Jump to content


Photo

The silence is deafening....

  • Please log in to reply
644 replies to this topic

#476 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:43 AM

" One thought - How will this impact this entire discussion if we find evidence of life on Mars? Will that lead to the speculation that life must be throughout the Universe, or simply that our isolated planetary system contains life and we still don't have evidence that it "should" exist elsewhere? Can we predict the odds go up everywhere? "

Once N=2 in a sample size as small as our solar system then it's reasonable to conclude that N will be a very large number when the sample size is very large.


Agreed.

Pesse (And I got a big bottle of Scotch riding on N=2..) Mist

#477 ggiles

ggiles

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Trenton Ontario Canada

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:26 AM

Any discovery of life outside of this planet would shatter the foundations of most "belief" systems on this planet ... but that's just an idea ...at least until those systems are revised in light of new discoveries.

Now can we lock this?

#478 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:34 AM

Any discovery of life outside of this planet would shatter the foundations of most "belief" systems on this planet ... but that's just an idea ...at least until those systems are revised in light of new discoveries.

Now can we lock this?



I wouldn't worry too much. These 'belief systems' got over a Round Earth, a Copernican solar system and geologic incontrovertible evidence that this planet has been around longer than 4ooo or so years.

In fact, I remember a conversation with one catholic priest. When I inquired about how discovering another intelligent alien civilization might impact religious doctrine his reply surprised me. He said he wouldn't be surprised at all and the first thing he would do is search the historical archives for the aliens equivalent of 'Jesus' and other biblical equivalents.

Kinda made sense from his perspective after I thought about it.

In any case any civilization of intelligent beings we encounter will be either way ahead of us or way behind us technologically. Be interesting to study other 'belief systems' in such societies...

Pesse (Attention Ferengi Societies: In God we trust: All others pay cash.) Mist

#479 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5946
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

" One thought - How will this impact this entire discussion if we find evidence of life on Mars? Will that lead to the speculation that life must be throughout the Universe, or simply that our isolated planetary system contains life and we still don't have evidence that it "should" exist elsewhere? Can we predict the odds go up everywhere? "

Once N=2 in a sample size as small as our solar system then it's reasonable to conclude that N will be a very large number when the sample size is very large.


Agreed.

Pesse (And I got a big bottle of Scotch riding on N=2..) Mist

Ok, so let me see if I understand...
If 10 years from now we find a planet just like ours, same size, right kind of star, right distance, water, O2, H and we have NOT found anything on Mars...it is NOT reasonable to think life is there? Would that not be a sample size of 2 in the sense that things grow given the right conditions? But if we found something on Mars that opens the door to reasonable assumption...is that right?

#480 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:51 AM

You, ggiles, wrote, "Any discovery of life outside of this planet would shatter the foundations of most "belief" systems on this planet ... but that's just an idea ...at least until those systems are revised in light of new discoveries..."

Islam and Catholic Christianity seem to accept the idea that extra-terrestrial life can exist without causing a major problem within their belief systems. In support of this statement I cite the words of Tommaso Campanella who in the A.D. 16th century, in his The Defense of Galileo wrote, "...as Mohammed declared, there are many worlds with lands and seas, and with human inhabitants." And, a few years back I heard Pope John Paul II in his Christmas eve mass homily refer to all creatures on earth and elsewhere.

These two belief systems have self-identified adherents totaling about a third of the living human species. However, these are only two of the world's many belief systems and because this is only two, it in no way contradicts your assertion about the impact of such a discovery on "many" of the earth's belief systems.

I know you suggested the thread be closed; and that might be good, but I would enjoy it and appreciate it if you would say (write) more about your thoughts concerning why such a discovery would threaten the foundations of belief systems.

Otto

#481 Jarad

Jarad

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:07 PM

If 10 years from now we find a planet just like ours, same size, right kind of star, right distance, water, O2, H and we have NOT found anything on Mars...it is NOT reasonable to think life is there?



If we have not found life anywhere other than earth, then we still have N=1 and have no idea how frequently life evolves, nor what the requirements are. Is the planet really enough like earth? Does it require a large, close moon? An asteroid belt? A large gas giant nearby to sweep up comets and other potential impactors?

It's not that it's not reasonable to think that life is there, we simply don't have enough information yet to know how likely it is that life is there.

But if we found something on Mars that opens the door to reasonable assumption...is that right?



