Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

Mark S · 2002-08-02 13:43:38

Gilbert Levin, the investigator who came up with the Viking Labeled Release experiment, still believes that his experiment detected life. It would be easy to dismiss Levin as an old man who wants to be immortalized in his final days with the greatest discovery of the 20th century. However, Levin's arguments are pretty water-tight:

1) There is no perceived lack of water on Mars to rule out the existence of life. On certain days, the temperature and atmospheric pressure exceed the triple point of water, making it possible for subsurface ice to emerge in the regolith as liquid water. It is worth noting that Viking landed on an area that is believed to hold subsurface ice.

2) The mass spectrometer on board Viking, which didn't measure any organic molecules and thus "ruled out life," was not very reliable. In tests with Antarctic samples, the Labeled Release experment was able to detect microbes while the mass spectrometer couldn't.

These findings would not have been possible w/o Mars Pathfinder & Odyssey to confirm features about the atmosphere and soil of Mars. The question now is how long it will take for somebody to verify the results. I'm predicting that Mars Express will find life in 2004; if not, it might have to wait until MSR in 2016-2018 or even until humans land on Mars.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-02 19:58:04

Thankyou, Mark S ... !!
I was beginning to think I was the only one, apart from Gilbert himself, who could see the logic behind Dr. Levin's ideas.
I am in complete agreement with you. I believe we will find a world filled with microbiology when we really get to grips with Mars exploration. We may even find life visible to the naked eye, though I haven't the nerve to imagine it will be any more than enormous colonies of individually microscopic organisms ... like the blue-green algae mats which form stromatolites here on Earth.
At the risk of being seen as tediously repetitive, I also believe that due to impact transfer, any life we find will be based on the same chemistry as terrestrial life.
What I don't understand, except when I have my conspiracy hat on, is why the "establishment" has so religiously shunned the evidence for life on Mars. It is remarkable to me that they have abandoned the principle of Occam's razor in this case, preferring to conjure up all sorts of exotic Martian soil chemistry (none of which anyone has been able to experimentally duplicate in 25 years of trying) rather than consider the obvious!
I suppose there may be two possible reasons, neither of which speaks well for the scientific community: Firstly there is the well-known conspiracy theory. The most plausible version (among a pretty implausible bunch of theories! ) is that the announcement of life on Mars would lead to cancellation of a string of robotic probes in favour of a manned mission, thus ending a lot of secure employment at places like JPL. (i.e. It all comes down to money ... one of the most powerful motivations in human affairs.) Secondly there is the possibility that almost nobody in the scientific world has the courage to put up his/her hand and say that Martian life explains the data much better than imaginative and unsubstantiated super-oxide soil chemistry does. In other words, science has become so incestuous and stultified that changing a conceptual paradigm is virtually impossible.
If either of these two explanations is true, it paints a pretty sad picture of the state of present-day scientific enquiry.
I feel that this is something which should be discussed as openly and as often as possible in order to expose it to more people, most of whom only hear the mainstream scientific viewpoint.
Incidentally, the idea of JPL involvement in some kind of self-interested subterfuge may tie in with another thread in Forums: That of the sky colour on Mars. There has been a consistent undercurrent of opinion since Viking that the sky on Mars may actually be blue more often than pink. There is anecdotal evidence that JPL adjusted the colouration of the published photographs to make Mars seem more alien and uninviting than it really is. To my mind, this idea is supported by the appearance of the U.S. flag in some of these pictures, which shows the blue background behind the stars as purple. It looks distinctly like somebody needs to turn down the red saturation in order to get an accurate rendition of the colours on the flag.
If Mars is portrayed as lifeless, with an oxidising soil chemistry poisonous to life, with lurid red rocks, and an unearthly salmon-pink sky, who would be in a hurry to send humans there? Why, even the dust from the surface might corrode an astronaut's lungs, right?!! Maybe we should just send a few robotic probes over the next 20 years ... you know, play it safe, take a few measurements, snap a few more pictures.
Now imagine the opposite scenario. The soil is sandy brown and ... Wait! ... Was that a little patch of blue-green on that rock over ther?! Maybe. The sky has a blue tinge to it when the dust isn't blowing in the wind. The Labelled Release experiment appears to have found microbial life in the soil and the contrary evidence of the mass spectrometer has been found to be unreliable, therefore discounted. Now huge quantities of water ice have been located in large areas of the planet's regolith, and it is known that conditions occur frequently, at or near the surface, which are conducive to the melting of that ice ... liquid water!! This is a place where a human being could learn to live! Let's send a manned mission as soon as we can!
Quite a difference, isn't there? Are scientists actually capable of such a manipulation of the facts? I don't know. But their attitude to the work of Dr. Levin tells me something is very wrong somewhere.
???

