| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:04:43 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,305 |
In April, a team of scientists based at the
University of Cambridge claimed that a planet
orbiting a distant star bore a possible
signature of life.
But the new observations have failed to confirm
evidence for life.
In the original study, the
Cambridge team claimed that K2-18b appeared to
have a gas in its atmosphere that on Earth is
produced only by living things. The NASA study
did not find strong evidence for that gas.
WhatrCOs more, the NASA team argues that even if
the gas was on K2-18b,
it might have formed
through mere chemistry.
What once seemed like
a promising clue of life rCo a biosignature rCo
might be a mirage.
On 7/24/25 11:48 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
In April, a team of scientists based at the
University of Cambridge claimed that a planet
orbiting a distant star bore a possible
signature of life.
Talking about this story:
https://archive.is/ApwLm
This was confirmation of a previous analysis of the
very same planet.
The planet has been of special interests since at
least 2015. It was considered a candidate for life
back then. They detected Dimethyl sulfide in the
atmosphere two years ago, or at least that's when
it was reported, and they confirmed the findings
again in April.
Dimethyl sulfide is a VERY tasty biosignature
because, unlike most biosignatures, we know of
no non-biological means to produce it. They also
found other "Biosignatures" but this dimethyl
sulfide is so exciting because, as far as anyone
knows, it can only come from life.
Well. It can be the result of industrial emissions,
yes, but those in turn are the product of biological
activity i.e. man.
So they found MORE THAN ONE biosignature and even
got a confirmation of this all important Dimethyl
sulfide signature. And...
But the new observations have failed to confirm
evidence for life.
This is not true. Read the cite.
We have a detection of biosignatures. We have a
confirmation of those biosignatures. And then we
have a "Failed to Confirm."
It's been confirmed. At least twice now.
In the original study, the
Cambridge team claimed that K2-18b appeared to
have a gas in its atmosphere that on Earth is
produced only by living things. The NASA study
did not find strong evidence for that gas.
This is stating that they found evidence for the gas.
"Strong" is the word you need to take note of. They
are NOT saying that they did not find evidence, they
are saying that they did find evidence but it's not
very "Strong."
So we have three studies finding evidence for this
Dimethyl sulfide....
WhatrCOs more, the NASA team argues that even if
the gas was on K2-18b,
There are ZERO non biological sources on the planet
earth. There are ZERO known non biological sources.
The gas was found in 2023. They confirmed that finding
in April. Now NASA just found evidence for that gas though
they say it's not "Strong" evidence... and that a gas with
ZERO non biological sources could have resulted from a
non biological source....
They are lying. Again.
NASA is phenomenally consistent with the denial of any
evidence for life outside of earth. I've already been
over this in the example of Mars...
it might have formed
through mere chemistry.
It's not know to have EVER come into existence from a
non biological source.
What once seemed like
a promising clue of life rCo a biosignature rCo
might be a mirage.
Actually, it looks more like NASA is actively squashing
the story. The exact same NASA that went searching for life
on Mars using optics that can't even see bacterial life on
earth, most of it anyway, or any suspected like on Mars (the
famous structures within the Mars Rock) is telling you that
a biosignature with precisely ZERO known non-biological
sources may have originated from a non-biological source, and
that's why a second confirmation (at least) of biosignatures
is not any kind of confirmation....
But even their claims here, which as incredibly misleading,
do imply that they found alien life.
NASA found evidence for that life!-a They say it's not
"Strong" evidence but even "Less than strong evidence" is
still evidence, AND TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS
strengthens the claim that we have found a life bearing
world.
NASA is a government agency. They do not exist to inform you.
They exist to carry out policy, not make it.
On 7/27/2025 1:43 AM, JTEM wrote:
NASA is a government agency. They do not exist to inform you.
They exist to carry out policy, not make it.
The term for this is "science".
No, no one is lying;
rather, some
investigators are either simply wrong or extrapolating beyond the
evidences that are currently available.
On 7/28/25 12:35 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/27/2025 1:43 AM, JTEM wrote:
NASA is a government agency. They do not exist to inform you.
They exist to carry out policy, not make it.
The term for this is "science".
So you have no clue what "Science" means.
No, no one is lying;
Of course they are. This is not random and it's not unique.
NASA is very consistent in lying about any evidence for life
outside of the earth.
rather, some investigators are either simply wrong or extrapolating
beyond the evidences that are currently available.
Wow. You are SO! LUCKY! you have no reading comprehension, or you'd
be awfully embarrassed right now...
They found evidence for life. They confirmed that evidence for life.