If we find life on Mars, then we have an N of 2 right here. We now know that a large close moon is not required (Mars doesn't have one). We know that it can occur with a much thinner, colder atmosphere than earth has, with less water, less tectonic activity, etc. So, after finding life on Mars, finding small rocky planets with sizes and temperatures in the range of earth to Mars (much broader than earth alone), we could say that it is reasonably likely that such planets would have life (since we have 2 out of 2 in our solar system).

Jarad

#482 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

Near the beginning of this thread, it was Jarad who explained to me/us the significance of the simple and solid statistical concept of n=1 as it relates to the discussion of predicting the likelihood of sentient extra-terrestrial life elsewhere in the universe. He even went so far as to walk through why the math says what it says; which I greatly appreciated.

Now that I understand n=1 a bit better because of that, I can grasp the importance of n=2 (earth and Mars). Not being fluent in the language of mathematics, and using the words I know; the discovery of life on Mars (or Europa) would represent an exponential, great, awesome, spine-tingling, etc. increase in the statistical likelihood of life being in even more elsewheres in the universe.

Otto

#483 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5946
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

Thanks Jarad! Makes sense now.

#484 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:12 PM

" One thought - How will this impact this entire discussion if we find evidence of life on Mars? Will that lead to the speculation that life must be throughout the Universe, or simply that our isolated planetary system contains life and we still don't have evidence that it "should" exist elsewhere? Can we predict the odds go up everywhere? "

Once N=2 in a sample size as small as our solar system then it's reasonable to conclude that N will be a very large number when the sample size is very large.


Agreed.

Pesse (And I got a big bottle of Scotch riding on N=2..) Mist

Ok, so let me see if I understand...
If 10 years from now we find a planet just like ours, same size, right kind of star, right distance, water, O2, H and we have NOT found anything on Mars...it is NOT reasonable to think life is there? Would that not be a sample size of 2 in the sense that things grow given the right conditions? But if we found something on Mars that opens the door to reasonable assumption...is that right?


Let me tell you what I think..

I think people put a much too narrow a focus on what is required for 'life' to develop.

I think you just need a stable niche, energy source, and chemical blocks to build with and eventually you'll get 'life' of some sort or another.

Extremophiles on Earth are only called that relative to us. In other words, WE are extremophiles when looked at from their perspective. "OMG! Look at those Hu-Mans living in a neutral Ph environment!"

Think about it, life developed under chemistry much different than exists on Earth today yet life has poked into and thrived in virtually every niche we have examined.

So, in my mind we will find life on every planet in the solar system and on all the moons with an atmosphere (and maybe some without).

The life may be just microbial but I bet we find it.

Mars was far less hostile in the past to life (at least life as we know it in N=1).

Earth deserts look lifeless but dig down a bit and you'll find life. I bet in protected niches and those underground caves we will find life teeming.

If we don't than I suspect something else is at work to make life necessary (seeding?)

Pesse (Extinction is a fallacy. Animals today are just around because chuck norris decided to let them live.) Mist

#485 JohnMurphyRN

JohnMurphyRN

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2012
  • Loc: Near St Louis

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:24 PM

" Ok, so let me see if I understand...
If 10 years from now we find a planet just like ours, same size, right kind of star, right distance, water, O2, H and we have NOT found anything on Mars...it is NOT reasonable to think life is there? Would that not be a sample size of 2 in the sense that things grow given the right conditions? But if we found something on Mars that opens the door to reasonable assumption...is that right?"

If you're looking for crayfish and you turn over one rock on the bottom of the streambed and find a crayfish, maybe it's the only one around, maybe not.

If you then flip over a rock that's not in the stream, but is next to the stream and kind of damp, and there's a crayfish under that one too you can start to think that the place is infested and every rock is hiding a crayfish...

But if rock #1 in the stream has a crayfish and rock #2 next to the stream doesn't, the odds are still decent that rock #3 which is in the middle of the stream just might have a crayfish...

#486 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Your assertion is well stated in the sentence you wrote, Pess, " you just need a stable niche, energy source, and chemical blocks to build with and eventually you'll get 'life' of some sort or another."

You followed this by writing, "Think about it, life developed under chemistry much different than exists on Earth today yet life has poked into and thrived in virtually every niche we have examined."

Your assertion rests on two assumptions. The first is that chemistry creates life. The second is that chemistry elsewhere is equivalent to terran chemistry.

Assumptions are a golden path to truth; they form the basis of hypotheses as Jarad has defined them. However, assumptions must be noticed so that one does not claim the title of theory for a hypothesis prematurely; and even more so for the assignation of the title, fact.

