Below is the original story posted by Space.com and the subsequent
denial by one of the scientists quoted in the article. The original story
indicates these scientists were of the opinion that recent results show the
likelihood of present life on Mars. In the denial, Dr Stoker never
directly states she is not of that opinion, she also fails to deny having
stated such remarks. A Nixonian 'non-denial'-denial. She also goes
on to say that no reporters were there or thought to be there. Which
merely suggests the public and press are given far different opinions
then what is spoken internally. Perhaps that's why reporters are
snooping around?
Dr Stoker also claims no 'direct' evidence from the Rio Tinto studies
exist, which is only stating the obvious. Indirect evidence is quite
suitable for forming opinions, which is what the original story
is all about, their opinions.
As far as I can tell, their opinions as originally reported, are unchanged.
WASHINGTON -- A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials
at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that
life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by
pockets of water.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html
The text of an email refuting the story from Dr. Carol Stoker, one of the two
NASA scientists quoted in the article
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=418683#418683
"A story has appeared in Space.com which quotes us
inaccurately and without permission. The story is based on hearsay
and is factually incorrect."
"Here are the facts:
1. On Sunday night we were attending a private party
of space exploration enthusiasts in which there was a
discussion about the possible meaning of the results
from recent Mars missions. We engaged in the
discussion and expressed thoughts and opinions as
individual scientists on our own time and did not
represent ourselves as speaking for NASA.
2. No one at the party identified themselves as a
reporter, and in fact no reporters were present. This
article is based on hearsay about what somebody at the
party thought they heard us say. We think this
represents extremely poor journalistic standards.
3. No Nature paper has been submitted with Rio Tinto
results. This claim is simply wrong and we did not
make this claim. The MARTE project has several papers
in preparation that describe the work we are doing at
Rio Tinto and the first results of that work, but
nothing has been submitted yet. Preliminary results
have been published in abstract form at various
scientific meetings. If you want to see what the MARTE
team has actually said about results from Rio Tinto
drilling and its relevance to life on Mars, go to
www.marteproject.com and click on publications. All
our REAL publications are posted there.
4. The work at Rio Tinto is relevant to finding life
in a subsurface terrestrial environment and can't be
used to infer anything about life on Mars, directly.
The Rio Tinto work by its very nature can't tell us if
there is life on Mars, but certainly helps formulate
the strategy for how to search for life on Mars. One
approach to searching for extant life on Mars is by
drilling. Partly for this reason, the MARTE project
was selected for funding by NASA's ASTEP program, out
of the Science Mission Directorate and is a joint
project between NASA and Spain's Center for
Astrobiology."
s
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