And then NASA says, "Yeah, we also found evidence but it's not that
strong, so we're pretending we found none."
Truth is "Strong" is a value judgment and, as used here, undefined.
But "Evidence" would be a fact -- true or false -- and even NASA
is saying "True," that there is evidence.
So all evidence is consistent with life.
AND, not only is NASA lying about that but, they are lying when they
say that the evidence could come from simple chemical reactions and
not life. They have ZERO evidence but they do have evidence for it not
being true:-a Life on earth.
NASA is consistent in it's denial of life outside of earth. They
are consistent liars.
If someone is lying,
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
"Evid
What is it that you want??
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
Attention.
You are so obliging.
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
everybody in jail
On 7/28/25 4:35 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
Nothing from you. This us usenet -- discussion groups -- and you
are incapable of such.
You have this compulsion, this need to obstruct... which is
actually textbook behavior for a narcissistic personality disorder.
You can't be cured but you try to change your behavior at least.
Concentrate on the facts I raise. If you disagree with any, identify
them. Express why you disagree... something other than "But the
media said!"
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
"Evid
What is it that you want??
Attention.
You are so obliging.
You've never dated me, and so, your claim about me is baseless!
But, seriously, what is it that you want NASA administration to do differently?!
His clowns are waiting for you!!!
On 7/28/2025 4:56 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 4:35 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
Nothing from you. This us usenet -- discussion groups -- and you
are incapable of such.
You have this compulsion, this need to obstruct... which is
actually textbook behavior for a narcissistic personality disorder.
You can't be cured but you try to change your behavior at least.
Concentrate on the facts I raise. If you disagree with any, identify
them. Express why you disagree... something other than "But the
media said!"
You've never dated me, and so, your claim about me is baseless!
But, seriously, what is it that you want NASA administration to do differently?!-a Now is the time to act!!-a The Crackpot in Chief has only 3.5 years left in his sole remaining term, and so, if you want action,
now is the time to pursue it!!
His clowns are waiting for you!!!
Dawn
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 4:56 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 4:35 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/28/2025 1:49 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/28/25 2:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If someone is lying,
You are religious, dogmatic. You need the priests to "Reveal"
the truth to you. You need "Gospels" to spell it out for you.
You're not capable of reading for comprehension.
"Evidence" is not French for "Proof." It either is or is not
consistent with a particular answer/interpretation. In this
case, it's consistent with life.
Now, NASA pretending that there's only one biosignature and
it could just as easily have come from simple chemical
reactions, instead of biology, is a lie. There's ZERO evidence
for this. Biology is the only known source.
Yes, it can be produced by industrial means but even THAT
requires biology, us.
All combined this is consistent with "The Search for Life"
on Mars where the optics NASA spent several billion dollars
sending to Mars can't even see bacteria, or most of it here
on earth, and none of what may be fossilized life in the now
famous "Mars Rock."
What is it that you want??
Nothing from you. This us usenet -- discussion groups -- and you
are incapable of such.
You have this compulsion, this need to obstruct... which is
actually textbook behavior for a narcissistic personality
disorder.
You can't be cured but you try to change your behavior at least.
Concentrate on the facts I raise. If you disagree with any,
identify
them. Express why you disagree... something other than "But the
media said!"
You've never dated me, and so, your claim about me is baseless!
But, seriously, what is it that you want NASA administration to
do differently?!-a Now is the time to act!!-a The Crackpot in
Chief has only 3.5 years left in his sole remaining term, and
so, if you want action, now is the time to pursue it!!
His clowns are waiting for you!!!
Dawn
i think he's trying to chat you up
doesnt look like it.
On 7/27/2025 1:43 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/24/25 11:48 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
In April, a team of scientists based at the
University of Cambridge claimed that a planet
orbiting a distant star bore a possible
signature of life.
Talking about this story:
https://archive.is/ApwLm
This was confirmation of a previous analysis of the
very same planet.
The planet has been of special interests since at
least 2015. It was considered a candidate for life
back then. They detected Dimethyl sulfide in the
atmosphere two years ago, or at least that's when
it was reported, and they confirmed the findings
again in April.
Dimethyl sulfide is a VERY tasty biosignature
because, unlike most biosignatures, we know of
no non-biological means to produce it. They also
found other "Biosignatures" but this dimethyl
sulfide is so exciting because, as far as anyone
knows, it can only come from life.
Well. It can be the result of industrial emissions,
yes, but those in turn are the product of biological
activity i.e. man.
So they found MORE THAN ONE biosignature and even
got a confirmation of this all important Dimethyl
sulfide signature. And...