Why is "chemistry elsewhere is equivalent to terran chemistry" an assumption? Because chemistry always occurs in the context of a system. In the case of earth, that context includes a long time period, in a particular part of space, occurring in sequences and under conditions we only partially understand. Fraunhoffer was able to provide us the means to discover things about the universe by helping us observe the universe under the assumption that chemistry here is the same as chemistry there. But, on the other hand, the Voyager craft continue to reveal to us contextual conditions of our part of space of which we had no idea even a few years ago. In terms of the generation of life, then, to say terran chemistry (in all of its contextual conditions, some of which we understand, some of which we might not) is equivalent to chemistry elsewhere is an assumption.

Why is "chemistry creates life" an assumption? All we can say is that chemistry is a necessary condition of life on earth, just as we can say that breathing is a necessary condition of playing tennis. But, just as we cannot say that the ability to breath is the essence (the sufficient condition) of playing tennis, we are not (yet) able to say chemistry is the sufficient condition of life. Our best analysis of the chemical history of the earth is that certain conditions of terran chemistry accompanied the appearance and evolution of life. We see from the geological paleontological record that a specific chemistry accompanied (is the necessary condition of) life. But it is an assumption, a "leap of faith", to say that these "necessary" conditions are the "sufficient" conditions. Supporting the assertion that the statement "chemistry creates life" is an assumption are the facts that we do not see life spontaneously erupting on earth and that, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to replicate life from just chemistry.

"Well, if these are assumptions, what other explanations for the appearance of life are there and what assumptions do they use?" The one with which I am most familiar is the concept of complexity-consciousness articulated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (a competent paleontologist who co-discovered Peking Man). But this is only one and I am not willing to say his assumptions are better than yours.

In order to articulate my beliefs about which assumptions should be seriously considered in discussing what causes life to appear and what are the conditions under which it would appear here or elsewhere, I would need to get into the philosophical, theological, and psychological speech which, as yet, is not welcomed here.

Otto

#487 ggiles

ggiles

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Trenton Ontario Canada

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

I guess your right Otto ... they just keep moving the bars.
I can admit that I do not have the knowledge to debate you on the subject matter so I won't attempt and I just can't find the energy to even try.

#488 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

Boy....do I hear you! I try to juggle serious thought and response here, with a second shift job, and playing chess with my brother on line. My energy resources are limited, which means my concentration is limited. I should be smoking him on the chessboard but he constantly wins or draws. One can only imagine the egregious mental errors I'm making here.

Anyway, still, I would love to hear more about your thinking on the topic you raised, if and when you feel like it.

Otto

#489 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:46 PM

Your assertion rests on two assumptions. The first is that chemistry creates life. The second is that chemistry elsewhere is equivalent to terran chemistry.


Chemistry is required for life. Even if you go back to the 'First Cause' argument, the first cause caused chemistry....

As far as we know the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe (an assumption, sure, but a safe one). Therefore chemistry should be the same..ie: leptons & hadrons combine into basic atoms etc.

I was talking more about extreme chemistry relative to Earth chemistry. IE: Hotter, colder, Ph variance etc

Pesse (One man's outhouse is another microbes home-sweet-home) Mist

#490 Jarad

Jarad

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

I think you just need a stable niche, energy source, and chemical blocks to build with and eventually you'll get 'life' of some sort or another.



Well, I think you need a bit more than that. I think you need a good solvent that allows the molecules to mix and react (water serves this role on earth). Some people have proposed that you may need catalytic surfaces to help with the early replication of molecules (which we no longer need because we now have evolved complex protein machinery to take its place).

And just getting the things you listed may not be so simple. Can you have a stable niche without a large moon to keep the rotation axis stable? Or a large gas giant to sweep up impactors? How stable does it need to be? What chemicals do you need, and in what mixtures? We require some fairly heavy elements in our chemistry, could life evolve on a planet that only contains significant amounts of the first 3 rows of the periodic table? Or on one that had a lot more of the really heavy radioactive elements?

Once you have self-replicating systems, they will tend to evolve to fill any available niches as you describe, but getting that first "jumpstart" going might be a more delicate step that may require some luck in addition to the right conditions.

You may be right and life may be more common than we think. I sort of hope it is, but we just don't know yet.

Jarad

#491 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:02 PM

I think you just need a stable niche, energy source, and chemical blocks to build with and eventually you'll get 'life' of some sort or another.



