We are writing to express
our displeasure with your recent article entitled "Mars: A Visual Feast."
While it is, overall, an interesting, if cursory, survey of the available
Mars Global Surveyor images, we'd expect SPACE.com to be a little
more discerning in the kinds of rhetoric it flings about. We're speaking,
of course, of the last paragraph, which mimics the same tired MSSS [Malin
Space Science Systems] party line regarding the silly, two-dimensional
Dr. Malin-contrived "happy face."
[We] assume you're familiar
with the Cydonia controversy. The qualitative differences between Dr. Malin's
"happy face" and the infamous "Face on Mars," which one scientist of great
stature calls "artificial beyond a reasonable doubt," (see http://www.metaresearch.org/announce/on-improbable-claims.htm)
are enormous. Likewise, the number of scientists who have devoted much
time and effort to attempting to answer the question of artificiality at
Cydonia is growing. Their research is sound (though ignored), and it can
be found here: http://www.infosourceresearch.com/current/cydonia.html.
Though it may not have been
your intention, snide remarks such as "funny martian formations" unfairly
diminish the importance of the available artificiality research, and mislead
your audience into incorrectly concluding that all "funny martian formations"
are in the same category...quaint, comical illusions easily dismissed.
We kindly ask that you consider writing another article devoted to the
study of the Cydonia researchers and attempt to portray the data in its
true light...as a scientific mystery worthy of more than a gimmicky side
note.
Information summarizing the
evidence for artificiality at Cydonia -- which includes peer-reviewed fractal
analysis technique, shape-from-shading analysis and enhancement, statistical,
photoclinometric and ethnographic analysis -- is contained in the links
we've provided above. We look forward to seeing a serious article on the
"funniest formations" we've ever seen on Mars, those that might represent
evidence for artificial structures. Now that's an article worth
writing!
David Jinks
Paula Sommerville
Infosource Research
Olympia, Washington
A reader responds to Greg
Clark's article
"Will Nuclear Power Put Humans on Mars?" For earlier correspondence, click
here.
To the Editor:
The article is dismissive
of the idea of space propulsion being a "foot in the door" for space-based
weapons systems. It compares the unused nuclear material being launched
as being as dangerous as "a big pile of dirt" because it would only go
critical after launch. I have one simple question that the article avoids:
If the Challenger shuttle
that exploded after launch had had 77 pounds (35 kilograms) of enriched
uranium aboard, where would that uranium have gone?
Ships need not be nuclear
to have accidents, only to be designed by fault-prone humans. Enriched
uranium need not be critical to be lethal.
If I am given two choices...risk
many thousands of uranium-caused cancers from such an accident so that
astronauts can recover faster, or have astronauts take two years to recover
from an extended space mission, then I choose the third choice...take more
time to discover a third, acceptable answer. I do NOT choose lethal risk
to an uninformed, non-consenting public to ease the burdens of the voluntary,
military-trained space crews. Do the work and come up with the third answer.
Make the public aware of the benefit of the research, so the politicians
will fund it. Don't secure funding with nuclear promises.
Tony Vasquez
Brooklyn, New York
Josh Chamot's article
"Acidic Clouds Responsible for Ozone Depletion" generated this reaction.
To the Editor:
I'm sorry. The story concerning
"acid clouds" and "ozone depletion" left me very much adrift. I gather
this is somehow connected to "global warming." Somehow supercold temperatures
in the stratosphere are linked to the formation of clouds of nitrogen crystals
(pretty durn cold, if you ask me!) that are somehow linked to the "balmy
winters" we've had for the last two or so years that are somehow connected
to CFCs [chloroflurocarbons] that are somehow connected to...you name it.
As one who has rejected the religion of the Earth Mother and the sub-cult
of Global Warning, this article only confirmed my thought that those who
hold these views must not be given sharp objects and should be under close
supervision for their own, and everyone else's, safety.
John Jarrell
San Antonio, Texas
Andrew Bridges article
"Take Your Business to the Moon" discussed TransOrbital Inc.'s plans to
bring customers' business cards to the moon. For earlier correspondence,
click here.
To the Editor:
I have heard of any number
of ways to separate the average sucker from their money, but I must admit
that the announcement that a company is offering to send business cards
and other junk to the surface of the moon in an effort to make a "commercial"
lunar mission pay has to be one of the more ingenious ones.
Imagine, tapping into the
stream of 'more money than brains' types that Wall Street seems to be famous
for generating to finance deep-space missions. Wonderful! Spectacular!
Brain dead! Wonder if they've managed to figure out that they've only gotten
one small bid because most people aren't as vain/stupid as they'd like
to think?
Doubt it.
As for Europeans visiting
places they hold sacred, no, they visit buildings they hold sacred, places
like Notre Dame, places people built, not natural sites. Those usually
get trashed, doubly so if they are seen to stand in the way of what is
regarded as "progress." Mr. Blase's invitation for the Navaho to somehow
go to the moon and rope off a section so that everyone else can avoid it
is both snide and childish enough to be dismissed without further comment.
Andrew Reynolds
SPACE.com welcomes Letters
to the Editor. Letters intended for publication should be under 250 words,
and may be edited for length and clarity.
advertisement
