Curiosity Rover Project Scientist John Grotzinger.MISQUOTED; on "EARTH SHATTERING" QUOTE????

This concerns an interview by National Public Radio reporter Joe Palca with JPL Curiosity Rover Project Scientist John Grotzinger. So we have JPL Curiosity Rover Project Scientist John Grotzinger being misquoted by National Public Radio reporter Joe Palca but he did say "one for the history books".Now WHY would he be misquoted???


There will be a news conference about some MSL results, including SAM soil results, at on Dec. 3 at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. Some rumours about the content seem to have been overblown.
The MSL team is analysing data from SAM's soil inspection, but not ready to discuss yet. This is no change from the policy with past results from the mission, such as SAM's atmosphere analysis or CheMin's soil sample analysis: The scientists want to gain confidence in the findings before taking them outside of the science team.
Description of new findings as earthshaking did not come from anyone on the mission's science team.

The full interview is here;

www.npr.org...

Project Scientist John Grotzinger did not state the results where ”earthshaking”.It was an edited ”question” by the interviewer John Palca . John Grotzinger did state ” One for the history books”…..etc.

Guy Webster JPL who’s correct title is Media Relations Specialistconfirms John Grotzinger was mis quoted.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Now WHY would he be misquoted???

Because the media is known for exaggerating.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

Now WHY would he be misquoted???

Because the media is known for exaggerating.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 12/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes of course the media do , manipulation of perceptions is their battle ground but what i find interesting is the other terminology used by Grotzinger his quote "one for the history books" is interesting.

Here's a link to the original interview.
www.npr.org...

Grotzinger did use the phrase "one for the history books". It sounds like he is really excited about something specific they found, not just good data.

For a respectable and credible scientific publication to be somewhat tricked like "PHYS ORG" that first cover this story , is rather embarrassing i would surmise.

link for original story;
phys.org...

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

what i find interesting is the other terminology used by Grotzinger his quote "one for the history books" is interesting.

The data retrieved by Curiosity will be historic...no matter what it indicates...because such analysis has never been done.

Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something remarkable. "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good," he says.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

what i find interesting is the other terminology used by Grotzinger his quote "one for the history books" is interesting.

The data retrieved by Curiosity will be historic...no matter what it indicates...because such analysis has never been done.

Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something remarkable. "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good," he says.

Yes i see your points but the data should speak for its self, of course the question remains though "what does the data contain"?? Is it one for the history books or just as you have pointed out in your post??

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

They'll be talking about it at the fall AGU meeting next week, as scheduled. We'll see.