Hydrothermal Systems, Stromatolites and Bacterial Concretions! Nasa's Big Lie!

"Jonathan" wrote:

Hydrothermal Systems, Stromatolites and Bacterial Concretions!

It's been over 6 months since the following statement was
issued by Nasa. On that day the science releases from Nasa
concerning the Opportunity Rover at Meridiani ceased completely.
Nasa has never stated an embargo is in force or when, if ever, it
will end.

"This is a profound discovery. It has profound implications for astrobiology,"
said Edward Weiler, NASA chief of space science, at a Washington, D.C.,
news conference. "If you have any interest in searching for fossils on
Mars, this is the first place you'd want to go."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...P&type=science

History of science is full of false alarms, mostly from individuals
who bypass the scientific method in moments of passion. Even if the
first guess turns out to be lucky in the end, the prudent and proper
way to do science is to gather demonstrable evidence and verify with
varying degrees of peer review before jumping to conclusions,
especially those of extraordinary magnitude.

Why has Nasa repeatedly failed to mention that the hematite
at Meridiani was formed in hot water?
Why does Nasa claim that Endurance is an impact crater?

Why has Nasa been silent for 6 months?

Sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory" now to be taken seriously.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:

Hydrothermal Systems, Stromatolites and Bacterial Concretions!

It's been over 6 months since the following statement was
issued by Nasa. On that day the science releases from Nasa
concerning the Opportunity Rover at Meridiani ceased completely.
Nasa has never stated an embargo is in force or when, if ever, it
will end.

"This is a profound discovery. It has profound implications for astrobiology,"
said Edward Weiler, NASA chief of space science, at a Washington, D.C.,
news conference. "If you have any interest in searching for fossils on
Mars, this is the first place you'd want to go."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...P&type=science

History of science is full of false alarms, mostly from individuals
who bypass the scientific method in moments of passion. Even if the
first guess turns out to be lucky in the end, the prudent and proper
way to do science is to gather demonstrable evidence and verify with
varying degrees of peer review before jumping to conclusions,
especially those of extraordinary magnitude.

Why has Nasa repeatedly failed to mention that the hematite
at Meridiani was formed in hot water?
Why does Nasa claim that Endurance is an impact crater?

Why has Nasa been silent for 6 months?

Sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory" now to be taken seriously.


I agree about the 'scientific method'. That is all fine and well.
But can you answer me any of these questions.


What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?

How long is the embargo, if any?

Who has made the decision to place an embargo?

Is that person elected, and accountable to the public?

If there is an embargo, why? What is the justification
for /this/ embargo, not just in general.


Who do we complain to?



And please cite your sources for your answers please.


The answer to all of the above is "no one knows" and
'you can't'.


Considering the profound...using their words...implications
of this mission, and the principles of an open democracy, those
answers are NOT acceptable.



Jonathan

s

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:


I agree about the 'scientific method'. That is all fine and well.
But can you answer me any of these questions.

I'll try, off the top of my head. Someone else can correct me if
I am wrong. Also, I believe you have had these answered before.



What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?

Yes.

How long is the embargo, if any?

I think it depends upon how long the various researchers need
to go through their data.


Who has made the decision to place an embargo?

Arrangements between the various researchers and NASA


Is that person elected, and accountable to the public?

Nope.


If there is an embargo, why? What is the justification
for /this/ embargo, not just in general.

Give the researchers who have put tones of time (and
in many cases lots of money) the time to go over the
data that they get from the project. Otherwise they
wouldn't bother if other researchers who didn't invest
time and resources could simply have the same data
for no effort.


Who do we complain to?

No one. Get over it.



And please cite your sources for your answers please.

NASA


Considering the profound...using their words...implications
of this mission, and the principles of an open democracy, those
answers are NOT acceptable.

Even in a democracy most people can't always get their way.

BTW, really big news tends to break embargoes:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5390/862



--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"Again, think type and _them_ make sure that your babble is understood in
the common ENGLISH language."
-ExcrementOne displays his familiarity with irony

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:

I agree about the 'scientific method'. That is all fine and well.
But can you answer me any of these questions.

What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public,

The self imposed policy is that it's released once researchers
complete their analysis to their own satisfaction, no sooner.
Sometimes it takes years. It's always been that way.

is there an embargo?

No.

Rest of your questions are meaningless.

October 19, 2004

nobody wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:

I agree about the 'scientific method'. That is all fine and well.
But can you answer me any of these questions.

What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public,

The self imposed policy is that it's released once researchers
complete their analysis to their own satisfaction, no sooner.
Sometimes it takes years. It's always been that way.

Since the beginning of time? Is that a fundamental law of the universe?

I don't recall american taxpayers requesting or imposing such a policy.

No wonder americans are such dumb ****s.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?
How long is the embargo, if any?

