Proviso: I have nothing but respect and fond regard for those who are slogging away, attempting to do serious Mars research and propose working hypotheses to explain the endless mysteries of another world. Among those, of course, is Nick Hoffman, who I believe almost single-handedly moved Mars science forward many a notch by arguing a volatile CO2 erosion regime on the one hand and an almost "perpetual deep freeze" model on the other. His insight is truly brilliant, even if his CO2 hypothesis is wrong. It doesn't matter. It is OK to be wrong in Mars study, you can be sure everybody is wrong more often than not. Alex Blackwell has also shown a good deal of curiosity and insight on the H2O models of an active Mars. I certainly bear neither one of them any grudge. On the other hand, I confess to some mischief from time to time. ;-)

Part of what happens is that study of Mars gets stuck in a fairly narrow range of disputes between observers that rage on and on and on and get nowhere. Maybe that's been the case forever, and maybe that's why Mars was long ago designated the God of War. I don't know. But we see the same disputes *seemingly for their own sake* cropping up here (as they have endlessly for generations elsewhere) and I'm fascinated by the psychology of it all. What is really going on?

I've been a student of Mars for many years, trying my best to sort through the mounds of information and rhetoric available, and questioning every conclusion that is reached. "Is this true?" I wonder. Is it real? Is there valid -- or any -- evidence for this conclusion?

Warning, snark alert: And then potty mouthed Blackewell accuses me of being just another "anomalist." I'll tell you what. I have found the Best Mars Face of All, if that'll make you happy, but I'm not going to show it to you because you wouldn't appreciate it! Ha ha ha! (Sorry, that was mischief. ;-))

I go back to Lowell, for example, who was a top-notch observer, among the most dedicated of his time. And he described what he saw on the surface of Mars as accurately as he could. And he drew some fascinating but erroneous conclusions from his observations, and today pretty much his whole body of work is dismissed as the product of "illusion." Why should that be? A huge amount of what Lowell said he saw on the Martian surface is there, plain as day, visible to all who have eyes to see -- and the wonder is, it is there. But you would never know it if you relied on either popular or standard scientific literature alone for your information about Mars and its study over time. By convention, Lowell's outstanding observations are dismissed as "illusions" -- and that, as they say, is that.

What a waste. And what stupidity. But that's what goes on all the time when it comes to Mars study. Convention and authority rule with an iron hand, cramping thinking, insight, and further study -- and that has the effect over time of limiting funding for anything that doesn't fit the models promoted by the Big Men of Planetary Science.

There's always plenty of rationalization and justification of this basically "static" state of affairs -- "it's the way it's always been, it's the way science works, it's tradition, if you don't like it go away" -- but none of it furthers study and exploration. None of it inspires insight and imagination. None of it gets us to Mars.

I can understand the deep frustrations of people like Nick Hoffman and many others who have a tremendous amount to contribute to the human understanding of Mars but who must scramble for hints of respectability while pressing their case against what is sometimes a rigid disinterest or actively hostile conventional wisdom.
To me, that is an appalling state of affairs.

Sometimes I or someone else will ask about some phenomenon on Mars, "Well, what do you think is going on here; how can this formation be explained? Could it be due to thus and so?"

And typically Alex's response is: "If there isn't a peer reviewed published paper about it or it hasn't been brought up by an authority in the field at an LPI conference, then there is nothing to be said about it, shut up and go away."

And Nick's response typically is, "That might be an interesting thing to look into if anyone would provide the money for research, but since no one will, there's nothing to be said about it, so you may as well give it up...."

And their various flacks and toadies will say, "Yeah, yeah, that's right! You're so wise and so well informed!"

Whereas the curious laymen say, "You know, I wish someone would look into that more fully," and active enthusiasts will set out to try things themselves to attempt to further understanding.

Bob Clark ransacks the literature. Greg Orme scans every orbiter image for interesting phenomena. Woodlock and Isenberg do their own color image processing. Time was, Dan Spires speculated about oil seeps and active venting. Barry supports a biospheric model of Mars and Gil Levin's research and conclusions. And on and on. Sometimes there can be a synergy.

You can call all these people cranks and crackpots and "anomalists." And you can throw me in with them.

But what's the point?

Seems to me it's better to keep an open mind and keep asking questions.

Cheers, BRFelix