To conclude that there once was primative life on mars one must first rule out non-living causes of "organics" detection (like meteorites). Otherwise you cannot get past "maybe".
In a nutshell, Viking was the first to meet all requirements for a positive biologic organic result based on preflight parameters and instrumentation functions. But more follow up was needed... The work being done now is essential, so that we do not contaminate the surface further before we send a mission that can corroborate Viking results. We need these new missions to move forward. ExoMars, ALFA Mars...
From what I understand the nearest goldilocks planet is one light year away, and with the technology we have it would take 1,000 years to reach it. We are wasting a lot of money exploring space.
Billions have been spent on space exploration that should rather have gone towards humanitarian and environmental needs here on Earth. The Apollo moon landings may have had a psychological impact that prevented nuclear war with the USSR. Apollo also accelerated microcomputer and telecommunications spinoffs that partially offset the cost. Moon base? What for? A colony on Mars? Asteroid mining? Are they serious?
As Wilkie and Roselli wrote in their book on the Hubble Space Telescope, there is no limit to human curiosity, but there are limits to our will to satisfy it.
Why in the world (or universe) does this even matter? So many other more pressing issues to devote our resources to understanding. "Derailing" efforts to find life on Mars seems like a very wise choice to me.
Considering how much we already spend on war, sports, movies, and beauty products, this small fraction of money might as well go toward something that actually pushes the boundaries of human understanding.
I think the key here is "life as we know it." What if life on Mars is really there? Only, it's too different from "life as we know it" that we wouldn't even acknowledge it?
That is precisely the important question. We are still learning how to differentiate some life forms here and estimate that we only have identified a small fraction. So determining if there are even rudimentary life firms is important before we contaminate Mars with humans. And to determine if there's anything that we might bring back inadvertently. We know so little! 👽
Life on mars was exposed over a decade ago. Only those who choose to hide the truth deny this. Many people are still not aware of the civilization that exists within our moon. This has been widely known since before the Apollo landings. The deep state mouthpiece The Brookings Institute has forbid the truth from being exposed. Who do you think put this on the moon? https://photos.app.goo.gl/rJevQgoowBcEVAYF6 Why do we see beings on mars? https://photos.app.goo.gl/J61uejz9Ebxr6mbM7
Actually Dr. Biemann in his last interview on the matter, which I conducted, said it was not negative, but inconclusive. That is also what press were told, despite the many side conversations that were had between many science team members, Jerry, and other experts on the instrument development and investigations. There were other things said that were more resolute, but the official record was inconclusive.
It is true, that the "less than positive" message launched into the world through the press (many of which were not accurate), did give Viking and NASA a black eye, or sorts. But that is also not the full story.
The biggest problem with veneer perspectives is that they miss a LOT! NASA doesn't do enough to highlight the IMMENSE science and engineering successes of Viking, which colored the publics' perspective (poor journalism), and the Shuttle, Voyager, and Helios missions were already funded, causing inconvenient timing.
Folks can learn a lot more if you follow The Viking Mars Missions Education and Preservation Project (VMMEPP), the ONLY Viking dedicated Preservation and reconstruction project in the world.
VMMEPP is focused on preserving the history, artifacts, original documents, and data from the Viking Missions, to inspire current and future leaders and thinkers, and to instill collaboration and equity into missions of tomorrow.
“As our letter to Science points out, it’s time to change our negative mindset about Martian life.” … “The first step on that journey is to correct an old mistake that shaped the course of Mars exploration for 50 years.”
To paraphrase, as my message to science points out, it’s time to change our negative mindset about science. The first step on that journey is to correct an old mistake that shaped the course of science for four centuries.
Science emerged, developed, and continues to develop from the application of its founding principle. The first scientific principle assumes that:
“Science involves careful observations coupled with rigorous skepticism, because cognitive assumptions can otherwise distort the interpretation of the observation.”
Applying the principle is more than just a good habit. The habitual application of the principle is the practice of science. And the mistake in every generation in the history of science is the failure to subject "cognitive assumptions" to "rigorous skepticism."
In other words, the title of the essay should not be “How a scientific mistake from the 1970s derailed Mars exploration” and should instead be “How deviating from the practice of science in the 1970s derailed Mars exploration.”
No scientific mistake. It had everything to do with the federal budget and how to pay for 1) the trillions spent on the obscene and repugnant homicidal CIA-run Viet Nam War, and 2) how to pay for LBJ's Marxist socialist Great Society program. Obviously, a silly trip to Mars was excluded from the budget since it became more important to give away tax dollars to the indolent and/or the voters who demanded "free sh_t" from we American taxpayers with a work ethic.
There is no life elsewhere; only on Earth because God said so in Genesis.
How do we know the latter is the truth?
Because the odds of the simplest life-form with the ability to procreate to be created by random chance is one chance in ten followed by over 29,000 zeros no matter how time is allotted. Any chance followed by only fifty zeros is considered absolutely impossible.
Indeed, since evolution is a non-entity devoid of creativity and intelligence, then only a supernatural creator (God) has the ability to create and program the zillions of combinations of nucleotides in a requisite life-creating DNA molecule.
Feed this algorithm with the 1.33E+50 atoms on earth times the 31.6E+15 seconds since the formation of the Solar System and the odds in favor are, um, astronomical.
To conclude that there once was primative life on mars one must first rule out non-living causes of "organics" detection (like meteorites). Otherwise you cannot get past "maybe".
In a nutshell, Viking was the first to meet all requirements for a positive biologic organic result based on preflight parameters and instrumentation functions. But more follow up was needed... The work being done now is essential, so that we do not contaminate the surface further before we send a mission that can corroborate Viking results. We need these new missions to move forward. ExoMars, ALFA Mars...
