Sir Arthur C. Clarke Cracks
The Tip of the Mars Iceberg
YOWUSA.COM, 28-March-01
Steve Russell
…Continued
Step 1: Stir up old arguments.
Everybody knows about the controversy surrounding the face on Mars. Millions of people believe it is something artificial, while millions believe it is
not. Since this is the most publicly known and accepted evidence for possible life on Mars, it was used to spark public interest in the idea.
Space.Com, June 13, 2000
Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning
Given the lack of hard evidence for artificiality in Cydonia, why are there so many books and articles claiming otherwise? A simple
explanation is plausible: The authors are trading on public ignorance and gullibility to swell their own bank balances. They build on ignorance to create a market for more books.
This article contained no new information and contributed absolutely nothing new to the discussions surrounding the issue of artificially, except insults
toward the believing public. The article prompted readers for their comments. Sure enough, they got want they wanted.
Space.Com, June 20, 2000
Letters: The Face, Astrology, and Animation
Pete Ford's opinion piece "Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning" sparked a storm of reader response. Here is Ford's response to a
number of critical letters.
This is no doubt exactly what they wanted. The article antagonised a large part of the public due to the shear lack of intelligent arguments made in the
article. However, it sure got the public's attention!
Step 2: Excite the public with a planted information
leak that exaggerates the story.
StarStuff.Org, June 22, 2000
Rushing To Report Rumors
On June 20, space.com (along with other sources, such as NASA Watch) broke the story of possible water on Mars. The only problem
is that in their hurry to publish the rumor they initially got many of the facts wrong. The BBC picked up the erroneous story. CNN picked it up, and an avalanche of misinformation followed.
It is hard to know exactly what space.com knew or reported in the beginning because they have quietly replaced the original story
they posted with a correct one.
This could be one of the most significant finding ever reported about Mars. They shouldn't be overshadowed by reporters publishing rumors as facts.
Step 3: Make the announcement
NASA, June 22, 2000
New Images Suggest Present-Day Sources Of Liquid Water On Mars
In what could turn out to be a landmark discovery in the history of Mars exploration, imaging scientists using data from NASA's Mars
Global Surveyor spacecraft have recently observed features that suggest there may be current sources of liquid water at or near the surface of the red planet.
Step 4: Mislead the public into thinking this is a new idea.
SpaceRef.Com, June 22, 2000
Mars, Like Earth, is not a Simple Planet to Understand
Today, a group of scientists sat before the world on TV and said,
"I don't know"; "I am confused"; and "I laid awake at night". In a culture where everyone expects scientists to have all the answers -
especially those 'rocket scientists', this group was honestly and openly confused by the latest news from Mars. It was refreshing!
The co-author of this research article, Ken Edgett, from Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), said several times that he was
"dragged kicking and screaming" to the conclusion that liquid water was behind the phenomena they had discovered.
Step 5: Flood the public news with evidence supporting the "new idea".
Space.Com, June 23, 2000
Meteorite Indicates Mars Had Earth-Like Oceans
Researches analyzed the interior of a 1.2 billion-year-old Martian rock known as the Nakhla meteorite that landed in the Egyptian
desert in 1911 and found water-soluble ions, or charged particles, within the golf ball-sized rock.
The study gives researches their first look at the chemical composition of Mars' ancient oceans…
SpaceRef.Com, June 27, 2000
Mars May Be Even Wetter Than It Was Last Week
Now another announcement has been made that the amount of water present on Mars may be several times greater than what was
previously thought. According to a press release by the American Geophysical Union, "The crust of the planet Mars may hold two to three times more water than scientists has previously believed."
The real kicker of this news thread is that water has been known to exist on the surface since 1980!
Vince DiPietro
Water Spout Found on Mars in 1980
We are calling for the JPL to give some consideration to photographing the area of the water spout that Dr. Leonard Martin
of Lowell Observatory published in 1980 in the NASA Activities (Dec. 1980, vol. 11, number 12).
