MarK says: The key point is that whether or not meteorite mediated transfer is possible it is far more likely than unmediated transfer. You deny the most likely form but embrace the least likely one.

BD: Least likely? According to what data?

Mark says: The logical inconsistancey in what you present as evidence for your cause (Martian rocks are not contaminating Earth but diseases are coming from space) continues to elude you.

BD: Then why are the abstracts by Rummel and Chyba in so much aggreement with the ICAMSR view now?

Mark says: There is scientific disagreement over whether meteorite based transfer is possible, however, I see no reason to support Clark's position as pre-iminent. What makes you think he is more qualified than the rest other than that you like his take on the issue?

BD: I think he makes the case for caution in returning Mars samples. It is just one more scientist among others who feel that way. Zubrin on the other hand is convinced we do not need any planetary protection program cause we have all been innoculated against Martian microbes. I aks you: Where is the scientific paper and evidence proving this? I don't want theoires -- I want a definitive scientific work eliminating the need for planetary protection -- please show me the reference.

Mark: There have certainly been many other papers from several authors supporting the meteorite based transfer model.

BD: Agreed. I read all of them I can find.

Mark: Does you pal Chandra W. also do the panspermia two step or does he support all proposed modes of transport?

BD: Dr. Wickramasinghe is well versed in all aspects of Panspermia. He is an ICAMSR scientific advisor -- so that should tell all.

Mark: Do we have yet another case of the BD selective quotation of experts here? Do you quote Chandra when he agrees with you but someone else when he doesn't?

BD: Mark, listen to yourself! Look at the controversary surrounding the ALH 84001 meteorite. You have one camp saying there is evidence of Martian fossils in it and another group of scientists saying its not. That is just science. it is up to science to eventually come to the roight conclusion. That is how science has been done for the last 200 years.

I support more in-situ life sciences probes on Mars before an MSR is mounted. What is so pseudoscience about that? As far as ICAMSR goes -- I have never heard it scares anyone other than you. All the news items are from science reporting media, the papers listed in the Mars Research section are all by qualified scientists. Face it Mark -- you feell (like Zubrin) there is no need for planetary protection because you think we ahave already been exposed to Martian "germs" correct? I am not as confident about that as you. Neither are lots of scientists. Calling them names as you do only makes you look desperate.

BD