"Viking landers may have found Martian life after all."

Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
22:19 23 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
"Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
locations on Earth. This includes parts of Chile's Atacama desert where
other tests prove that living microbes are indeed present.
"In some soils - including samples taken from Rio Tinto in Spain,
which contain iron compounds similar to those detected in Mars soils by
NASA's rover Opportunity, the sensitivity of the GCMS was actually a
million times lower than its claimed threshold for detection, says
Navarro-Gonzalez."
http://www.newscientistspace.com/art...tian-life.html

The paper is freely available from the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences web site:

Chemistry
The limitations on organic detection in Mars-like soils by thermal
volatilization-gas chromatography-MS and their implications for the
Viking results.
( astrobiology | detection of organics | search for martian life |
extreme environments | deserts )
Rafael Navarro-González *, Karina F. Navarro *, José de la Rosa *,
Enrique Iñiguez *, Paola Molina *, Luis D. Miranda , Pedro Morales ,
Edith Cienfuegos , Patrice Coll ¶, François Raulin ¶, Ricardo Amils
||, and Christopher P. McKay **
Published online before print October 23, 2006
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0604210103
OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0604210103v1

From the abstract:

"In the Antarctic Dry Valleys and the Atacama and Libyan Deserts we
find 10-90 µg of refractory or graphitic carbon per gram of soil,
which would have been undetectable by the Viking TV-GC-MS. In
iron-containing soils (jarosites from Rio Tinto and Panoche Valley) and
the Mars simulant (palogonite), oxidation of the organic material to
carbon dioxide (CO2) by iron oxides and/or their salts drastically
attenuates the detection of organics. THE RELEASE OF 50-700 PPM OF CO2
BY TV-GC-MS IN THE VIKING ANALYSIS MAY INDICATE THAT AN OXIDATION OF
ORGANIC MATERIAL TOOK PLACE. Therefore, the martian surface could have
several orders of magnitude more organics than the stated Viking
detection limit."
{emphasis added}



Interesting!


Bob Clark

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
22:19 23 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
"Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
locations on Earth.


I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.

"Interesting". -- Robert Clark.

About as ****in' interesting as a Monday morning quarterback.

Androcles wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
22:19 23 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
"Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
locations on Earth.


I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.



The key fact is that the other life experiments DID find positive life
signs. The GCMS at the time was regarded as the ultimate arbiter
because it was felt it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.
These new experiments show it was not sensitive enough to make that
determination.
Moreover, as discussed in the abstract I quoted from the paper, the
GCMS ITSELF RECEIVED SIGNALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY LIFE. This
is a new result in regards to the GCMS. This gives further support to
the life hypothesis.
The experiments were however not enough to *prove* life on Mars. That
is why these researchers suggest further, more sensitive instruments be
sent to Mars, as Gil Levin has been arguing all along.



Bob Clark

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
oups.com...
The key fact is that the other life experiments DID find positive life
signs. The GCMS at the time was regarded as the ultimate arbiter
because it was felt it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.
These new experiments show it was not sensitive enough to make that
determination.

Still a possible false negative isn't quite a good as a positive. Just means
the experiment might be worth doing again.

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Robert Clark" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
| 22:19 23 October 2006
| NewScientist.com news service
| Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
| "Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
| and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
| detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
| locations on Earth.
|
|
| I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
| The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.
|
|
|
| The key fact is that the other life experiments DID find positive life
| signs.

Yeah, sure. Snowflakes are a sign of life.


| The GCMS at the time was regarded as the ultimate arbiter
| because it was felt it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
| was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.
| These new experiments show it was not sensitive enough to make that
| determination.

If it isn't biased, who is saying it's biased?

| Moreover, as discussed in the abstract I quoted from the paper, the
| GCMS ITSELF RECEIVED SIGNALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY LIFE.

What the **** are you shouting for?
It could be that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black
holes.
We won't know until we find a black hole with broken eggshell inside,
let's go looking.



| This
| is a new result in regards to the GCMS. This gives further support to
| the life hypothesis.


Some houses have chimneys. This gives further support to the
hypothesis that cookies and milk should be left out for Santa.

| The experiments were however not enough to *prove* life on Mars. That
| is why these researchers suggest further, more sensitive instruments be
| sent to Mars, as Gil Levin has been arguing all along.
|

If there is life on Mars it should have shown up by the ultimate arbiter
because it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.

If there isn't any life there you are never going to prove there is,
so look for bright green flying elephants eggs in black holes instead.
I can guarantee you'll never get the bottom of a black hole and
live, so that gives further support to it being impossible to disprove
my hypothesis.
Give me money to spend on toys to explore black holes, I can at least
live well and party while I'm pretending to research.
Androcles

Androcles wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Robert Clark" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
| 22:19 23 October 2006
| NewScientist.com news service
| Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
| "Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
| and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
| detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
| locations on Earth.
|
|
| I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
| The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.
|
|
|
| The key fact is that the other life experiments DID find positive life
| signs.

