Barry you were against the Mars Society from the first time I encountered you at MSNBC following the founding convention. All the old timers know this and I hope will call you on it if you try to lie your way around it. You attended the Toronto conference 2 years later in order to have your views heard by many Mars enthusiasts. Your opinion of the Mars Society evidenced no change afterwards except towards the habs which you went from making statements similar to your current ones to a luke warm endorsement. Since your current arguments are the same as your original ones there is no obvious reason for the reversion except your continued general opposition to the Mars Society’s goals. To claim your are a disenchanted Mars Society member due to actions the society took after you joined is a flat out lie. You were not invited either at least not initially. At one time you were claiming censorship because your request to present had not been acknowledged. I personally wrote to Maggie Zubrin about that claim. If she responded with an invitation you have me to thank.

As for some of your other comments so many of which have been answered so many times before that I will ignore all but the most relevant to recent debate:

RE: “As former high ranking representatives of the Mars Society, you have continually insulted and discredited ligitmate scientists who have participated on real Mars spacecraft missions.”

While I disagree with you on that comment I’d like to point out you do this all the time. You even published a book claiming a cover up by Viking scientists. There is obviously no need for moral or logical consistency in Barry world. What I have done is dispute conclusions made by other scientists based on the actual data and opinions of other scientists. I have also pointed out discrepancies in relative expertise in a attempting to evaluate who is more likely to have an accurate opinion. Such relative expertise evaluations are not a scientific argument and I have stated that. It is merely a basis for taking a hard look at claims made by those with less relevant expertise.

RE: “Antarctica is the closest anaolg we have for a Mars-like environment on Earth and even that does not come close to the real Mars. So why not build a Mars Society Antactic Research station if you really want to challenge yourselves?”

As you should know from attending the conference the idea was pushed by Pascal Lee. I know from members present at the first SC meeting that it was initially opposed by Zubrin, but as he has done several times he changed his mind at the urging of other SC members. The answer to your question is again obvious. 1) The MS does not have the funding to tackle Antarctica and 2) Pascal Lee made a strong case that Haughton has Mars-like features not found in Antarctica. It has also been given many times, but you keep on ignoring these simple and obvious answers because it suits you and you lack the integrity to admit they have ever been answered before.

RE: “You support the "self-appointed commander of Mars" to send droves of humans to Mars for a colony, but don't consider that it would forever contaminate Mars with the billions of microbes that reside on our bodies so that any further life science studies with respect to any indigenous Martian life forms would be worthless. Why would any ligitimate scientific organization consider doing this?

As has been pointed out DNA testing can easily answer the genesis issue even with contamination. A point you have never even attempted to address as far as I recall. Secondly I pointed out to Tom why forward contamination is a controllable issue as I have elsewhere recently. The lack of response and repetition of the exact same question are typical of your low level debating style.

RE: “Believe it or not, I am all in favor of sending humans to Mars but only after a scientific lunar base has been set up first to prove the technology, and only after Mars has been thoroughly studied by robotic life sciences spacecraft. This could take many years - perhaps even a century. Only three such life sciences spacecraft have ever been sent to Mars: Viking 1 and 2 and Beagle 2. Why so few?”

I don’t believe it Barry. If this were true I would expect a far more logical and reasonable attempt to debate the relevant issues. Even if it were true, your opinion means little to me in light of you numerous technical inaccuracies. I would love it if it was true and you would prove it by sticking to the technical issues and having an honest debate on them for a change. A case in point is your misleading comments with regard to NASA’s “follow the water strategy” for looking for life. NASA has been looking for life on Mars while attempting to avoid the well-recognized inconclusive results of the Viking probes by better establishing the chemical context of the Martian environment. Scientific advisory panels approve of that tactic so the opinion of someone without a science degree is quite questionable.

RE: “Furthermore you and your co-horts have conspired to discredit on numerous occassions, scientists like Dr. Levin and Dr. Straat calling them "has-been scientists" merely because their Viking biology experiment may have found microbial life on Mars. This seems odd because it is perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science. You would think a "Mars Society" would want to embrace such people. Yet, you discredit them at every jucture because you know that if there is life on Mars, it blows your scene with your vain dream to send humans there. It seems you would prefer to risk the lives of a human crew before making certain with robot spacecraft that it was safe to send them to Mars.”

The scientific community has discounted Levin’s opinion. I and “my co-horts” have merely pointed out what the scientific consensus is and why. It has nothing to do with Levin having found life and everything to do with that most see strong reason for doubt that Levin refuses to acknowledge much as you refuse to acknowledge arguments against your position. I have shown a great interest in life on Mars in posts were your peculiar take on it doesn’t intrude and have defended the ALH84001 work many times. I think the discovery of life on Mars will postpone the earliest date human’s could walk on Mars, but will likely make it inevitable unlike the current situation in a matter of 1 or 2 decades which is not bad after 3 decades of little progress. Life on Mars does not scare me or any other member of the Mars Society as far as I know. I think that possibility attracts a large number to the MS in a comparable magnitude to those interested in the colonization issue.

Regards,
Mark