P.S. Now we all know there's plenty of water on Mars, the
establishment is playing up the surface radiation angle for
all it's worth. Apparently we now need to send probes to
ensure any future astronauts aren't fried ... and
according to the news snippets, it's not looking good for
human missions!
Interesting, isn't it?!

Phobos · 2002-08-02 20:12:35

At the risk of being seen as tediously repetitive, I also believe that due to impact transfer, any life we find will be based on the same chemistry as terrestrial life.

I hope if we do find life on Mars it is so alien that any ideas of cross contamination between the planets can be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. If we find life and it's very similiar to Earth life it'll still beg the question of whether life is a very freak occurance or a high possibility event being that it likely came from the same source. But if we find Martian life that obviously developed independently of Earth-life it'll make good evidence that life isn't necessarily a freak one in a trillion development.

rgcarnes · 2002-08-05 09:32:07

My conclusions, after a lot of looking into it are very similar to yours, Mark and Shaun. In spite of his stated desires otherwise, Shaun may be more "on" in even his most extreme conclusions than most of us are comfortable with. When one considers that a primary guiding principle of an administrator is ample and continuous funding for his (her) area of responsibility, what other outcome would there be? Also, with the "peer review" process having such sway in modern science, there are those that find that some are more "peer" than others. That said, I believe there are fixes for these, and other system problems, but they must be developed with an open and above board understanding of the way the components of the system work work together (or not).

rgcarnes · 2002-08-15 13:01:22

Just returned from the Boulder Mars Society Conference.

Sat in on a presentation showing the C1 carbonacious chondrites are from Mars as shown by their isotope ratios. They resemble oil shale, with about 2% organics and their layered structure in some parts similar to shale--seemingly laid down by sedimentation under water. Age similar to ALH8001. Their survival in spite of ejection from Mars and their inherent fragility may be due to being lofted by steam during impact event, and then on entry through earth's atmosphere being part of a larger body which broke up. Only a few of these meteorites are available and have been found in museum collections. Name of presenter: J. E. Brandenburg of the Florida Space Institute, Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Couldn't, of course, go to all I was interested in. The proceedings should come out some time more than 60 days after the conference.

Mark S · 2002-08-16 09:46:33

Dr. John Brandenburg, who argues for the existence of oil shale on Mars, has some very interesting ideas about the Red Planet. He thinks that Mars once nurtured intelligent life, but the greenhouse effect killed it off. Brandenburg also argues that, if nothing is done about global warming in the near future, we will go the way of the Martians.

The most interesting idea Brandenburg has, though, is "Mars X," a plan to explore Mars that uses existing technologies, microwave thrusters, and water as propellant. I was not fortunate enough to attend the MS convention, but if anybody attended Brandenburg's workshop on "Mars X," please tell us about it. Perhaps this is the plan that will allow capable, intelligent human geologists to find the "life" on Mars that Viking detected.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-17 01:03:22

Hi MarkS !
When you say Brandenberg thinks the greenhouse effect killed off intelligent life on Mars, do you mean the lack of a greenhouse effect?
???

