Life On Mars Found In 1976, NASA Covered Up The Evidence

I don't know why i peeked at this thread. Perhaps i sensed that it
was a cut above the usual troll.

(Robert Clark) wrote in message om...
It looks like Barry DiGregorio's book _Mars: the Living Planet_ has
been joined by another scientific examination of the topic that
concludes that Viking did find life on Mars:

Is this an examination or a conclusion?

Mars: The Inside Story of the Red Planet
Heather Couper, Nigel Henbest

I was really surprised to see the names Couper and Henbest attached to
a story like this. Of course, reading on, i see that the subject line
is clearly a sensationalist hype-up of a non-news story. As usual, it
doesn't take much to send the conspiracy theorists onto another
fanciful flight of imagination/hallucination.

One thing their imagination fails to conjure up, however, is a reason
for *why* NASA would want to cover up something they've been looking
for so desperately.

(Armageddon Watch) wrote in message ...
ET alive and on Mars: astronomers

By Leigh Dayton and Steven Swinford

July 15, 2003


NASA found evidence of life on Mars in 1976, but dismissed the findings
as impossible, two British astronomers claim.

That's a rather loaded way of putting it.

Now, evidence from missions such as the Mars Global Surveyor suggests
that the early observation was correct after all.

For instance, newly released high-resolution images of the planet's
surface show a valley which might have been originally formed by liquid
water, the stuff of life.

"Might" have been formed by a liquid which is known to exist in the
absence of life. Water is the stuff of squids, sharks, and
alligators, but i've yet to see a single one of these in my bathtub.
MGS evidence does not suggest that the earlier observation was
correct; at most, it suggests the need for a third look.

According to Nigel Henbest and Heather Couper, independent astronomy
writers and broadcasters, one of three biology experiments conducted on
Mars by the two Viking landers obtained clear evidence that there were
living microbes on the red planet.

I've read a plausible explanation from those very same two authors of
how that biology experiment turned out to be a false positive.

"Independent people say that if this were the only experiment on Viking
the (scientists) would have been persuaded that there is evidence for
life on Mars," Mr Henbest said.

But...

The problem was that neither of the other two experiments found
telltale signs of life. NASA dismissed Dr Levin's findings.

This is exactly why scientists do not rely on one observation.

Is this what Armageddon Watch means by "covered up the evidence"?
These experiments have been public knowledge. Drawing a conclusion
that is subject to reexamination is not the same thing as keeping a
secret. Not knowing about this evidence because you never took the
trouble to look at NASA's publicly available data should not be
construed as a cover-up.

Don't get me wrong--i'd *love* to find life on Mars.

And so would NASA. Unfortunately, wishing it doesn't make it so.


Clear skies and clear thinking!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------