Well, I think you need a bit more than that. I think you need a good solvent that allows the molecules to mix and react (water serves this role on earth). Some people have proposed that you may need catalytic surfaces to help with the early replication of molecules (which we no longer need because we now have evolved complex protein machinery to take its place).

And just getting the things you listed may not be so simple. Can you have a stable niche without a large moon to keep the rotation axis stable? Or a large gas giant to sweep up impactors? How stable does it need to be? What chemicals do you need, and in what mixtures? We require some fairly heavy elements in our chemistry, could life evolve on a planet that only contains significant amounts of the first 3 rows of the periodic table? Or on one that had a lot more of the really heavy radioactive elements?

Once you have self-replicating systems, they will tend to evolve to fill any available niches as you describe, but getting that first "jumpstart" going might be a more delicate step that may require some luck in addition to the right conditions.

You may be right and life may be more common than we think. I sort of hope it is, but we just don't know yet.

Jarad


My three criteria contain everything you mentioned.

What we disagree on is how expansive each of the three can be and still support the 'spark of life'.

For example, I would say the atmosphere of Venus, the lakes of Titan, the clay of Mars and the Clouds of Jupiter all qualify as a 'solvent'.

Impactors? Once all the ones capable of turning the ENTIRE planetary surface molten were done raining down all the rest would just be selection pressures. Besides, we are talking spark-of-life here, not douse-of-life events.

Life is a steady progression from walled vacuoles straight up to the tool users. Why would one assume that the spark was some mystical special brew that nature has to get EXACTLY right?

I bet chemistry can beget life in innumerable ways just as life can become complex enough to adapt to virtually anything.

Pesse (Wouldn't make sense any other way) Mist

#492 Qwickdraw

Qwickdraw

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:25 AM

If we find life on Mars, then we have an N of 2 right here. We now know that a large close moon is not required (Mars doesn't have one). We know that it can occur with a much thinner, colder atmosphere than earth has, with less water, less tectonic activity, etc. So, after finding life on Mars, finding small rocky planets with sizes and temperatures in the range of earth to Mars (much broader than earth alone), we could say that it is reasonably likely that such planets would have life (since we have 2 out of 2 in our solar system).

Jarad


Jarad,

I don't necessarily agree with your assertion.
Finding life on Mars could very well be a result of a meteorite containing the seeds of life being blown off the face of Earth with enough velocity to find its way to Mars. If Earth is indeed that rare one in a trillion planet which presented the characteristics necessary for Abiogenesis Mars could certainly just be the natural benefactor of that process.

Basically your assumption of finding life on Mars does not allow for the fact that it may have still been produced on Earth first.

I believe if life is found on Mars, we are talking about the difference of probability in its cause being Abiogenesis or Biogenesis. These two processes can as you know have huge differences in essential criteria.

The probability of finding life on another planet well outside of our solar system could still be staggering compared to finding it on another planet within our solar system due entirely to proximity.

#493 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22667
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:18 PM

That's one reason I'm still holding out for Europa.

If a hypothesized Martian life form were to be recovered, then a study of its genetic material might tell us whether its ultimate origin were Earth or whether it was of independent origin. I'm not sure that DNA is the one and only possible choice for a heredity molecule for life, and even if it were, there are other possible bases besides the ones that our version uses. Finding life with a different genetic molecule would certainly be a smoking gun.

#494 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:15 PM

That's one reason I'm still holding out for Europa.

If a hypothesized Martian life form were to be recovered, then a study of its genetic material might tell us whether its ultimate origin were Earth or whether it was of independent origin. I'm not sure that DNA is the one and only possible choice for a heredity molecule for life, and even if it were, there are other possible bases besides the ones that our version uses. Finding life with a different genetic molecule would certainly be a smoking gun.


Chiralty might be another good indicator of non-Earth origin.

Gotta be careful, if someone 10 years ago presented a sample of a Verrucomicrobia (loves battery=acid Ph levels and munching on methane) and said he culled it from another planet--many wouldn't doubt it!

Pesse (Got a bridge on Mars for sale.) Mist

#495 Starmorbi

Starmorbi

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012
  • Loc: Vancouver's Island

Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:27 PM

....Second, I have noticed people are touchy in these CN forums whenever they sense someone is making a reference to him or her directly, or to his or her comments, directly. It is as if the word "you" ignites over-sensitivity. Well, German (and other languages I'm sure you know) has a neat little way to avoid igniting this over-sensitivity; that neat little way is to use the word du when responding to a specific person and to use the word sie when addressing a global group without pinpointing one person. In English, we only have the word "you" which means both.....
Otto


We also have the "one" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_%28pronoun%29

Which does the job nicely, but with declining levels of literacy and Americanization this option is being forgotten.