Phobos · 2002-08-17 02:08:39

Yeah really. It seems a little pretentious of Dr. Brandenburg to claim that not only was there intelligent life on Mars, but to also claim that they also died from global warming. Either Dr. Brandenburg is privy to well guarded information or he's weaving a politically correct scary tale for us. Did Dr. Brandenburg show any evidence to backup his claim?

Palomar · 2002-08-17 10:31:18

Dr. John Brandenburg...thinks that Mars once nurtured intelligent life, but the greenhouse effect killed it off.

*So then there should be bones, utensils, and the like somewhere on Mars, even if now buried under the sands. Will any sort of detection equipment in this regard be taken along, to explore the vicinity of the hab in this manner? Any archeological digging equipment? Just wondering.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-18 14:30:04

So then there should be bones, utensils, and the like somewhere on Mars, even if now buried under the sands. Will any sort of detection equipment in this regard be taken along, to explore the vicinity of the hab in this manner? Any archeological digging equipment? Just wondering.

Looking for fossils will definately be on the agenda for a Mars mission. If there ever was a civlization on Mars (I personally very highly doubt it) I hope it existed fairly recently. If it existed say 50 million years ago, there'd be virtually nothing left of it. The same would be true of our civilization if it was to suddenly die out. If someone came here 50-100 million years after we died out they'd find little evidence that any civilization existed here. About the only things that could survive would be materials like porcelain. So I guess about the best e.t. could hope to find would be our fossilized remains and maybe some toilets.

Nirgal82 · 2002-08-22 10:27:47

Well I'm sure if our fossils will be around to find than something equivilant to fossils of our cities and roads would suredly be found in the less geologically active areas.
I do agree, however, that Dr. Brandenberg's ideas are a little presumptuous. I too would like to see any evidence he has to back up his claim. (however if they are superclose up pixalated viking images I'm pretty sure I know what my outcome will be)

The global warming thing totally throws it off as well.
Say our icecaps thaw out entirely due to global warming here over the next few decades. Then our ocean "conveyor currents" are disrupted keeping warm water at the equator, never warming anything north of the tropics. Then we'd have one hell of an ice age. Most crops would die and as a result most of our livestock and us would die.
However eventually whatever turns on "conveyor" currents will turn back on and the glaciers will retreat. I find it hard to believe we'll be driven into utter extinction by such an event, however it is likely that our current level of civilization will no longer be the norm. Something dismal like the Dark Ages may occur, or maybe something optimistic like the ancient Greeks, more than likely something entirely different.
However our atmosphere will have changed utterly during that time. How would anyone reading the post apocalyptic atmosphere be able to determine it was fossil fuel induced warming that shut down our planet's heat distribution mechanism causing a massive ice age, crippling or killing our civilization?

I don't get it, sounds like a scary tale to me.
However I certainly wouldn't mind being proved wrong...

Your friendly neighborhood Martain...
-Matt

dickbill · 2003-03-09 15:04:36

Hi all,

I have read a little bit more about the Labelled Release experiment onboard Viking. I have some concerns about the initial sterilization: The nutritive liquid which was sprayed on the martian soil into the chamber was sterilized before launch. I have not doubt about that. However, some part of the viking lander might have contain some resistant spores which at one moment might have been in contact with this nutritive radiolabeled liquid.

Those microbial contaminant would not represent an initial mass big enough to be detected by the Gaz exchange experiment. Indeed, one bacterial spore would not be able to grow during the transit to Mars and would be undetectable.

From what I have read ("Life on Mars the complete story" from Paul Chambers), the conditions inside the LR incubation chamber were not 100% martian, the pressure was higher in particular, so some terran bacterial contaminant introduced inside the chamber might have been, if not able to growth, at least able to re-ignite their metabolism, and that would explain the radioactivity released.

Comments about that contamination hypothesis ?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-10 01:21:00

Hi Dickbill!
I was pleased to see you've found your own reference material for the Viking experiments. Over at 'Mars Regolith Analog' (Cyclohm's thread) I promised to get you some information on the Gas Exchange and Pyrolitic Release experiments, the results of which were much less clear-cut than the LR data.
Well, I got the book out of the library again and discovered just how difficult it would be to summarise so much material without leaving out important details! I was just scratching my head and wondering how to start when I spotted your comments above. I hope now that I am relieved of this rather long-winded task I rashly promised to perform!!