But the new observations have failed to confirm
evidence for life.
This is not true. Read the cite.
We have a detection of biosignatures. We have a
confirmation of those biosignatures. And then we
have a "Failed to Confirm."
It's been confirmed. At least twice now.
In the original study, the
Cambridge team claimed that K2-18b appeared to
have a gas in its atmosphere that on Earth is
produced only by living things. The NASA study
did not find strong evidence for that gas.
This is stating that they found evidence for the gas.
"Strong" is the word you need to take note of. They
are NOT saying that they did not find evidence, they
are saying that they did find evidence but it's not
very "Strong."
So we have three studies finding evidence for this
Dimethyl sulfide....
WhatAs more, the NASA team argues that even if
the gas was on K2-18b,
There are ZERO non biological sources on the planet
earth. There are ZERO known non biological sources.
The gas was found in 2023. They confirmed that finding
in April. Now NASA just found evidence for that gas though
they say it's not "Strong" evidence... and that a gas with
ZERO non biological sources could have resulted from a
non biological source....
They are lying. Again.
NASA is phenomenally consistent with the denial of any
evidence for life outside of earth. I've already been
over this in the example of Mars...
it might have formed
through mere chemistry.
It's not know to have EVER come into existence from a
non biological source.
What once seemed like
a promising clue of life u a biosignature u
might be a mirage.
Actually, it looks more like NASA is actively squashing
the story. The exact same NASA that went searching for life
on Mars using optics that can't even see bacterial life on
earth, most of it anyway, or any suspected like on Mars (the
famous structures within the Mars Rock) is telling you that
a biosignature with precisely ZERO known non-biological
sources may have originated from a non-biological source, and
that's why a second confirmation (at least) of biosignatures
is not any kind of confirmation....
But even their claims here, which as incredibly misleading,
do imply that they found alien life.
NASA found evidence for that life!a They say it's not
"Strong" evidence but even "Less than strong evidence" is
still evidence, AND TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS
strengthens the claim that we have found a life bearing
world.
NASA is a government agency. They do not exist to inform you.
They exist to carry out policy, not make it.
The term for this is "science". No, no one is lying; rather, some >investigators are either simply wrong or extrapolating beyond the
evidences that are currently available. In either case, everyone is
acting in good faith!
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:35:24 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <1066uma$21fmk$6@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 1:43 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/24/25 11:48 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
> In April, a team of scientists based at the
> University of Cambridge claimed that a planet
> orbiting a distant star bore a possible
> signature of life.
Talking about this story:
https://archive.is/ApwLm
This was confirmation of a previous analysis of the
very same planet.
The planet has been of special interests since at
least 2015. It was considered a candidate for life
back then. They detected Dimethyl sulfide in the
atmosphere two years ago, or at least that's when
it was reported, and they confirmed the findings
again in April.
Dimethyl sulfide is a VERY tasty biosignature
because, unlike most biosignatures, we know of
no non-biological means to produce it. They also
found other "Biosignatures" but this dimethyl
sulfide is so exciting because, as far as anyone
knows, it can only come from life.
Well. It can be the result of industrial emissions,
yes, but those in turn are the product of biological
activity i.e. man.
So they found MORE THAN ONE biosignature and even
got a confirmation of this all important Dimethyl
sulfide signature. And...
> But the new observations have failed to confirm
> evidence for life.
This is not true. Read the cite.
We have a detection of biosignatures. We have a
confirmation of those biosignatures. And then we
have a "Failed to Confirm."
It's been confirmed. At least twice now.
> In the original study, the
> Cambridge team claimed that K2-18b appeared to
> have a gas in its atmosphere that on Earth is
> produced only by living things. The NASA study
> did not find strong evidence for that gas.
This is stating that they found evidence for the gas.
"Strong" is the word you need to take note of. They
are NOT saying that they did not find evidence, they
are saying that they did find evidence but it's not
very "Strong."
So we have three studies finding evidence for this
Dimethyl sulfide....
> WhatrCOs more, the NASA team argues that even if
> the gas was on K2-18b,
There are ZERO non biological sources on the planet
earth. There are ZERO known non biological sources.
The gas was found in 2023. They confirmed that finding
in April. Now NASA just found evidence for that gas though
they say it's not "Strong" evidence... and that a gas with
ZERO non biological sources could have resulted from a
non biological source....
They are lying. Again.
NASA is phenomenally consistent with the denial of any
evidence for life outside of earth. I've already been
over this in the example of Mars...
> it might have formed
> through mere chemistry.
It's not know to have EVER come into existence from a
non biological source.
