revisiting the 1976 Viking "life on Mars" result

[notFritzArgelander]

https://futurism.com/nasa-scientist-found-life-on-mars

See also the embedded SA link.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... the-1970s/

IMHO the experiment is foolproof. The denial of the result is politically motivated.

Also Levin's website: http://gillevin.com/mars.htm

[Star Dad]

Holy Micro-organisms, Batman! Thank you so much for this nFA. I often have wondered why NASA (or any one else) had not sent a mission to Mars to look specifically for life. A lot of pussy-footing around - looking for evidence of past life, water, methane, CO2, etc... but not specifically for life. AFAIK the Mars 2020 rover is the first to actually look for life. But the Vikings did it in 1976? WTF? Wow! They sure haven't talked it up. Well, if it is politics and the thinking is that humanity is not ready for the destruction of the hypothesis that life only exists on earth, then we'll never be ready. What I want to know is what kind of life - virus, bacteria, something more sophisticated?

[notFritzArgelander]

...... But the Vikings did it in 1976? WTF? Wow! They sure haven't talked it up. Well, if it is politics and the thinking is that humanity is not ready for the destruction of the hypothesis that life only exists on earth, then we'll never be ready. What I want to know is what kind of life - virus, bacteria, something more sophisticated?

I've never gotten an explanation for the dismissal of this positive detection signal that didn't consist of hemming hawing and vague hand waving gestures. Life metabolizes. The idea that we are "not ready" for the facts is a strong signal of intellectual corruption and political meddling. We won't be able to classify until we get a better look, sadly.

[Arctic]

I'm in the camp that believes there "might" be life on Mars, and that life "probably" has occurred there in the past. I remember the Mars landings of 1976 as a 15 year old boy and astronomy fanatic. That said, in this modern age, where a large percentage of the teaming masses is distrustful or scornful of science (until they get that cancer diagnosis, of course), it will take overwhelming evidence of life that even the simple minded folks, glued to talk-radio conspiracy theories, can understand--- for there to be acceptance.

[Michael131313]

Thanks n_FA. I was not aware of this, but it does not surprise me that somethings get suppressed.

[Thefatkitty]

I found all that interesting, nFA. When you look at it, from '64 - '75, there were 8 U.S. launches to Mars, with 6 succeeding. Two failed (Mariners 3 & 8), and the last two successes culminated with orbiter/landing; quite possibly finding life. At least, as is said, by all accounts.
Then nothing until the Mars Observer in '92, which failed, unfortunately. Then came the success of the Mars Global Surveyor and Pathfinder in '96. But true, none of the missions since Viking have been designed to search for present life.
Hmmm.....

I'm not saying "UFO conspiracy" or the like; I don't buy into that, but I do find this concept quite interesting.

Thanks!

[notFritzArgelander]

I'm in the camp that believes there "might" be life on Mars, and that life "probably" has occurred there in the past. I remember the Mars landings of 1976 as a 15 year old boy and astronomy fanatic. That said, in this modern age, where a large percentage of the teaming masses is distrustful or scornful of science (until they get that cancer diagnosis, of course), it will take overwhelming evidence of life that even the simple minded folks, glued to talk-radio conspiracy theories, can understand--- for there to be acceptance.

Given the data from Viking and Martian origin meteorites found on Earth I'd assess life as "likely" now and "almost certainly" in the past. I question the wisdom of pandering and coddling those gullible by conspiracy theorists. Doesn't even raising the question of whether "folks are ready" feed the conspiracy narrative?

Thanks n_FA. I was not aware of this, but it does not surprise me that somethings get suppressed.

Suppressed might be too strong. Ignored and baselessly ridiculed is more my sense of it.

Here are more links if you're interested.

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-year-old- ... -mars.html

This above link gives a fair view of how unreliable the conflicting null result for organics was. The following link from Wikipedia does a fair job.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_ ... xperiments

So the consensus has shifted from "no life" to "inconclusive". The positive methane results need a source.

[Arctic]

I'm in the camp that believes there "might" be life on Mars, and that life "probably" has occurred there in the past. I remember the Mars landings of 1976 as a 15 year old boy and astronomy fanatic. That said, in this modern age, where a large percentage of the teaming masses is distrustful or scornful of science (until they get that cancer diagnosis, of course), it will take overwhelming evidence of life that even the simple minded folks, glued to talk-radio conspiracy theories, can understand--- for there to be acceptance.

Given the data from Viking and Martian origin meteorites found on Earth I'd assess life as "likely" now and "almost certainly" in the past. I question the wisdom of pandering and coddling those gullible by conspiracy theorists. Doesn't even raising the question of whether "folks are ready" feed the conspiracy narrative?

Maybe, but science does not need anymore hype. Think of the comets that were predicted to be spectacular, but turned out to be duds. How about the sudden "rediscovery" of the Ivory-billed woodpecker a few years ago with no subsequent observations? Sure, some of this is poor reporting by the media, but credibility matters.

[notFritzArgelander]

I'm in the camp that believes there "might" be life on Mars, and that life "probably" has occurred there in the past. I remember the Mars landings of 1976 as a 15 year old boy and astronomy fanatic. That said, in this modern age, where a large percentage of the teaming masses is distrustful or scornful of science (until they get that cancer diagnosis, of course), it will take overwhelming evidence of life that even the simple minded folks, glued to talk-radio conspiracy theories, can understand--- for there to be acceptance.