In response to your further ideas about the possibility of Earthly contamination of the LR experiment, I am doubtful such a thing could be considered likely.
When you think for a moment about the monumental effort which has gone into finding an alternative explanation for the positive results of the LR, including all the fantastic soil chemistry purported to exist on Mars, surely NASA would have pounced on the far simpler idea of contamination from Earth if such an argument were in any way sustainable.

alokmohan · 2003-10-06 03:23:10

Viking results are not confirmed so far.There may be life.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-13 06:05:20

Poor Dr. Levin!
I've just read an article describing how a group of scientists is planning a definitive test for life on Mars by testing for amino acids of a certain chirality. This means they'll test for 'left or right handedness' of the compounds.
On Earth, the 20 amino acids used by living organisms are all laevo-rotatory, or 'left-handed' (bar one, which is neither left or right). The amino acids which have been found in meteorites are on average an even split between left and right because they are formed by random chemical reactions, not by life.
If we found that the amino acids on Mars demonstrated a preference for one chirality or the other, it would demonstrate those amino acids were created by living organisms.

The site I'm talking about is [http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele … mars.shtml]HERE.

A couple of the more important excerpts, from Dr. Levin's viewpoint, must surely be these:-

The Viking landers in the 1970s unsuccessfully tested for organic molecules on Mars, but their sensitivity was so low that they would have failed to detect life even if there were a million bacteria per gram of soil, Bada said.

Mathies and colleagues Jeffrey Bada of Scripps and Frank Grunthaner of JPL, who plan to submit the only proposal that tests for amino acid handedness ...

What an amazingly cavalier attitude! Dr. Gilbert Levin's Labeled Release experiment produced results consistent with bacterial life in the soil of Mars in 1976 but was dismissed in large part because of the failure to find organic molecules in that soil. For years, Dr. Levin has argued that the the instrument which failed to detect organics, the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) was inadequate for the job and should therefore never have been used to debunk the results of his experiment. Nobody listened. Or at least nobody listened publicly and nobody apologised for the error. And nobody said "Let's re-evaluate the Labeled Release results now we know the GCMS was a dud".
But now, after all this time, recognition of the failure of the GCMS is creeping into mainstream science, without so much as a polite reference to Dr. Levin's work.

And the second quote, above, blithely describes a novel means of identifying biologically derived amino acids on Mars, as though it's a brand new idea.
In fact, Dr. Levin has been pleading for just such an experiment to be launched to Mars for years and yet he is left out in the cold and doesn't get a mention.

I honestly think Dr. Levin has been given a raw deal. The scientific establishment can be a very cold and cruel edifice when it decides to ostracise someone who is perceived to be a maverick and beneath their dignity to recognise.
Shame on NASA.
:down:

Palomar · 2004-04-13 07:47:38

What an amazingly cavalier attitude! Dr. Gilbert Levin's Labeled Release experiment produced results consistent with bacterial life in the soil of Mars in 1976 but was dismissed in large part because of the failure to find organic molecules in that soil. For years, Dr. Levin has argued that the the instrument which failed to detect organics, the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) was inadequate for the job and should therefore never have been used to debunk the results of his experiment. Nobody listened. Or at least nobody listened publicly and nobody apologised for the error. And nobody said "Let's re-evaluate the Labeled Release results now we know the GCMS was a dud".
But now, after all this time, recognition of the failure of the GCMS is creeping into mainstream science, without so much as a polite reference to Dr. Levin's work.
And the second quote, above, blithely describes a novel means of identifying biologically derived amino acids on Mars, as though it's a brand new idea.
In fact, Dr. Levin has been pleading for just such an experiment to be launched to Mars for years and yet he is left out in the cold and doesn't get a mention.
I honestly think Dr. Levin has been given a raw deal. The scientific establishment can be a very cold and cruel edifice when it decides to ostracise someone who is perceived to be a maverick and beneath their dignity to recognise.
Shame on NASA.
:down:

*I've often wondered how much schmoozing, rump smooching, and mutual admiration societies play a role in determining who gets paid attention to and who doesn't -- even in the scientific world...regardless of how sound an idea may be, how reasonably put forth, how scientifically objective.

