Comments on recent Mars Conference at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc072101.html
A most amusing example of how viewpoint can slew reporting. Looks like a bad case of selective memory. Why would any reasonable person base their conclusions on an old probe with limited data from a limited area of Mars rather than the much more comprehensive data from later probes which covered the whole planet? Every book on Mars mentions the huge changes in Martian life possibilities caused by the Various Mariner probes yet the author seems to feel an early flyby mission to Mars deserves to be the final word. Most amusing considering the numerous accusations of lack of objectivity by NASA Mars program members.
The author also seems confused about the life issue. He appears to believe life is not possible there yet makes a big deal about back contamination issues. I guess consistency is seldom an issue with some people.
I'm curious if any NASA employees will respond to this on CCNet.
Still wondering why a certain net crank thinks crater counts on Mars are more relevant than those on the Moon in determining Earth impact risk.
Regards,
Mark
Very Confused CCNet Author
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Very Confused CCNet Author
- I already had a poke at him
- Who are you trying to BS, Eby?
- Re: Very Confused CCNet Author