#496 mich_al

mich_al

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2465
  • Joined: 10 May 2009
  • Loc: Rural central lower Michigan Yellow Skies

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

....Second, I have noticed people are touchy in these CN forums whenever they sense someone is making a reference to him or her directly, or to his or her comments, directly. It is as if the word "you" ignites over-sensitivity. Well, German (and other languages I'm sure you know) has a neat little way to avoid igniting this over-sensitivity; that neat little way is to use the word du when responding to a specific person and to use the word sie when addressing a global group without pinpointing one person. In English, we only have the word "you" which means both.....
Otto


We also have the "one" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_%28pronoun%29

Which does the job nicely, but with declining levels of literacy and Americanization this option is being forgotten.



There's also y'all which I think can be stretched to singular.

Further, I beleive Sheldon Cooper established that using the term 'one' can get 'one' 'beaten up'

#497 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

I was an eighth grade student in a biology class. This was back in 1968. The school was in a very small town in a very rural area. We were in groups of two or three. To each group was assigned a very good quality microscope having objectives of 10X (100X) and 43X(430X) and a sharply defined pointer in the focal plane. Our biology teacher, a Mr. Aalgaard, I think his name was, had instructed us about and had described the appearance of the algae, spirogyra. He then created a competition for which group could identify, most quickly, an actual strand of spirogyra on the slide of mixed living algae each group was observing.

Almost immediately I saw, identified and correctly marked with the pointer, a strand of spirogyra. However, one of the smarter, more mature, more socially polished members of the class was the first to raise her hand. Mr. Aalgaard went to look through their microscope. He looked and then stepped away saying nothing. Because I was second in raising my hand he came to look and seeing we had correctly identified the spirogyra announced that we had won the competition.

He then said that the first student actually had spirogyra in the slide but that the pointer was clearly pointed at a very different type of algae strand.

What possibly happened; the reason the smarter and more mature student did not identify the correct object was because her mind had not gotten-around how spirogyra appeared in actuality. She possibly had not been able to form a clear mental image for what she was looking.

I bet every one of us stargazers and scopists participating in this thread have had this experience in astronomical observing and/or in microscopy. For myself; for years I searched for amoebae in river and lake water and never found a single example. However, one day, I can’t remember why, I saw a tiny object which turned out to be an amoeba. Once I had the image scale correctly visualized, I started seeing amoebae on slides much more often. As regards telescopic observations time and again we read on these pages of persons who had no luck seeing the Horsehead Nebula, but that once they got a clear understanding of the contrast, the size, the faintness; as well as an understanding of how to make these subtle features more noticeable; then they began to see it often. I believe I have heard the same said of the Helix Nebula, the North American Nebula, specific features on planetary objects, faint stars hidden next to brighter stars (Sirius) or in clouds of nebulosity (M27). I bet almost everyone of us have looked for a specific faint star like object, say 3C-273 or a certain variable star, or perhaps one of the fainter planets; and have totally missed it because we did not have an accurate sense of the image scale which our eyepiece presented to our eyes compared to the chart we were using and had right in front of us.

Many, if not most, of us here are good observers. Nonetheless, some and perhaps many of us have had this experience of having what we were looking for in our field of view and not seeing it because of some different mental image scale operating in our minds.

Using the foregoing as an analogy, I think it is possible, intelligent sentient extra-terrestrial persons or their artifacts are within our fields of view (visual, audio, touch) and we don’t notice them/these because we have not yet gotten-our-minds-around the correct appearances for which we need to look.

#498 scopethis

scopethis

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8825
  • Joined: 30 May 2008
  • Loc: Kingman, Ks

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

we are the "aliens", we were put here....

#499 Mike Casey

Mike Casey

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2004
  • Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles

Posted 05 January 2013 - 07:46 PM

THEY LIVE!

#500 motorcitymik

motorcitymik

    Vendor - motorcitymik

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2013
  • Loc: S.E. Michigan

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:25 AM

No Evidence?!! Check out Dr.Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project.500+ Well respected Air force pilots,Generals,High ranking military officials,civilian pilots,CIA,FBI,NSA officials.All swearing under oath at an congressional hearing, as to what they have seen, been party to, First hand knowledge! Take a look at that, then tell me there is No Evidence!






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics