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

October 21, 2004

Geoffrey A. Landis wrote:

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.



With good reason. They do not even 'entertain' biogenic hypotheses in
public.

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.



That is not true, it was held back a minimum of three months, without
any good reason, I might add. If they didn't spend so much time dumbing
down the American public, they might find that enthusiasm for space
exploration wouldn't be waning so drastically, and the space program in
general wouldn't be in such a shambles. It was arrogance that pranged
the shuttles, and simple inattentiveness and insufficient funding that
lost two Mars missions.

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

"Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote in message
om...


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.


I appreciate your response, it was very helpful. I was complaining
about both~



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.


'Argued over for years."


I'm sure the arguing will continue indefinitely, and there's a reason for that.

Genesis, or first life, has certain mathematical properties.
As such life stands at the phase transition between geology
and biology...by definition.

Phase transitions are characterized by intractably entangled
trajectories in phase space. So entangled that one can't
tell which-is-which. As in a cloud, is it water or air?
First life would have the intrinsic property of being as
difficult to determine as possible whether it's geology
or biology.

An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html


It is that 'uncertainty', when seen in all primary variables
of an ecosystem, that constitute proof of life, 'first life'
that is.

And so it is at Meridiani.

Is the soil dust or sand?
Neither, but an intermediate grain size.

Are those sedimentary rocks formed deep underground
and weathered to the surface, or are they stromatolites
that formed in place in water?



Are the spheres mineral or bacterial concretions?



The harmonious uncertainty that defines Genesis
is seen in every feature of Meridiani with splendid
consistency.

There's nothing to argue over, the results are obvious
to the naked eye. It's a pity so few can see.



Jonathan


"THEIR height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



By E Dickinson





s