This information was intended to raise public awareness about the ability of Mars to foster life and was released only after the loss of the MPL and MCO.
Did the DOD use their newly acquired spacecraft to initially gather the hard evidence and then allow NASA to release their MOC images showing the telltale signs of this water?
This is not the only thing the government has kept a lid on! While this news was safely spoon-fed to us, a more significant event had already occurred and
the DOD may have had a front row seat to the event. An event that every government agency still has a tight lid on and refuses to help put the issue to rest.
Mars Flyby of Comet 76P Stirs Controversy
In June 2000, Marshall Masters wrote an open letter on behalf on TMG to NASA hoping for a response that might put the issue to rest. Unfortunately,
this is the only response we have ever received and it leaves the public wanting.
The Millennium Group, June 18, 2000
Open Letter to NASA Regarding 76P/West-Kohoutek-Ikemura
Dear Mr. Morris
Following the publication of our article, Mars and July 2000 -- Are We Lambs to the Slaughter, Mr. President? by Melody Metha on 15
June 2000, which was prompted by NASA's total blackout of 76P data, we were advised of your posting.
We then ran a new search on the NASA webstie and found some additional, yet very interesting information. Below, is a summary
of what we found… after which I have a few questions for you.
NASA, June 13, 2000
Comet Observation Home Page In the much to do about nothing file… 76P/West-Kohoutek-Ikemura: This comet made a relatively close approach to Mars on June 5 when it was about 6.5
million kilometers (0.04308 AU) from the planet. It did not hit Mars. There are no images of this comet on the web because it is a faint periodic comet that doesn't get
very bright even when it is at its brightest. It simply isn't very interesting. There are no images of the comet when it was close to Mars because Mars and the comet are
in conjunction with the Sun. That is, both objects are hidden by the glare of the Sun. This close approach to Mars is much to do about nothing…
OK, let's see if we can follow this. You know for a fact that 76P did not hit Mars, but Mars and 76P are hidden by the glare of the
Sun. OK, you either have X-ray vision… or NASA is watching the 76P flyby of Mars with undisclosed spacecraft?
Mr Morris made some minor corrections to his statements and had the NASA web page updated to answer the questions that Marshall had asked in his
article. Marshall's final letter summarised the glaring inaccuracies of Mr Morris comments and nothing more has been said from NASA.
The Millennium Group, June 23, 2000
NASA Responds to Our Open Letter Regarding 76P
Dear Mr. Morris
Thank you for the reply in which you raise a very significant point: "There has been no ephemeris posted on this comet because it
is not currently observable."
While you did provide an ephemeris, it is obviously based on a sighting of 76P made prior to the recent 76P flyby of Mars. The
numbers therefore are based on assumptions as opposed to observed facts, which is understandable. As you point out in your reply, "Hubble can not observe it either because it is too close to the Sun."
Once Mars, it's moons and 76P can be observed, then and only then can anyone claim with any certainty that this is "much to do about
nothing." As to the other issues raised in your reply, the readers can judge for themselves.
Is 76P Really Much Ado About Nothing?
It has been almost a year and nobody officially or unofficially has proved to our readers that this is truly, "much to do about nothing". Officials within NASA
were prepared to spend $152.3 million on their New Millennium Deep Space 1 spacecraft to study their original target, 76P. Does this not beg the
question: Why would you send such an expensive spacecraft out into the solar system to investigate a comet that you feel "isn't very interesting?"
NASA's position on this issue of why 76P was originally chosen for this missions is that 76P was the only target of opportunity at the time the probe
was scheduled for launch. After that the launch window moved, and so they were free to hunt around for something more interesting.
If this so, then why are we funding expensive projects like with such ludicrous reasoning? If NASA could have launched according to the original schedule,
then the expensive Deep Space 1 probe would have then been sent to investigate 76P, and then it of course would have been very interesting. The disconnect here is obvious.
So then, are we funding millions of dollars for lunatic scienfitif joy rides into space to visit "uninteresting" comets, or is this a riddle worth solving?
|
