"no name" <noname@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fjgpvvou6e0j6kvt63mblv07oi6jkqrgrp@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:36:35 -0000, "Cliff Smith"
<cliff(nospam)smith@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"no name" <noname@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bnepvvc3lnhnkidcdtgctoe4mv4l8fqfkr@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:55:59 -0000, "Cliff Smith"
<cliff(nospam)smith@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"no name" <noname@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mo8pvvs6gs7cj2fq4v3oduf0fg409q9nl9@4ax.com...

1.  Name one independent scientist not employed by or under contract

by

NASA

who has been invited by NASA to scientifically peer review the raw

Mars

data.

The body responsible is the General Accounting Office, which has high
credibility with most UFO believers, since it instigated an

independant

review of the Roswell case.

http://www.nasawatch.com/peer.review.html

"All NASA research, including research resulting from unsolicited

proposals,

is subject to peer review, and peer review is conducted primarily to

award

funds on the basis of scientific merit."

Translation:  Awarded by NASA contract.  Dorry doesn't meet the

criteria

for

independent sientific review.

Did you even look at the site I linked to? Almost all of NASA's research
results

Results?  How is NASA's researsh results equivalent in examining and peer
reviewing the RAW data?

It isn't.  So stop with the NASA double speak for which they're famous.

You really don't have much grasp of the process of peer review, do you? What
are the reviewing panel going to do, look at a long list of ones and zeroes?
The way it works is, you do your experiments, you publish your results, your
peers review them, and that's how we learn things. What do you think they
were reviewing, a bloody press release? I don't think a panel like the one
listed is likely to be satisfied with that, do you?

--
Cliff Smith

"And we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere.
And to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together,
guys."