There is no embargo on MER data. Imaging data is posted to the web
immediately. Science results are presented at scientific conferences
including the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, the COSPAR
meeting, the American Geophysical Union Conference, and the Geological
Society of America meeting. Major science results are announced in
press conferences. The refereed science reports are published in the
scientific journal _Science_. *All* of the science data is calibrated
and released to the Planetary Data system (PDS) in 90-sol increments.

To answer your specific questions, the refereed journal science
publication of the primary (first 90 sols) mission of Spirit has been
published (_Science_, 6 August 2004), and the report on the primary
mission of Opportunity has been accepted for publication and will come
out as soon as the issue _Science_ comes out, which will be shortly, I
hope. The archival PDS release of the calibrated data from Spirit's
first 90 sols has been released by PDS; archival data for
Opportunity's first 90 sols is scheduled for release this month.

It does take some time to get data calibrated and released.
Nevertheless, this is the about the fastest *ever* delivery of
calibrated data from a space mission.


"This is a profound discovery. It has profound implications for
astrobiology," said Edward Weiler, NASA chief of space science, at
a
Washington, D.C., news conference. "If you have any interest in
searching for fossils on Mars, this is the first place you'd want
to
go."

Why has Nasa repeatedly failed to mention that the hematite

at Meridiani was formed in hot water?

some discussion of hematite concretions at various different NASA
sites:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/88.cfm
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/gornitz_07/
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...se-062504.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...20040318a.html
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/new...ws.cfm?id=9984
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20040906.html

October 20, 2004

"Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?
How long is the embargo, if any?

There is no embargo on MER data.

There is no longer any embargo, but there certainly was spectroscopic
embargo during the first crucial months of the mission, given the the
European PIs, to the detriment of US taxpayers.

And, after all this amazing information we now have with respect to Mars,
the MER PIs still pathologically cling to abiotic working hypotheses, with
nearly total disregard of the obvious alternatives.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:
What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?
How long is the embargo, if any?

There is no embargo on MER data. Imaging data is posted to the web
immediately. Science results are presented at scientific conferences
including the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, the COSPAR
meeting, the American Geophysical Union Conference, and the Geological
Society of America meeting. Major science results are announced in
press conferences. The refereed science reports are published in the
scientific journal _Science_. *All* of the science data is calibrated
and released to the Planetary Data system (PDS) in 90-sol increments.

To answer your specific questions, the refereed journal science
publication of the primary (first 90 sols) mission of Spirit has been
published (_Science_, 6 August 2004), and the report on the primary
mission of Opportunity has been accepted for publication and will come
out as soon as the issue _Science_ comes out, which will be shortly, I
hope.


I'll wait and see what is released. But so far Nasa has not gained
my trust when it comes to their conclusions. A few examples...

Do you remember the much anticipated blueberry-bowl spectra?
Remember how that went, they put up a foreign exchange student
to explain the results. And after several minutes of waffling and
questions only announced....'lots of hematite' in the blueberries.

Well...I found what the blueberry-bowl spectra closely matches
and it shows iron carbonate and is a ringer for a hematic chert
stromatolite. This is from Dr Farmer's research, Nasa's leading
astrobiologist.

Hematic Chert Stromatolite Chsrt
(Fig 26, bottom of page 16)
http://geology.asu.edu/jfarmer/pubs/pdfs/mossbauer.pdf


Blueberry Bowl chart
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove.../image-19.html

It was clear their press conference was a sham.




They have called Endurance an impact crater numerous times
which is ridiculous, and also described Meridiani as a huge
lag deposit. And their initial conclusion that the spheres were
hematite concretions was incredible and lasted a couple of weeks
before they back-tracked and changed to hematite rich spheres.

And remember the peer-review process they brought in???

I've seen that old political trick a hundred times. If you want
to squash some controversy simply bring in some ...grateful
outside 'counsel' to spend a couple of days to rubber stamp
whatever is placed in front of them. They brought in some
goo-goo eyed geologist that had obviously been in the
field too long, to spend....two days....to review the data.

And they insist this is a salty sea environment, and take every
opportunity to steer away from a hydrothermal system.
According to Dr Farmer this type of hematite is
typically formed in hot water. Which is a very significant
point Nasa completely avoids. The minerals found are also
consistent with living reefs/hot-springs, not just a salty sea.
Especially the extremely high bromine levels that get stronger
deeper in the crater.

"This variety of hematite on Earth forms only in the presence of
large amounts of water, and typically at elevated (hydrothermal)
temperatures (Christensen et al., 2000)."
http://geology.asu.edu/jfarmer/pubs/pdfs/morpho.pdf


And how many times have we heard Dr Sqruyes say that the
rovers have no ability to detect biology?

"Among the stated capabilities of the Mossbauer instrument is the
ability to detect "nanophase and amorphous hydrothermal Fe
minerals that could preserve biological materials" (S.W. Squyres,
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/athena/mossbauer.html, 1998a).
http://geology.asu.edu/jfarmer/pubs/pdfs/mossbauer.pdf


A LIE! And big one at that.



