Bob,

DiGregorio does indeed occasionally make good points. Have you missed all the contradictory ones and evasive replies he has posted as well? Do you do the panspermia two step too?

The evidence for liquid water on Mars is for subsurface water not surface water. The surface evidence is of a transient nature. The water bursts forth and boils away as it carves the channels visible (assuming of course that Nicks theory is incorrect).

The fact that the GCMS did not have the detection limit we would like does not prove that organics were present. This is one of those BD logic flaws so often pointed out. The results of the LR experiment did not match what would be expected based on the response of Earthly organisms. The strange reaction curves are what made the scientists dedicated to looking for life take a step back and look for other explanations. BD never mentions this and instead invokes a conspiracy to explain the lack of support for Levin.

There is plenty of evidence that the surface of Mars is hostile to life. Evidence has even been presented for the actual inorganic chemical involved in the LR results.

If you go back and read Nealsons article you will see that he still supports the 1997 conclusions. The evidence has not changed his stance. He does support additional life detection experiments as do I and the Mars Society as evidenced by its crucial influence on the German government to approve the Beagle 2 mission.

Regards,
Mark