The following is an e-mail letter sent to Space.com's David Leonard. The letter was prompted by recent allegations by NASA contractor Lan Fleming. In the e-mail, which invoked a peculiar reply by Mr. David, I requested a Space.com forum in which to air Fleming's grievances.

January 3, 2002 - 7:18PM PST

Dear Mr. David:

I need your help. No doubt you have and will be receiving many emails like my own. However, please understand that mine is different from the rest.

As the individual who instigated the original FACETS (see http://www.infosourceresearch.com/current/facets.html) requests to NASA through my attorney Peter A. Gersten, I am one of the few people who have "put their money where their mouth is." And it has become painfully clear that there is something seriously wrong with the way NASA is conducting operations.

Please don't label me one of the ubiquitous "UFO enthusiasts" who sees conspiracy around every corner. I have a master's degree and work as a professional, alongside two doctors (one of whom happens to be my wife), in my "normal job" of managing a veterinary hospital. We have a dog and cat, two Hondas and a mortgage. In other words, I am your prime demographic. And I am stunned that this issue of vital importance is ignored by those who should be interested the most: the news media.

I am certain you know what issue I am talking about--the space agency's treatment of the so-called "face on Mars" and associated data. The best resource for the latest of a long string of concerns is NASA engineering contractor Lan Fleming's web site. Lan tends to be much more level headed, and certainly less conspiratorial, than other prominent figures in this debate. See some of his work here:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/mola/facemola.html

Also, though I have mixed feelings about the group, the Enterprise Mission has an excellent summary of just why so many of us are baffled by NASA's inability to be straightforward on this issue. See this article for background: http://www.enterprisemission.com/mola2.htm

At this point the issue is no longer what the data shows about the infamous "face" but what it reveals about the Jet Propulsion Lab and, ultimately, NASA. I presume more average Americans like myself would like to hear some of our pointed questions posed in a more public forum. That is where you come in.

I believe the situation behooves someone of your stature to examine both sides of the issue (JPL vs. Fleming's, for example) in an open forum. Space.com is a perfect arena in which to air an objective debate over these now very serious claims coming from Fleming, one of NASA's own. I request that you provide such a forum in which to examine some of these claims.

Thank you for reading and listening to my concerns. Please feel free to contact me at the email or phone number below.

Best regards,

David Jinks, MBA
Founder, FACETS
Director, InfoSource Research
[contact information deleted]

Frankly, I was quite confused by Mr. David's response, as he seemed to completely miss (or avoid) the crux of my argument. I assume anyone reading my original e-mail would feel the same way, so I wrote a follow-up e-mail. The text of that message follows:

January 3, 2002 - 10:24PM PST

Mr. David:
Thanks for your prompt response. I do appreciate it. I have to admit, however, that I'm a bit perplexed by your reply.

The concerns I expressed have little to do with interpretation of Martian features and their potential artificiality. Rather, my concern is with NASA's treatment of the data itself. It appears that, clearly, NASA has either used the *wrong* data or drawn errant conclusions, which were later hastily "marketed" to the public. Mr. Fleming goes into great detail to document this fact.

As you're well aware, NASA has been accused of "science by press conference" in the past. It seems that an esteemed organization like Space.com would be interested in presenting the correct evidence, even if (or perhaps *because*) it exposed shortcomings in NASA's manner of popularizing science.

By the lack of any mention of these central issues in your response, I am forced to conclude one of four things:

1) You did not read my email closely
2) You feel anything related even peripherally to the taboo topic of the "face" is "off-limits"
3) You believe that the methods NASA uses to reach its conclusions are irrelevant
4) You believe that Lan Fleming, an engineer and NASA contractor, is wrong

Number one is easily forgivable, considering that you must be inundated with emails from concerned citizens such as myself. Number two is understandable, given the demonstrated willingness of NASA and most mainstream scientists to "tar and feather" those who consider the "face" a scientific issue rather than a belief issue. But I cannot believe that number three is true, or else you would not be in the position you're in.

Number four is the key issue, in my opinion. If Fleming is incorrect, NASA should easily be able to show where his analysis went wrong, and our faith in NASA is restored. If Fleming's right, however, we have a much bigger and more interesting story.

What I would like to see--as an avid reader of and participant at the Space.com web site--is a debate between Dr. Jim Garvin (a nice fellow who corresponded cordially with me during the FACETS inquiry), the author of the article citing the data in question, and Lan Fleming. This debate would be a rip-roaring one, I'm sure, which would bring much traffic to the site, and much needed understanding of the methods used to generate the article's conclusions.

Do you think this is something that could be arranged, in the interest of science (AND business)? I hope so.

I will not take up any more of your time, and do not intend to pester you further, if you deem this open exchange a bad idea.

Thank you again for your input and willingness to address my concerns.

Best regards,
David Jinks
[contact information deleted]

Mr. David was not nearly as eager to reply to my second e-mail. As of this writing (January 5, 2002) I have received no response. Unfortunately, I find that this is frequently the case: most "mainstream" investigators will correspond with anyone once, but follow-up dialogue is almost impossible to achieve. I hold out hope that Mr. David will reply. And, if we're really lucky, he may even try to set up a debate of some sort. Odds are that Garvin would balk anyway, as NASA scientists of his ilk are not generally used to having to defend their practice of "science by press conference." But it's worth a shot.

If anything further comes of this abruptly truncated dialogue, rest assured that it will show up here.

David Jinks - 1/5/02

PS: If you have any thoughts on the matter, or would like to have a short chat with Leonard David, e-mail him at Space.com at LDavid@HQ.SPACE.com.

 

To contact InfoSource Research, write: PMB 210, 4820 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite B, Lacey, WA 98503 E-mail: contact@InfoSourceResearch.com