> What once seemed like
> a promising clue of life rCo a biosignature rCo
> might be a mirage.
Actually, it looks more like NASA is actively squashing
the story. The exact same NASA that went searching for life
on Mars using optics that can't even see bacterial life on
earth, most of it anyway, or any suspected like on Mars (the
famous structures within the Mars Rock) is telling you that
a biosignature with precisely ZERO known non-biological
sources may have originated from a non-biological source, and
that's why a second confirmation (at least) of biosignatures
is not any kind of confirmation....
But even their claims here, which as incredibly misleading,
do imply that they found alien life.
NASA found evidence for that life!-a They say it's not
"Strong" evidence but even "Less than strong evidence" is
still evidence, AND TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS
strengthens the claim that we have found a life bearing
world.
NASA is a government agency. They do not exist to inform you.
They exist to carry out policy, not make it.
The term for this is "science". No, no one is lying; rather, some
investigators are either simply wrong or extrapolating beyond the
evidences that are currently available. In either case, everyone is
acting in good faith!
These discussions usually leave out one critical phrase -
"life as we know it".
However it is possible there is a lot of life as we don't
know it and such life could leave signs we cannot recognize.
It is all guesswork on all sides until we actually go and
see.
However it is possible there is a lot of life as we don't
know it and such life could leave signs we cannot recognize.
It is all guesswork on all sides until we actually go and
see.
i feel we will detect life outside our planet before 2050.
On 7/31/25 10:17 AM, jojo wrote:
i feel we will detect life outside our planet before 2050.
I feel confident that "we" -- humanity -- already has.
Bacterial life.
The massive problem with the example of Mars is that we
not only have to find it, we have to rule out it being
Earth Life.... contamination.
We need a return mission.
On 7/31/25 7:39 AM, Attila wrote:
However it is possible there is a lot of life as we don't
know it and such life could leave signs we cannot recognize.
It is all guesswork on all sides until we actually go and
see.
Yes but no you're "Arguing" for what we don't know, instead of
what we know. This happens a lot about UFO "enthusiasts."
Us: "You can't travel faster than the speed of light."
UFO nutter: "We don't know! They're aliens. We don't know.
Maybe they can. Maybe they got super advanced alien tech we
don't know about!"
The problem is, this "Arguing" out of ignorance doesn't know
how to distinguish between "We don't know how to do that" and
"As far as we know, that can't be done."
We do NOT know how to travel 80% of the speed of light. But,
as far as we know, it's impossible to travel at the speed of
light.
maybe europa or enceladus or few hundred meters inside mars?
JTEM wrote:
On 7/31/25 10:17 AM, jojo wrote:
i feel we will detect life outside our planet before 2050.
I feel confident that "we" -- humanity -- already has.
Bacterial life.
The massive problem with the example of Mars is that we
not only have to find it, we have to rule out it being
Earth Life.... contamination.
We need a return mission.
maybe europa or enceladus or few hundred meters inside mars?
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
On 7/29/2025 1:02 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type all of this up in a manuscript and you can submit it here today:
https://arxiv.org/
You'll get timely feedback from experts.
I am not an expert
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type
On 7/29/2025 1:02 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type all of this up and submit it as a manuscript; here's one place that you can go to today:
https://arxiv.org/
You'll get fairly prompt feedback from experts.-a I am not an expert;
few, if any others here, are experts either.-a Get back to us when your paper is online and any replies that you receive; please be sure to
include links.
Dawn
On 8/2/25 1:34 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/29/2025 1:02 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type all of this up in a manuscript and you can submit it here
today:
https://arxiv.org/
Why?-a You can't just Google anything I said, confirm it?
You need someone else to tell you that these things are right,
you can't figure it out on your own?
You'll get timely feedback from experts.
Again, why?
What is it you doubt? How did you attempt to confirm or
falsify it?
You're not saying these things as part of an exchange, you're
trying to stop a conversation you can't control.
I am not an expert
You're retarded!-a You're admitting that you can't deal with
facts that are spelled out for you, and you never figure out
how to Google things so you can't confirm anything yourself..
You're mentally ill. You're a raging narcissist and you can't
even see how you just exposed yourself!
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/29/2025 1:02 PM, JTEM wrote:are we being graded on this
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type all of this up and submit it as a manuscript; here's one
place that you can go to today:
https://arxiv.org/
You'll get fairly prompt feedback from experts.-a I am not an expert;
few, if any others here, are experts either.-a Get back to us when your
paper is online and any replies that you receive; please be sure to
include links.