Never underestimate the power of "The In Crowd." Is that it?
:down:

Just speculating of course; I don't know that this is the case with Dr. Levin...but I wouldn't be surprised.

--Cindy

lunarmark · 2004-04-13 08:20:44

rgcarnes,

Frstly C1 chondrites, do not come from mars! TO SUGGEST THEY ARE IS SIMPLY WRONG.

What evidence is there that the isotropic ratio's prove this? [none!]. for a start C1's predate mars' surface completley by many billions of years.

& how do you explain the CAI inclusions? which match spectrographic signitures of stars? (i.e they contain pre solar inclusions) Secondly C1 chondrites have spectrogtraphic similarities to cometry material, so are you telling me that comets with long period episoidal orbits origiante not from the outer extreems of the solar system, but the inner planets? no way, physics would have to be broken for that to be the case, orbital mechanics rules that out for sure.

No - This idea belongs to the 'crop circle brigade' if you ask me - Its utter rubbish.

rgcarnes · 2004-04-13 13:05:08

Lunarmark,

Please take up the subject with Dr. Brandenburg. That was almost two years ago.

I would suggest that both you (and Mark S who made the earlier comment) obtain a copy of the conference proceedings containing his presentation before you confront him with opinions without presenting any substantiation yourself. His presentation included charts and plots of measured isotope ratios.

Please let us know how it turns out.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-13 19:13:42

Cindy:-

Never underestimate the power of "The In Crowd." Is that it?

Thanks for the comeback, Cindy, on this pet campaign of mine to have Dr. Levin's work given the credit it deserves.
Yes indeed, the power of the 'In Crowd' is exactly what I mean! As I've mentioned, Dr. Levin began his career as a sanitary engineer. It was his detailed study of microbes in relation to his work which gave him the background expertise needed to devise the Labeled Release (LR) experiment.
I think the fact that he came from such a background, more of a practical workaday background in a distinctly unglamorous field than that of his academic Viking peers, has resulted in his work being looked upon less favourably.

Who among the Viking scientists would want the kudos for discovering life on Mars to go to a former sanitary engineer?!
I know it sounds preposterous to suggest that such pettiness could possibly exist among objective professional scientists, but how else to explain Dr. levin's apparent snubbing by NASA over the past quarter century? It looks to me very much like a monumental case of sour grapes by mainstream NASA scientists and a stubborn unwillingness to back down and admit they were unduly hasty in their dismissal of the LR results.

There have been too many cases in history of maverick scientists and researchers crying in the wilderness for decades to have their discoveries recognised, only to die before recognition arrived. I would really hate to see that happen to Gilbert Levin, a determined, practical and highly intelligent man who has been given short shrift by his so-called 'colleagues' for too long.

[Sorry ... looks like I've found my old soap-box again! Poor Phobos used to dread me dragging it out of the closet for another rant!! :laugh: ]

Palomar · 2004-04-13 21:29:48

I think the fact that he came from such a background, more of a practical workaday background in a distinctly unglamorous field than that of his academic Viking peers, has resulted in his work being looked upon less favourably.
Who among the Viking scientists would want the kudos for discovering life on Mars to go to a former sanitary engineer?!
I know it sounds preposterous to suggest that such pettiness could possibly exist among objective professional scientists, but how else to explain Dr. levin's apparent snubbing by NASA over the past quarter century? It looks to me very much like a monumental case of sour grapes by mainstream NASA scientists and a stubborn unwillingness to back down and admit they were unduly hasty in their dismissal of the LR results.
There have been too many cases in history of maverick scientists and researchers crying in the wilderness for decades to have their discoveries recognised, only to die before recognition arrived. I would really hate to see that happen to Gilbert Levin, a determined, practical and highly intelligent man who has been given short shrift by his so-called 'colleagues' for too long.