Given the data from Viking and Martian origin meteorites found on Earth I'd assess life as "likely" now and "almost certainly" in the past. I question the wisdom of pandering and coddling those gullible by conspiracy theorists. Doesn't even raising the question of whether "folks are ready" feed the conspiracy narrative?

Maybe, but science does not need anymore hype. Think of the comets that were predicted to be spectacular, but turned out to be duds. How about the sudden "rediscovery" of the Ivory-billed woodpecker a few years ago with no subsequent observations? Sure, some of this is poor reporting by the media, but credibility matters.

It's hard for me to see how the "likely" possibility or "inconclusive" statement of the results constitutes hype. Improving science literacy needs teaching uncertainty assessments and evidence based credibility not the credibility of supposed authority.

Folks at GSFC were sweating the "credibility" and "political sensitivity" issues for years on climate change and all that did was give the conspiracy theorists more time for mischief and disinformation.

[Arctic]

Given the data from Viking and Martian origin meteorites found on Earth I'd assess life as "likely" now and "almost certainly" in the past. I question the wisdom of pandering and coddling those gullible by conspiracy theorists. Doesn't even raising the question of whether "folks are ready" feed the conspiracy narrative?

Maybe, but science does not need anymore hype. Think of the comets that were predicted to be spectacular, but turned out to be duds. How about the sudden "rediscovery" of the Ivory-billed woodpecker a few years ago with no subsequent observations? Sure, some of this is poor reporting by the media, but credibility matters.

It's hard for me to see how the "likely" possibility or "inconclusive" statement of the results constitutes hype. Improving science literacy needs teaching uncertainty assessments and evidence based credibility not the credibility of supposed authority.

Folks at GSFC were sweating the "credibility" and "political sensitivity" issues for years on climate change and all that did was give the conspiracy theorists more time for mischief and disinformation.

Excellent points.

[Star Dad]

When 3 people out of 350 million die because of EEE and people refuse to go out at night for star viewing you know something is wrong with science education. When confronted by the fact that they might be in an auto accident on the way to the viewing (~37,000 die each year with over 2 million injuries) I get the response "Well, I can avoid an accident". (Which statistically they can't) . Simple bug spray, and/or long clothing will prevent mosquito bites. "Yeah, but I can't control that (being bitten)". Risk is inherent in everything we do. But the scientifically illiterate let fear sway them. So goes with life elsewhere in the universe.

[GCoyote]

When 3 people out of 350 million die because of EEE and people refuse to go out at night for star viewing you know something is wrong with science education. When confronted by the fact that they might be in an auto accident on the way to the viewing (~37,000 die each year with over 2 million injuries) I get the response "Well, I can avoid an accident". (Which statistically they can't) . Simple bug spray, and/or long clothing will prevent mosquito bites. "Yeah, but I can't control that (being bitten)". Risk is inherent in everything we do. But the scientifically illiterate let fear sway them. So goes with life elsewhere in the universe.

Humans make decisions about the world in terms of the narrative.
It's the math will usually kill you.

[GCoyote]

Back to the topic, there do seem to be quite a few factors that prevent a simple yes/no result.
Q. Given the vastly greater bandwidth we have now, is there any reason we can't send up the NASA version of a high power microscope, inoculate a few dozen nutrient cells with Martian regolith, and literally "watch what happens next?"

[notFritzArgelander]

Back to the topic, there do seem to be quite a few factors that prevent a simple yes/no result.
Q. Given the vastly greater bandwidth we have now, is there any reason we can't send up the NASA version of a high power microscope, inoculate a few dozen nutrient cells with Martian regolith, and literally "watch what happens next?"

The only barrier is spaceflight qualification of the technology. That would require 5-10 years development time and funding.

[Star Dad]

I read the article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -the-1970s
and this is a quote from it:

NASA has already announced that its 2020 Mars lander will not contain a life-detection test.

WTF? I thought the only real reason for the 2020 rover WAS to detect life. We've pussy footed around this question for almost 50 years. I'm going to stir the pot and ask some pointed questions of NASA. Looking at just a couple of the published papers has me spinning in anger that we've not reproduced the experiment - or indeed done another one on MARS. If NASA's #1 mission is to detect life - why aren't they doing any experiments? This sounds to me like a political coverup and deliberate suppression of knowledge. Can you tell that I'm :flame: ?

[notFritzArgelander]

I read the article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -the-1970s
and this is a quote from it:

NASA has already announced that its 2020 Mars lander will not contain a life-detection test.

WTF? I thought the only real reason for the 2020 rover WAS to detect life. We've pussy footed around this question for almost 50 years. I'm going to stir the pot and ask some pointed questions of NASA. Looking at just a couple of the published papers has me spinning in anger that we've not reproduced the experiment - or indeed done another one on MARS. If NASA's #1 mission is to detect life - why aren't they doing any experiments? This sounds to me like a political coverup and deliberate suppression of knowledge. Can you tell that I'm :flame: ?

I share your annoyance. I regard the decade and a half I spent working around DC for DoD and NASA as definitely mixed bag. There were some nice moments but there was also this dreck of twisting or ignoring facts in service of political agendas. It's gotten worse recently and only deepened since my retirement was forced in 2017. I wouldn't shut up. Naughty me.

On the one hand NASA will spend (tiny) money on the EM drive to please Star Trek fans.
On the other hand it WON'T spend money that might challenge the world view of folks who would be upset to find life elsewhere.

I once had to be patient listening to someone say that global warming was nothing that anyone needed to worry about since "the end times" would take care of it before it got too bad.

We've gone back to the Middle Ages mentally and spiritually if not technologically. :flame: