absolutely avid to get funding from Congress, one has to be a bit suspicious.” It is certainly a coincidence now that the announcement comes just before the new U.S. President is about to announce his budget. To be fair to the researchers in both cases, they presented actual scientific data
, although the interpretation of the data is dubious.[35]

  The “life on Mars” juggernaut showed no signs of slowing down. Speculation was rife everywhere. Even Dan Goldin, chief administrator of NASA, was forced to concede:

  I want everyone to understand that we are not talking about little green men here … exciting, even compelling, but not conclusive.[36]

  Nonetheless, in the minds of the masses, this was the first step — the first proof — that there was life on other planets. Although the media would have us believe that the issue is beyond doubt, it is clear that this “proof” of Martian ET life (supposedly 3.6 billion years old) is in fact highly controversial among the scientific community. The excitement about the rock and the rovers has no doubt expedited NASA’s future manned expeditions to Mars.

  The face on Mars

  In July 1976, NASA’s Viking 1 was photographing the Martian surface for suitable locations for planned future landings. When the photos were released to the public, one in particular captured the attention of the world’s media. It resembled a humanoid face complete with headdress. Speculation grew that this 1.2-mile-wide x 1.6-mile-long (1.9 km x 2.6 km) structure could be an ancient monument, perhaps a testimony to a past civilization.[37] In the same region on Mars, known as Cydonia, there also appeared to be objects that resembled the ruins of other man-made structures, such as pyramids. Could these actually be the calling cards of extraterrestrial visitors to our solar system? Did an ancient civilization once inhabit the planet? Before these questions were even answered, scientists and UFOlogists alike were speculating on what may have wiped out the population!

  “The face” on Mars, with the light at different angles.

  The person most responsible for promoting the “face on Mars” theory was speaker and writer Richard C. Hoagland. In his popular 1987 book The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever, he captivated public attention with the idea that these Martian artifacts were evidences of a fortress, an artificial cliff, a five-sided pyramid, and a collection of other structures dubbed the “City Square.”

  Hoagland’s Cydonia. Note the “face” in the top right corner.

  Hoagland himself was also promoted as somewhat of a science expert and a consultant in the fields of astronomy, planetarium curating, and space-program education. Apparently, at the age of 19 he became the curator of the Museum of Science in Springfield, Massachusetts. He also appeared on many television specials as the resident science specialist, including NBC’s special on the Surveyor 1 moon landing. In 1968, he was asked to become a consultant to CBS News and served as a science advisor to Walter Cronkite.

  However, Gary Posner, contributor to The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters (EEE), reports that NASA had little or no interest in Hoagland’s speculations, and did not intend to explore the region of Cydonia any further. The EEE report also describes Hoagland as self-educated, and indicated that in NASA’s view he lacked any credibility at all.[38]

  Then in 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor specifically photographed more images of “the face” at a much greater resolution than before. To silence criticism, NASA revealed the face to be nothing more than a natural feature. When the sun shines at a relatively low angle, shadows accentuate certain features, making the landscape face-like. Posner comments:

  With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, has Hoagland now abandoned his “City”? Oddly, a visit to his Web site www.enterprisemission.com reveals just the opposite.[39]

  Once more, the media were willing partners in talking up the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and the public was led astray yet again. Even today, theories about the Mars face are as popular as ever with many famous UFOlogists, despite the lack of credible evidence.

  Our local patch — the solar system

  Reports of UFO sightings early in the 20th century gave way to alleged contacts and then abductions and messages from space. As we mentioned earlier, many of the early “space brothers” claimed (and some still do) to be from the planets in our solar system, such as Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter and its moons, and even Pluto. But is this possible?

  There are nine planets in our solar system all revolving around the sun. However, Viking 1 and 2 and subsequent probes to Mars have shown no evidence of alien races or any signs of life. The two unmanned Voyager craft, despite carrying messages into space, have never had a “close encounter,” although they have taken thousands of pictures of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Other probes have visited the other planets, and they have revealed nothing but harsh, unlivable conditions in our neighborhood.