*No, actually I don't think it sounds preposterous at all. I think you're on to something, from the sound of it. I've noticed a very odd (and persistent) tendency in human interactions (particularly within *groupings*) [...this is hard to describe ....] that behaviors, attitudes, etc. you'd _expect_ to find *naturally occuring* (based on THEIR OWN self-proclaimed values and goals, etc.) generally are absent or sparse, and instead there are consistent behaviors and attitudes which seem to run to the contrary. ::shrugs:: I really don't get it. I've seen this within religious and secular cliques and groups, etc., over the years.

I think you're likely "spot-on" about Dr. Levin's situation. I never underestimate the power of snobbery, pettiness, and sore egos.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-14 00:59:41

Yup. Human nature can be a sorry thing to behold at times.
:bars:

rgcarnes · 2004-04-14 07:58:04

A pertinent entry at this point might be the Space.com piece "Survey: Nasa Workers Afraid to Speak Up" as part of the April 14 items.

Palomar · 2004-04-14 10:07:13

A pertinent entry at this point might be the Space.com piece "Survey: Nasa Workers Afraid to Speak Up" as part of the April 14 items.

[http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1293]NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

*Hi Rex. A thread on those particulars. [By the way, I accidentally typed "Leaderwhip" when creating the link...Freudian slip, ha ha].

Two recent items posted in that thread, yesterday and today.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-03-05 05:47:21

Poor Dr. Levin!
I've just read an article describing how a group of scientists is planning a definitive test for life on Mars by testing for amino acids of a certain chirality. This means they'll test for 'left or right handedness' of the compounds.
On Earth, the 20 amino acids used by living organisms are all laevo-rotatory, or 'left-handed' (bar one, which is neither left or right). The amino acids which have been found in meteorites are on average an even split between left and right because they are formed by random chemical reactions, not by life.
If we found that the amino acids on Mars demonstrated a preference for one chirality or the other, it would demonstrate those amino acids were created by living organisms.
The site I'm talking about is http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele … shtml]HERE.
A couple of the more important excerpts, from Dr. Levin's viewpoint, must surely be these:-
The Viking landers in the 1970s unsuccessfully tested for organic molecules on Mars, but their sensitivity was so low that they would have failed to detect life even if there were a million bacteria per gram of soil, Bada said.
Mathies and colleagues Jeffrey Bada of Scripps and Frank Grunthaner of JPL, who plan to submit the only proposal that tests for amino acid handedness ...
What an amazingly cavalier attitude! Dr. Gilbert Levin's Labeled Release experiment produced results consistent with bacterial life in the soil of Mars in 1976 but was dismissed in large part because of the failure to find organic molecules in that soil. For years, Dr. Levin has argued that the the instrument which failed to detect organics, the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) was inadequate for the job and should therefore never have been used to debunk the results of his experiment. Nobody listened. Or at least nobody listened publicly and nobody apologised for the error. And nobody said "Let's re-evaluate the Labeled Release results now we know the GCMS was a dud".
But now, after all this time, recognition of the failure of the GCMS is creeping into mainstream science, without so much as a polite reference to Dr. Levin's work.
And the second quote, above, blithely describes a novel means of identifying biologically derived amino acids on Mars, as though it's a brand new idea.
In fact, Dr. Levin has been pleading for just such an experiment to be launched to Mars for years and yet he is left out in the cold and doesn't get a mention.
I honestly think Dr. Levin has been given a raw deal. The scientific establishment can be a very cold and cruel edifice when it decides to ostracise someone who is perceived to be a maverick and beneath their dignity to recognise.
Shame on NASA.
:down:

*Shaun asked me to post an article on his behalf, which I'm more than happy to do. He's currently "under the weather" (get well soon!).

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050301/dctu … ml]Spherix Viking scientist who first claimed life on Mars welcomes support

Levin has been vindicated.

