Dear Tom,
I very much enjoyed hearing you on Coast to Coast a week or so ago. I guess the bad news is that Richard was on too, and it’s sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. J I have found you to be one of the most open minded and progressive astronomers in the world and I very much appreciate your kind voice as you try to open minds to the possibilities of an infinite cosmos. Although I have written hundreds of letters over the last few years, you are one of the few people that have ever answered my letters and I’ve very much enjoyed the book that you sent me.
I write you today in regards to the life of Mars. Even though we have communicated several times in the past, I can’t remember if I’ve ever talked to you about the meteorite that I found on my great aunt’s ranch in the early 1970’s. I know we have talked of the speed of gravity and other issues such as the field of influence of gravitational bodies, but I’m not sure we have ever discussed the evidence of Martian origin of the Frass Meteorite that I have accumulated over the years.
I think there are some of us that recognize that differences of opinion are actually good for science. You, me, and Richard have all faced difficulties because we are perceived to be outside the “norm.” I agree with many things that Hoagland says, yet I disagree with certain aspects of his hyper dimensional model, since it is based on Euclidean math. Under the gravionic model that I have proposed, nature has no straight lines and, in the end, Euclidean math can not adequately represent nature. Relativity is one piece of evidence for this conclusion. Thus only relatively new civilizations would actually use Euclidean math, since any advanced civilization would have to deal with mathematics that more accurately represent nature. It seems to me that any civilization that has learned to use gravity to move between the stars would have to move past Euclidean math, and if that is so, why would they build monuments to antique math? Or maybe the “Martians” never learned to manipulate gravity and move between the stars and only made their way from Mars to Earth via chemical rockets. In any event, it doesn’t seem obvious to me that advanced civilizations would make tributes to “old” science, but my mind is open to new evidence.
After reviewing much of your work, I find very little with which I can disagree. However, we have had our disagreements over gravitons and gravions. I say that gravitons are philosophically meaningless (being perhaps the only one word oxymoron). In nature, we have things (mass) and we have relationships between those things (the connections of gravity). You propose that the gravitational influence is transferred through gravitons which have not been observed and bring into question a hole new set of problems, while I propose that every known and existing bond, is actually a gravitational bond and that the influence of gravity is expressed through these bonds at the speed of gravity, while other energies transfer through this system at the speed of light. Though we have disagreements on this subject, I think we still respect each other and that is the way it should be.
The current problem under focus is the life of Mars. I believe that I am the only one who has actually studied the life of Mars since 1996 when I got the Frass Meteorite out of my closet and began a concentrated study of the rock. Based on my study and test data, I proposed in 1998 that there was still liquid water on the surface of Mars, since the main part of the meteorite was made only 13 million years ago by the flow of lava, and I knew that in geologic terms, that was about the same as today. Also, there was another lava flow at the same site as the first at 49 million years ago. This sample had been in the presence of liquid water during its life and had apparently been on the surface its entire life, since nothing in the meteorite appears compressed. In 2000, Michael Malin proposed that there was water on the surface based on his precious photographs that he has so carefully horded. I think the evidence is now overwhelming that liquid water exists on the butterscotch-colored planet, maybe just about everywhere. It seems certain it is leaking out of crater walls and in deep valleys where one would expect to find water. The latest evidence by Levin and others indicates liquid water is possible on the surface of Mars and many think it is evident even in the tracks of Spirit.
One of the biggest mistakes of my life was proclaiming that it appeared that certain forms of life had made the trip to Earth alive in the Frass Meteorite, yet the evidence has only come to support my hypothesis. Every “real” scientist has put me down for this proposal, but I think we have now seen these glassy creatures in the rover microscopic pictures, just as I predicted. Shell fish and other possible ocean creatures appear to inhabit the Spirit site, yet for some reason, they have been unable to focus their camera on most of the microscopic pictures. And to make matters more absurd, it now appears that these glassy creatures may actually be connected with Morgellons disease, possibly the first extraterrestrial disease identified. Interestingly enough, Morgellons patients are centered in three zones, possibly from the fall of three Martian meteorites in an area or water supply.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for your support. I heard that you would be at some conference on the life of Mars. Maybe it has already taken place. But would you please consider mentioning the Frass Meteorite and the evidence for Martian life that it contains at any occasion it might prove worthwhile. I will make an open invitation to you or anyone you meet to view the meteorite and the evidence of Martian origin. The meteorite is stored here in Los Alamos, New Mexico and can be viewed any business day with a days notice. Even though there are things about which we disagree, I hope we can agree that Mars is alive, and probably has been longer than the Earth.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this request.
Your friend,
μmike
505 412-1371