From what I understand the nearest goldilocks planet is one light year away, and with the technology we have it would take 1,000 years to reach it. We are wasting a lot of money exploring space.
Billions have been spent on space exploration that should rather have gone towards humanitarian and environmental needs here on Earth. The Apollo moon landings may have had a psychological impact that prevented nuclear war with the USSR. Apollo also accelerated microcomputer and telecommunications spinoffs that partially offset the cost. Moon base? What for? A colony on Mars? Asteroid mining? Are they serious?
As Wilkie and Roselli wrote in their book on the Hubble Space Telescope, there is no limit to human curiosity, but there are limits to our will to satisfy it.
Why in the world (or universe) does this even matter? So many other more pressing issues to devote our resources to understanding. "Derailing" efforts to find life on Mars seems like a very wise choice to me.
Considering how much we already spend on war, sports, movies, and beauty products, this small fraction of money might as well go toward something that actually pushes the boundaries of human understanding.
In a futile direction.
I think the key here is "life as we know it." What if life on Mars is really there? Only, it's too different from "life as we know it" that we wouldn't even acknowledge it?
That is precisely the important question. We are still learning how to differentiate some life forms here and estimate that we only have identified a small fraction. So determining if there are even rudimentary life firms is important before we contaminate Mars with humans. And to determine if there's anything that we might bring back inadvertently. We know so little! 👽
It is true what they said, "The more you study, the more you realize how little you know!"
No audio!
Life on mars was exposed over a decade ago. Only those who choose to hide the truth deny this. Many people are still not aware of the civilization that exists within our moon. This has been widely known since before the Apollo landings. The deep state mouthpiece The Brookings Institute has forbid the truth from being exposed. Who do you think put this on the moon? https://photos.app.goo.gl/rJevQgoowBcEVAYF6 Why do we see beings on mars? https://photos.app.goo.gl/J61uejz9Ebxr6mbM7
Actually Dr. Biemann in his last interview on the matter, which I conducted, said it was not negative, but inconclusive. That is also what press were told, despite the many side conversations that were had between many science team members, Jerry, and other experts on the instrument development and investigations. There were other things said that were more resolute, but the official record was inconclusive.
It is true, that the "less than positive" message launched into the world through the press (many of which were not accurate), did give Viking and NASA a black eye, or sorts. But that is also not the full story.
The biggest problem with veneer perspectives is that they miss a LOT! NASA doesn't do enough to highlight the IMMENSE science and engineering successes of Viking, which colored the publics' perspective (poor journalism), and the Shuttle, Voyager, and Helios missions were already funded, causing inconvenient timing.
Folks can learn a lot more if you follow The Viking Mars Missions Education and Preservation Project (VMMEPP), the ONLY Viking dedicated Preservation and reconstruction project in the world.
VMMEPP is focused on preserving the history, artifacts, original documents, and data from the Viking Missions, to inspire current and future leaders and thinkers, and to instill collaboration and equity into missions of tomorrow.
https://thevikingpreservationproject.org
https://www.facebook.com/VikingMarsMission
Sneak peek of Viking Interviews and VMMEPP activities around the globe up to 2018.
https://iaf.ipostersessions.com/Default.aspx?s=2F-EA-48-AB-A7-15-0E-A3-DC-BB-83-80-8F-0C-66-32
“As our letter to Science points out, it’s time to change our negative mindset about Martian life.” … “The first step on that journey is to correct an old mistake that shaped the course of Mars exploration for 50 years.”
To paraphrase, as my message to science points out, it’s time to change our negative mindset about science. The first step on that journey is to correct an old mistake that shaped the course of science for four centuries.
Science emerged, developed, and continues to develop from the application of its founding principle. The first scientific principle assumes that:
“Science involves careful observations coupled with rigorous skepticism, because cognitive assumptions can otherwise distort the interpretation of the observation.”
Applying the principle is more than just a good habit. The habitual application of the principle is the practice of science. And the mistake in every generation in the history of science is the failure to subject "cognitive assumptions" to "rigorous skepticism."
In other words, the title of the essay should not be “How a scientific mistake from the 1970s derailed Mars exploration” and should instead be “How deviating from the practice of science in the 1970s derailed Mars exploration.”
The odds of martial life are very high given its geologic history which closely mimics earth for the first billion years of so....
No scientific mistake. It had everything to do with the federal budget and how to pay for 1) the trillions spent on the obscene and repugnant homicidal CIA-run Viet Nam War, and 2) how to pay for LBJ's Marxist socialist Great Society program. Obviously, a silly trip to Mars was excluded from the budget since it became more important to give away tax dollars to the indolent and/or the voters who demanded "free sh_t" from we American taxpayers with a work ethic.
There is no life elsewhere; only on Earth because God said so in Genesis.
How do we know the latter is the truth?
Because the odds of the simplest life-form with the ability to procreate to be created by random chance is one chance in ten followed by over 29,000 zeros no matter how time is allotted. Any chance followed by only fifty zeros is considered absolutely impossible.
Indeed, since evolution is a non-entity devoid of creativity and intelligence, then only a supernatural creator (God) has the ability to create and program the zillions of combinations of nucleotides in a requisite life-creating DNA molecule.
Wiki Bell Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_number
Feed this algorithm with the 1.33E+50 atoms on earth times the 31.6E+15 seconds since the formation of the Solar System and the odds in favor are, um, astronomical.
Without any doubt, Your head is kept where the sun never shines.
Although your terminology is rather blunt, I have to wonder where Randy got his 29,000 from, other than the area you mentioned.