Yeah, sure. Snowflakes are a sign of life.


| The GCMS at the time was regarded as the ultimate arbiter
| because it was felt it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
| was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.
| These new experiments show it was not sensitive enough to make that
| determination.

If it isn't biased, who is saying it's biased?

| Moreover, as discussed in the abstract I quoted from the paper, the
| GCMS ITSELF RECEIVED SIGNALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY LIFE.

What the **** are you shouting for?
It could be that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black
holes.
We won't know until we find a black hole with broken eggshell inside,
let's go looking.



| This
| is a new result in regards to the GCMS. This gives further support to
| the life hypothesis.


Some houses have chimneys. This gives further support to the
hypothesis that cookies and milk should be left out for Santa.

| The experiments were however not enough to *prove* life on Mars. That
| is why these researchers suggest further, more sensitive instruments be
| sent to Mars, as Gil Levin has been arguing all along.
|

If there is life on Mars it should have shown up by the ultimate arbiter
because it was a purely chemistry based test and therefore
was not biased towards expecting any specific form of life.

If there isn't any life there you are never going to prove there is,
so look for bright green flying elephants eggs in black holes instead.
I can guarantee you'll never get the bottom of a black hole and
live, so that gives further support to it being impossible to disprove
my hypothesis.
Give me money to spend on toys to explore black holes, I can at least
live well and party while I'm pretending to research.
Androcles

The control samples that were heat sterilized ALSO showed life signs in
all cases except the "labelled release" experiment thus indicating that
whatever caused the signals in the other experiments was probably not
biological.

I was present in the lab when the first signals came down, one of the ovens
has a signal so strong that it must have swallowed a whole plant.

I was involved in the gas chromatography unit but it was built by Marconi.
It used as a detector a catherometer that meaures the thermal inertia of the
gas passing by its change in resistance of the heated filiament.

I was in on the design stage.

The column was folded and had alumina with some resin attached that slowed
down the passage of the organic compound differentually according to their
stickyness.

The column was heated in a slow increase to eke out lighter organics.

I did see a spectrum that had to be calibrated against normal organics, it
was a huge mixture of organics and we used linear algebra (simulataniuos
equations) to suss out which were present, I remember glycine and sucrose,
fructose but then the officer ran screaming away with the print out. I was
given a injection and told to keep quiet. I did.

Oh there was a beautiful blue sky and greed patches all round, Levin was
offered a much better job to shut up and I just shut up.

We put we magenta mask on all the other images. Sorry I consented but we
thought it might cause riots.

Pst - dont tell the Pope, he'll fall of his stool.


--
Begging For Mercy

Moreover, as discussed in the abstract I quoted from the paper, the
GCMS ITSELF RECEIVED SIGNALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY LIFE.

Could have been caused by something else, too. To make a valid claim of
discovery of life on Mars, you'd need evidence that cannot be caused by
anything other than life. Solid evidence. A scientist wants to be damn
sure before he sends in that paper. Else he'll blow his reputation and
get laughed at, and have difficulty getting future funding...
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily excellent evidence".

Well there is certainly evidence for life on mars now. There are little
tracks left by RoverBots. There are dents on the surface left by bouncing
balloons. And I am sure there are at least a few earth type microbes found
on finger prints on a washer in the debris left by earthlings. Microbes that
might thrive in the Martian environment. Our probes may in fact be creating
Schrödinger's Cat in the Box. Yes the probes might detect life,but is it
life that we brought there? Don't think about the vessel's external skin
traveling through a hostile space, but instead think about the protected
environment inside the craft. It will be interesting to observe evolution at
work on the changing surface of Mars. Will E.


"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
22:19 23 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
"Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
locations on Earth.


I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.

"Interesting". -- Robert Clark.

About as ****in' interesting as a Monday morning quarterback.

You do have a point, stick around for a billion years and
see if it evolves into politics or intelligence. I'm sure a steel
washer is good eating for microbes.


"will1" wrote in message
...
| Well there is certainly evidence for life on mars now. There are little
| tracks left by RoverBots. There are dents on the surface left by bouncing
| balloons. And I am sure there are at least a few earth type microbes found
| on finger prints on a washer in the debris left by earthlings. Microbes
that
| might thrive in the Martian environment. Our probes may in fact be
creating
| Schrödinger's Cat in the Box. Yes the probes might detect life,but is it
| life that we brought there? Don't think about the vessel's external skin
| traveling through a hostile space, but instead think about the protected
| environment inside the craft. It will be interesting to observe evolution
at
| work on the changing surface of Mars. Will E.
|
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| . uk...
|
| "Robert Clark" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| Viking landers may have found Martian life after all.
| 22:19 23 October 2006
| NewScientist.com news service
| Mark Buchanan and David L Chandler
| "Now, a paper by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico
| and others demonstrates that the GCMS instrument was incapable of
| detecting organic compounds even in Mars-like soils from various
| locations on Earth.
|
|
| I tested the ocean for mouse droppings and didn't find any.
| The mice may be there after all, it was a bad test.
|
| "Interesting". -- Robert Clark.
|
| About as ****in' interesting as a Monday morning quarterback.
|
|
|
|