NASA Experts Defend Theory Of Life on Mars
Published: October 25, 1996TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 24— In their first appearance before a major audience of astronomers, NASA scientists have vigorously defended their theory that a meteorite from Mars shows evidence of ancient life on that planet.
Although they got respectful applause on Wednesday at a meeting of the planetary division of the American Astronomical Society, the team from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also got blunt skepticism.
‘‘This is not bad for a new theory,” said Dr. Timothy Swindle of the University of Arizona. ”It is much better than cold fusion,” he added, referring to a widely advertised atomic energy theory that was denounced within days. ”Nobody has found such obvious flaws in this work.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Latest From Michael Mann
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Latest From Michael Mann
- Jack the Insider on Latest From Michael Mann
- Conrad Ziefle on Latest From Michael Mann
- arn on Latest From Michael Mann
- scott allen on Latest From Michael Mann
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
‘‘This is not bad for a new theory,” said Dr. Timothy Swindle of the University of Arizona. ”It is much better than cold fusion,”
I don’t think this Timothy Swindle character is up to speed with what Dr. Mitchell Swartz has done in this field … notalotofpeopleknowaboutthis.
Goddard….you made the Washington Times and Drudge again this morning
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/
BTW…you owe those guys big time……making a big deal out of how wrong you were…..and then having to publicly eat it…….made it a 1000 times bigger deal
Great ‘head fake’ eh?
I thought it was excellent!
LOL
I don’t see anything on Drudge??
Left hand column, 3rd item down (ATTM):
“PAPER: Supreme Court swallows fake global warming data…”
Link to story linked above.
.
That is a most excellent editorial. Thanks for the link.
Interesting, Drudge is also linking to a new post at WUWT:
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/
Isn’t there life on Mars as a ressult of some of our probes?
This is an interesting post considering NASA has been investing quite a bit in LENR technology as of late. Including designs for a LENR powered aircraft.
I missed this earlier: Published: October 25, 1996
I should learn my lesson whenever reading something SG/TH posts; it may be dated well into the past …
NASA Experts Say Their Junk Science Isn’t As Bad As Cold Fusion
I beg to differ. Regardless of what you think about “cold fusion” there were never onerous regulations passed to make energy outrageously expensive due to belief in cold fusion. No one tried to de-industrialize the west due to cold fusion. The poor did not die due to not being able to afford heating in the winter due to cold fusion. (and on and on)
So, “cold fusion” or LENR may be possible or may be a fantasy, but it is a science question and not a political one. Hence it has harmed no one that I am aware of.
Well said .. I completely agree
EM Smith has given that one a spin recently at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/lenr-year-of-answers/
re: markstoval June 29, 2014 at 3:41 pm
So, “cold fusion” or LENR may be possible or may be a fantasy …
Doesn’t sound as if you’ve reviewed any of the actual work in this field as reported in the ‘survey course’ held each year during the winter-spring IAP (independent activities period) at MIT. Drs Swartz and Hagestein do an excellent job summarizing what has been done in past few years, where the mistakes were made and by whom in past years (and especially just after Pons and company went public), and what the ‘state of the art’ is today.
The full week of video from each day’s “class” can be see here beginning with Monday, January 27, 2014 (Day 1):
. . http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/2014-cold-fusion-101/
Frankly, I was shocked to see how what kind of progress Dr Mitchell Swartz has made, with output powers now measured in Watts versus just milli-Watts as in past years. Dr. Swartz started out in this field to disprove the concept, but then saw positive results that he has been able to replicate time and time again, comparing with ‘controls’ each step of the way.
.
A few months ago, I was asked to sit in on a presentation as a technical expert. The presentation was by “The Doktor” on a technology that improved the qualities of a fossil fuel, including heat content. I asked a few general questions and then went for the jugular. I asked, “Where does the energy in the improved fuel come from?” The Doktor said, “Cold fusion.” I threw down my pen.