  The closest planet to the sun is Mercury. It is also the second-smallest planet (about half the size of Earth) after Pluto, which is the smallest and farthermost planet from the sun. A Mercurian year is only 88 days, the time it takes to orbit the sun. Its orbit is highly elliptical, which causes radical shifts in temperature on its surface. Facing the sun, its temperature can be as high as 700oF (371oC). On the dark side of the planet, it can plummet to as low as -300oF (-149oC).

  Venus is no more hospitable. An early contactee, a preacher-cum-author named Frank Stranges, claimed a meeting in 1959 — in the Pentagon no less — with a Venusian who went by the name of Val Thor. He apparently claimed that his mission was “to help mankind return to the Lord” (Jesus of the Bible).[40] Stranges made this claim before research found the planet to have surface temperatures of 900oF (480oC), hot enough to melt lead! When confronted with the evidence of inhospitable conditions on Venus, Stranges said it wasn’t a problem because they were living below the surface anyway! But any inhabitant would be choked by the carbon dioxide atmosphere, and scalded by noxious clouds of sulfuric acid vapor. Violent storms rage in the atmosphere continually.

  Mars has no oxygen in the atmosphere, and evening temperatures plummet to -100oF (-38oC). Next is Jupiter, a gas giant with no solid surface, although it might have a solid core. It is the largest planet in our solar system — about the size of 318 Earths. Radiation and magnetic storms bombard the planet.[41] Gravity on Jupiter is about 2.5 times the earth’s; a 176-lb. (80-kg) person would weigh 440 lb.

  (200 kg) and would have some difficulty moving around.

  The farther out we travel — to Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto — the more we discover only freezing temperatures and poisonous atmospheres. The physical extremes are beyond our imagining. Everywhere in our solar system we find environments non-conducive to life — everywhere except the earth, that is. This brings into even sharper focus the question of where the aliens might be coming from.

  Recent probes continue to discover even more moons surrounding some of the outer giants like Saturn, but from what has been discovered thus far, our opinions about finding extraterrestrial life on these planets or their moons is unlikely to change. Is it just a coincidence that nowadays most “visitors” seem to come from farther away, elsewhere in the galaxy where we cannot test their claims? The early beliefs about ET life in our neighborhood have proven to be false and inaccurate, so it is prudent to be cautious before accepting even more wild and speculative claims.

  The search for extrasolar planets

  The search for life has now stretched beyond our solar system. Early in the last century, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the small nebulae in the sky were, in fact, neighboring islands of stars — galaxies outside of our own that contained hundreds of billions of stars. Frank Drake’s equation has prompted NASA, SETI, and many others to begin carefully observing individual stars for signs of accompanying planets. This has become known as the search for extrasolar planets.

  The first discovery of an extrasolar planet orbiting a star similar to our sun came in 1995, when Michael Mayor and Didier Queloz of Geneva announced that they had found a rapidly orbiting mass close to star 51 Pegasi. The discovery sparked great excitement. Calculations for the size of the planet ranged from half the mass of Jupiter to more than twice its mass.[42] Given the enormous size of Jupiter to start with, that is a pretty generous range of estimates, and w
hen it comes to habitable planets, size does matter.

  It will prove difficult to find extrasolar planets capable of sustaining life. Because they are so distant, extrasolar planets are generally too small to be directly observed by present methods; that is, astronomers do not actually see the planets because their reflected light is so weak, being overpowered by their nearby sun. Planets are presumed to exist because their mass affects the stars they orbit. For example, Jupiter causes a slight wobble in our own sun, as it pulls the sun off center.[43]

  As the star wobbles from the gravitation of a planet, the frequency of the starlight we observe from it can shift up and down (the redshift and blueshift we discussed earlier). This is known as the Doppler effect. A similar thing happens with sound waves. You may have noticed how an approaching police siren seems to change sound when it suddenly passes you and begins moving away.

  Another planet-hunting method is the transit method. This is used to detect a planet passing between its star and our earth. The orbiting mass causes a minute drop in the intensity of light from the star. We can observe a similar effect when Mercury or Venus passes between our sun and the earth.