As I'm not overly familiar with the specifics of the situation, I'll opt to copy and paste highlights:

One of the persons most relishing the news out of last week's ESA Mars Conference in the Netherlands that 75 percent of the attending scientists now believe that Mars may have had life, and 25 percent saying that Mars may currently have life, is Dr. Gilbert V. Levin. Now working as Executive Officer for Science of Spherix Incorporated, the firm he founded in 1967, Levin was Experimenter on the Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment aboard NASA's 1976 Viking Mission seeking life on Mars.

Levin's LR experiment got strong positive responses indicating living microorganisms at both Viking landing sites. At the time, Levin and his Co- Experimenter, Dr. Patricia A. Straat, were limited by caution and NASA's restraint to stating only that, "The data are consistent with the presence of life." However, based on continuing experiments and studies, Levin claimed in a 1997 article that the experiment had, indeed, detected living microorganisms in the soil of Mars. Since making that claim, Levin has been called a "lone voice in the wilderness." A decade after Viking, a leading biologist published a book on the search for life on Mars in which he wrote, "Viking found no life on Mars, and, just as important, it found why there can be no life."

Last month the tide of scientific opinion was changed on this matter. Levin is quoted as saying paradigm-breaking discoveries are usually slowly accepted.

Article gives a 6-point outline by Levin.

Mentions work done by both Levin and his son, Ron.

Discusses experiments and gives a link to Levin's web site.

--Cindy

Tholzel · 2006-10-23 16:23:27

<<What I don't understand, except when I have my conspiracy hat on, is why the "establishment" has so religiously shunned the evidence for life on Mars. It is remarkable to me that they have abandoned the principle of Occam's razor in this case, preferring to conjure up all sorts of exotic Martian soil chemistry (none of which anyone has been able to experimentally duplicate in 25 years of trying) rather than consider the obvious! >>

Ha! "Shunned evidence" is a good one. NASA has steadfastly claimed that everyone of its "this is even better than the last one" photos proves that Mars once had oceans of surface water, hence the layer they see all over the place.

But if you read the articles to the end, somewhere in the fine print, near the end of the page, might be a mini-disclaimer, something along the lines of: "and of course the layer might also be the result of wind transport of material."

What is so remarkable about this faith-driven science is that the only thing we do have positive proof of is wind-driven dust being carried everywhere on the planet. It even collects on the rovers, and then get blown off. Take a couple of billion years of wind-driven dust accretions, and pretty soon you get layers that, when they get deeper and deeper, are compressed into rock.

What I have not heard a single pro-lifer to have addressed is that in the early years of Mar's existence, when it supposedly still had an atmosphere (how anyone would know that is also not explained), the sun was about 30% less bright. Thus, in the early years, Mars would have been even colder than it is now. Indeed, Mars is suffering from massive global warming right now, and even so it's too darned cold for any life to evolve.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-02 13:43:38

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#2 2002-08-02 19:58:04

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#3 2002-08-02 20:12:35

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#4 2002-08-05 09:32:07

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#5 2002-08-15 13:01:22

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#6 2002-08-16 09:46:33

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#7 2002-08-17 01:03:22

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#8 2002-08-17 02:08:39

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#9 2002-08-17 10:31:18

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#10 2002-08-18 14:30:04

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#11 2002-08-22 10:27:47

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#12 2003-03-09 15:04:36

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#13 2003-03-10 01:21:00

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#14 2003-10-06 03:23:10

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#15 2004-04-13 06:05:20

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#16 2004-04-13 07:47:38

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#17 2004-04-13 08:20:44

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#18 2004-04-13 13:05:08

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#19 2004-04-13 19:13:42

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#20 2004-04-13 21:29:48

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#21 2004-04-14 00:59:41

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#22 2004-04-14 07:58:04

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#23 2004-04-14 10:07:13

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#24 2005-03-05 05:47:21

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

#25 2006-10-23 16:23:27

Re: Viking Labeled Release - The evidence is there

Board footer