Is the Water on Mars Just A Cover Story?

Introduction

The recent announcement from NASA regarding the discovery of water on Mars comes as a surprise to the uninformed general public. But for those who carefully follow the news about the planet Mars, this comes as no real revelation. This is because a close examination of the press and relevant government agencies does bring a remarkable number "coincidences" to light.

Especially when one compares the information released by these agencies, both before and after the water discovery. While all this has generated interesting news headlines over the weeks, when these reports are culminated, a distinct pattern emerges that seems far from mere coincidence.

The perfectly timed systematic public discussions and release of information regarding Mars, appears to have been designed to gradually build up the public interest similar to what they do when you go and see a movie at the cinema.

1. First come the trailers. Leaks and squeaks show us glimpses of what may come, to generate excitement.

2. Then the movie starts which keeps you entertained for about two hours.

3. Finally, the detailed credits roll and everyone leaves without reading the fine print.

 

The Previews

On the 13 June, Space.Com published an article about the face on Mars for no apparent reason. Titled "Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning", it contained no new information and contributed absolutely nothing to the discussions surrounding the issue of artificially. The article prompted readers for their comments. Sure enough, on 20 June they said the article "sparked a storm of reader response". This is no doubt exactly what they wanted. The article antagonized 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 and prompted a passing debate about life on Mars!

On 19 June, NASAWatch.Com was the first to leak the discovery of water to the public, with Space.Com joining the cause shortly after. At that time, NASA had planned the official announcement for 29 June. The rest of the media agencies quickly began speculating on what the announcement could be about. Rumors were rapidly spreading that even the White House had been briefed on the discovery, which naturally meant that this was not going to be any normal announcement.

NASA wanted this to be a hard-hitting revelation for the public and appeared to have been concerned that their news would not have the full effect required in order to generate new public excitement. Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems Inc. (MSSS) said, "the actual science may pale before the science fiction that has been written". NASA's response was to bring forward the date of their announcement to 22 June before more damage could be done.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The groundwork for the initial public curiosity and awareness was successfully laid.

 

Lights, Camera, Action

On 22 June NASA made their announcement stating that they had found "recently observed features that suggest there may be current sources of liquid water at or near the surface of the red planet." The current evidence is apparently rare, appearing on approximately 200 – 250 of the 65,000 images taken so far. During the press conference Malin said, "They could be a few million years old, but we cannot rule out that some of them are so recent as to have formed yesterday."

The following day, a team at the Arizona State University (ASU) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) announced their discovery of salt found in a 1.2 billion-year-old rock known as the Nakhla meteorite. Nakhla crashed into the Egyptian desert in 1911.

This discovery fueled the public excitement because it meant that the ancient oceans of Mars closely resembled the Earths. It also gave credibility to NASA's discovery, if the water was salty it could allow for water be to present in a liquid state at temperatures below normal freezing levels. Therefore, this coincidence begs the question: Can two independent organizations make such startling discoveries connected with water on Mars at similar times, and then schedule their press releases just a day apart? But as they say on TV, "but wait, there's more!"

Amazingly, a third announcement appeared in the press on 28 June with headlines like "Mars May Be Even Wetter Than It Was Last Week", which appeared at SpaceRef.Com. The work of Laurie Leshin, a geochemist at the ASU, suggested that the crust of Mars could be carrying up to three times more water than previously thought! This new insight arose from studying another meteorite believed to be from Mars, discovered in Antarctica in 1994.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Has Malin’s announcement generated a me-too phenomena in the scientific community, where everyone runs to find something (anything) and publish the findings again to catch a free ride on Malin’s wave of interest? Or…

 

Who Knew What, And When?

In the middle of all the excitement, on 25 June, Space.Com reported on a project called the Mars Drilling Project (MDP) that consists of scientists from both the private and government sectors. The LANL, NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are all major contributors to this project. This past year, they have been conducting studies on how to drill for water on Mars at initial depths of about 200 meters. NASA’s latest "discovery" suggests that the water lies around 100 – 400 meters below the surface, much closer than previously thought.

Atmospheric scientist Thomas Donahue from the University of Michigan, argued in a paper five years ago that liquid water must still be in contact with the atmosphere of Mars today. "If they've found what they say they’ve found it’s really no big surprise", he said recently. Dr Leonard Martin of Lowell Observatory had discovered what appeared to be water sprouts on Mars back in 1980! His paper was published in the Dec 1980, volume 11, number 12 edition of NASA Activities.