I see a concerted effort to steer the science towards geology
and away from biology at every opportunity. I see a clear
effort to predetermine the science results in such a way
that 'life' can only be confirmed with future missions.
Whether or not it's possible now.

I see little reason to trust Nasa at this point in their science
conclusions or their public statements. Something fishy
is going on behind the scenes that needs some sunshine.

Instead of more of Nasa's practiced half-truths and subterfuge.



Jonathan

s




The archival PDS release of the calibrated data from Spirit's
first 90 sols has been released by PDS; archival data for
Opportunity's first 90 sols is scheduled for release this month.

It does take some time to get data calibrated and released.
Nevertheless, this is the about the fastest *ever* delivery of
calibrated data from a space mission.


"This is a profound discovery. It has profound implications for
astrobiology," said Edward Weiler, NASA chief of space science, at
a
Washington, D.C., news conference. "If you have any interest in
searching for fossils on Mars, this is the first place you'd want
to
go."

Why has Nasa repeatedly failed to mention that the hematite

at Meridiani was formed in hot water?

some discussion of hematite concretions at various different NASA
sites:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/88.cfm
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/gornitz_07/
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...se-062504.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...20040318a.html
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/new...ws.cfm?id=9984
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20040906.html

"DrPostman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:32 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:


I agree about the 'scientific method'. That is all fine and well.
But can you answer me any of these questions.

I'll try, off the top of my head. Someone else can correct me if
I am wrong. Also, I believe you have had these answered before.



What is the policy concerning science data release to the
public, is there an embargo?

Yes.

How long is the embargo, if any?

I think it depends upon how long the various researchers need
to go through their data.


Who has made the decision to place an embargo?

Arrangements between the various researchers and NASA


Is that person elected, and accountable to the public?

Nope.


If there is an embargo, why? What is the justification
for /this/ embargo, not just in general.

Give the researchers who have put tones of time (and
in many cases lots of money) the time to go over the
data that they get from the project. Otherwise they
wouldn't bother if other researchers who didn't invest
time and resources could simply have the same data
for no effort.


I support the idea of an embargo entirely. In most cases
that is, this is different. This mission is world-changing in
it's effects. Those potential effects on ...us...makes that
information ....ours. The people have an inalienable right to
control our own future and destiny.





Who do we complain to?

No one. Get over it.


I'm not getting over it. If I sense Nasa is going to deep-six
any hints of life for the sake of future missions or other
political reasons, I'm going to raise a stink like you've
never seen.

I know how to generate a half million hits a day if I like.
All my posts here are merely practice for that day.
I've still got lots of work left to do.






And please cite your sources for your answers please.

NASA


Considering the profound...using their words...implications
of this mission, and the principles of an open democracy, those
answers are NOT acceptable.

Even in a democracy most people can't always get their way.



That's not my point, it is how ...should...these issues be
handled? When in doubt, when dealing with the truly
significant issues, I stand to the side of freedom and
Truth.

And considering such bold explorations are all about finding
.....Truth...we have every right to hold these scientists to
the highest ethical standards and transparency possible.


And lets for a minute use some simple common sense here.

Nasa predetermined this mission would be a rock hunt, geology
only. So the geologists were initially in charge, and guess what?
One erroneous explanation after another, one "beats me"
after another. It became so embarrassing to Nasa they
brought in a peer-review committee.

And gave them a couple of days to rubber stamp the findings
of the time. If I recall the review geologist mentioned he
read most of the data ....on the plane...on the way over
to Nasa.

What was that? An 'emergency' peer-review? Sheez~

Dude, the reason the ...geologists... embarrassed themselves
is that Meridiani is NOT GEOLOGY!

It's BIOLOGY, so of course the geologists were at a loss.
And once the biologists moved in, such as Dr Farmer, Nasa
went silent.




Jonathan

s






BTW, really big news tends to break embargoes:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5390/862


Truth has a way, just as life does. Rigid systems, political or
natural, are characterized by ever building internal stress.
They become brittle and can be shattered by a mere
spark. A minor disturbance can set off a cascading non
linear response that spans the system. Janet and Justin
for instance. You just need to know when and where to
place the transient. Guess what complexity science
is all about?



Jonathan

s







--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"Again, think type and _them_ make sure that your babble is understood in
the common ENGLISH language."
-ExcrementOne displays his familiarity with irony

We seem to be talking about different things. I was answering the
question about the release of the MER mission data; you are
complaining about how the data is interpreted.

The data is released via the PDS. This is the standard release
mechanism for planetary mission data, and all of the data is sent to
the PDS for distribution; none of it is held back.

As to how the data is interpreted, if you have a different
interpretation of the science data, you are completely free to analyze
it any way you like-- there are plenty of people doing so already, and
publishing their analyses in the refereed literature. (The last
conference I was at, about half the papers interpreting MER results
were from scientists outside of the mission). It's expected that the
data will continue to be interpreted and argued over for years-- that
is exactly why it's released to the PDS.