Perseverance finds intriguing geology, and the press goes crazy
Click for original image.
A press release from JPL yesterday described an intriguing rock (image to the right) that the Mars rover Perseverance science team has recently been studying, and in doing so repeatedly hinted that its features suggest the possibility of past Martian life. From its first two paragraphs:
A vein-filled rock is catching the eye of the science team of NASA’s Perseverance rover. Nicknamed “Cheyava Falls” by the team, the arrowhead-shaped rock contains fascinating traits that may bear on the question of whether Mars was home to microscopic life in the distant past.
Analysis by instruments aboard the rover indicates the rock possesses qualities that fit the definition of a possible indicator of ancient life. The rock exhibits chemical signatures and structures that could possibly have been formed by life billions of years ago when the area being explored by the rover contained running water. Other explanations for the observed features are being considered by the science team, and future research steps will be required to determine whether ancient life is a valid explanation.
Not surprisingly the press immediately went crazy. Here are just a few headlines:
- Science News: NASA’s Perseverance rover finds its first possible hint of ancient life on Mars
- Space.com: NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover finds possible signs of ancient Red Planet life
- New Scientist: Mars rover found a rock with possible signs of ancient life
- Washington Post: Mars rover discovers an ancient rock with a ‘potential biosignature’
- Forbes: Mars Rock Hints At Ancient Life—But More Study Needed, NASA Says
This rock of course does no such thing. Finding organic compounds merely means that they have identified molecules that include carbon. While life always includes such compounds, such compounds do not in the slightest guarantee the presence of life.
The rock is of course significant and intriguing because of its nature and make-up, but until the sample core from it can be returned to Earth and studied properly, no conclusions can be derived. Almost certainly — based on the Mars research done by orbiters, landers, and rovers since the 1970s — the least likely possibility is that it shows evidence of life. It is one explanation, but more likely the features here will be explained by one of many other inanimate geological processes.
The JPL press release is simply a continuation of the overall lie NASA and JPL keep pushing about the goals of Perseverance, in order to generate interest and funding. These agencies repeatedly claim that Perseverance’s goal is to search for evidence of past Martian life, when every geologist and engineer working on the project knows that its real goal is simply to study the past geology of Jezero Crater and the terrain beyond. If it detects evidence of life that discovery will be a gigantic and very unexpected bonus to its actual work.
The real tragedy here is that so few news outlets and reporters have the education and ability to understand this. They buy into this lie like naive toddlers, as they do with so many other lies from government officials. It is really shameful.
In this context, I must complement several news sources that interpreted the dishonesty of the JPL press release properly:
- Ars Technica: No, NASA hasn’t found life on Mars yet, but the latest discovery is intriguing
- The New York Times: NASA Did Not Say It Found Life on Mars. But It’s Very Excited About This Rock
The reporters in these two stories, Eric Berger and Kenneth Chang respectively, demonstrate that they are don’t simply accept the government line, but look more deeply at the subjects they are reporting.
Keep this information in mind when next you read space-related stories from all the news outlets above.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
While we search for evidence of life on Mars, the press headlines seem to provide PROOF that there is less intelligent life on Earth than is generally believed.
It seems to me that to posit, a priori, that we should be relentlessly skeptical of any evidence of possible life on Mars is just as preconceived and prejudicial as asserting that such signs *must* point to life. In reality, they may — or they may not, and as Robert suggests, we can’t know at this point. Sounding much like Carl Sagan’s admonishment that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE), why is the possibility of some kind or past or present life on Mars such an extraordinary thing that we must fiercely resist coming to such a conclusion? Not all that long ago, NASA insisted that there was “no evidence” of *water* on Mars (there was nothing there, they told us, but CO2), and the presence of water was an extraordinary, if not outlandish, claim. Now we know that Mars is a virtual ice world, extensively shaped by glaciation if not liquid flows.
Also, as indicated, each of these press accounts used qualifying terms such as “possible hints or signs,” “potential,” or “hints at” — as opposed to claiming that anything definitive had been proved. Indeed, given the long history of looking for life on Mars*, we have a sort of cultural predilection for finding Martians, but this bias / enthusiasm doesn’t prove that they can’t exist.
*Back when I was growing up, the pages of LIFE and other popular magazines were filled with discussions of life on Mars, and this was hotly debated by professional astronomers in the pages of Sky and Telescope as well. Finding out if life exists — or once existed — on Mars is certainly a check off box on my own lifetime bucket list of questions, but I am trying to remain neutral until the facts come in.
I see no reason to rule it out “just because,” though.
I’m so biased against the nyt that I find it hard to accept they can tell the truth about anything. Now really we are in bizzaro world.
Place your bets on when Chang is fired.
John: Things are never simple. Chang has been an excellent science journalist at the NYTimes for many years. He is however sadly old school, and when he retires will not be replaced by someone as good or as educated.
He likely will not get fired, because he focuses on science topics that are generally not controversial.