CNN have reported that "Planetary geologists made the discovery by combing through recent photos taken by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft". This implies that the discovery is new. A picture showing one of the best examples of the evidence for water is of an ancient impact crater in an area of the Southern Hemisphere known as Noachis Terra. This image was taken way back in 1997, hardly recent by any definition!

It seems that these carefully planned public releases have been designed to bring the rest of the voting population up to speed in order to ensure continuation of current and future space missions. Without public support, missions to Mars would cease to exist. After the recent failures of two high-profile missions to Mars and embarrassing security breaches within the agency, NASA needs something to boost public support. The Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) camera that took the photos is currently scheduled for decommission in about six months.

THE BOTTOM LINE: What could be better than an announcement of water on Mars to an uninformed public majority to get the needed support to extend current missions and guarantee future missions?

 

Roll the Credits

If you closely read the caveats built-in to the following announcements, you will see that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that they actually found liquid water (at least not in the public domain).

When the Noachis Terra image was eventually released in 1998, the MSSS web page gave a possible explanation for the photo saying that "water seeped out of layers within the crater wall and flowed down into the crater, flooding part of the crater floor." They also warned that it could be the result of other natural processes like fluid lava. They readily admitted that the Viking images and even some of the latest images suggest such an alternative explanation.

Steve Squyres of Cornell University believes "it might be an over-interpretation to suspect that these things are tapping into a really large, sub-surface reservoir." He believes that melting of ground ice from the sun or internal heat could be the cause.

Ken Tanaka, a planetary geologist from the United States Geological Survey has suggested that carbon dioxide clathrate is responsible for the formations. He has explained that if clathrate were buried under the surface and a landslide uncovered it, the release of pressure could cause a violent chain-reaction of melting into water like liquid.

Another planetary geologist Tim Parker from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has stated, "As much as I would like to believe that water is involved, some of them look like they could be dry-debris-flow features."

Despite these and other alternative explanations from distinguished people in their fields, NASA have confidently announced that what they are seeing is water. Against all other evidence and current mainstream theories, they have dramatically changed their way of thinking to accommodate their interpretations of the photographs.

Co-discoverer Ken Edgett said, "That really bothers me… I was dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion".

Co-discoverer Michael Malin said, "We were quite surprised and confused by it, because in fact it doesn’t really fit our models of what Mars is like".

In NASA’s press release, "What is odd about these gullies is that they occur where you might not expect them…"

Co-discoverer Michael Malin said that the evidence presents a "perplexing problem".

This exact scenario can, and should, be applied back to the face in the Cydonia region of Mars. It is worth reminding that NASA "has no official opinion on what the so-called ‘face’ on Mars is". I encourage you to go to the Deep Drilling Project web site (www.ees4.lanl.gov/mars/mars.html). On this government owned web site is a Viking image of Cydonia with the face in the upper right corner, being presented as their logo that takes up 50% of the page. What do you think they are trying to say?

The evidence for artificially presents a "perplexing problem". There are no other geologically similar formations in the surrounding area; it exists "where you might not expect" it. The face "doesn’t really fit our models of what Mars is like". Why are they not being "dragged kicking and screaming" to accept the possibility of artificiality for this formation? The quantity of evidence for artificially far exceeds that of water. Why isn’t the same scientific objectivity being applied to the face?

THE BOTTOM LINE: If NASA was really serious in their search for evidence of life, the face is a much bigger and easier target to examine than minuscule microbes buried beneath the surface! It seems that finding microscopic life is acceptable, but evidence of intelligent life is out of the question.

 

Conclusion

These three so-called "discoveries" seem to be far too coincidental to take at face value. First NASA discovers evidence of water on Mars. Next, the ASU and LANL discover the water is salty. Finally, geochemist claims there could be three times as much water then previously suspected.

Nonetheless, the public is now in a frenzy of excitement and more than willing to support NASA in any future missions to Mars.

Now that they have created immense public support, do you think they will investigate what the public demands? Or, is the water on Mars just a cover story for a search that could yield answers that would shake humanity to its very core?

This article has been published atwww.yowusa.com. 

Home                     BannerLoop.gif (10787 bytes)