Dawn
On 8/3/2025 2:15 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/29/2025 1:02 PM, JTEM wrote:are we being graded on this
On 7/29/25 11:30 AM, jojo wrote:
doesnt look like it.
You know what it looks like?-a Mental illness.
#1.-a I said that the Dimethyl sulfide in question was already
confirmed. It was detected and later detected again. AND I
said that the claim here wasn't that NASA found no evidence
for it but, no "Strong" evidence. Which means that their
findings were CONSISTENT WITH Dimethyl sulfide, rather than
excluding it.
Any dispute? Any word addressing this at all?
Nope.
#2.-a I said that Dimethyl sulfide was not the only biosignature
detected. There were others. I said that Dimethyl sulfide was
so important because there are no non-biological sources.
Any dispute? Was a single word acknowledged or addressed?
Nope.
#3.-a I said that NASA, besides NOT claiming that they found no
evidence for it, merely no "Strong" evidence," dismissed this
Dimethyl sulfide as something that could have come from a simple
chemical reaction. But, this is wrong because, as I already
pointed out, as far as we know the only known sources are
biological.
Any dispute? Was this addressed at all? Was it acknowledged?
Nope.
#4.-a I said that this was consistent. That, NASA is consistent
in it's denials of evidence for life outside the earth, and
even misinforming the public on the subject. I reiterated facts
raised in a previous thread regarding the Mars lander and the
supposed search for life there.
Any dispute? Was there so much as a single counter example? Any
attempt to address this fact at all?
Nope.
I get that people can-a /Like/-a a particular answer over others,
but that's not even the problem here. This thread is about me
raising facts that should set off alarm bells in any so called
"Skeptic," while the collective spasms & tries to stop any
conversation it is unable to control.
Then type all of this up and submit it as a manuscript; here's one
place that you can go to today:
https://arxiv.org/
You'll get fairly prompt feedback from experts.-a I am not an expert;
few, if any others here, are experts either.-a Get back to us when
your paper is online and any replies that you receive; please be sure
to include links.
Dawn
In any sense, "yes".-a Anyone can come on Usenet and throw-up a bunch of technobabble, but that does not mean that the rest of us have to sift through their nonsense to identify their many errors.
Dawn
Assuming that everything that you claim about me is true
In any sense, "yes".-a Anyone can come on Usenet and throw-up a bunch of technobabble
On 8/3/25 9:07 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Assuming that everything that you claim about me is true
Oh it's true. No question.
So, what is this, the fifth time? WHAT specifically do you
want to challenge, from what I said, and why?
How did YOU verify/falsify it?
What was your search criteria?
Share now the cites which convinced you that anything I
said was wrong.
TRY to crawl out from under your debilitating narcissistic
personality disorder and engage, instead of just acting like
a twat the way you keep doing.
On 8/3/25 9:10 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
In any sense, "yes".a Anyone can come on Usenet and throw-up a bunch of technobabble
Well. Not if anyone in the audience has access to Google. Then
they can just Google the facts presented, confirm them
themselves.
But you're a retarded twat, so we can't expect you to think
investigate or anything but act like a retarded twat.
Dimethyl sulfide has been detected in comets
[24] IT HAS ALSO BEEN SYNTHESIZED ABIOTICALLY IN
THE LABORATORY.
[25] For comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the European
Space Agency sampled the cloud of dust and gas shed from the comet.
[24]
[26] DIMETHYL SULFIDE HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ABIOTICALLY IN LABORATORIES
[27] These comet-based discoveries contradict
the suggestion that dimethyl sulfide is an indicator of life on other planets.[28][25][29][30]
The James Webb Space Telescope has possibly detected evidence of DMS in
the atmosphere of the exoplanet K2-18b.[31][32][33][34]
On 8/3/25 11:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Dimethyl sulfide has been detected in comets
Lol!-a Been on a lot of comets, huh?
This comet theory is fascinating for a number of reasons.
The first is that Dimethyl sulfide does not stay in an
atmosphere for long, so if it came from a comet it would
have to be recent. It would also have to be a BIG comet,
absolutely huge...
This claim of finding it in a comet though mirrors other
claims. For instance, there was a 100% fool proof test
for settling all arguments over whether or not 3 billlion
year old plus structures inside of rocks are fossils or
just rocks. And they found that they were indeed fossils!
Until the famous Mar's Rock passed the same test. Oh,
the test on the earth rocks in still fool proof though...
But it's just stupid. Nobody would have a problem with
the idea of Dimethyl sulfide being found in comets, the
same way our water is, but, again, it would need to be
VERY recent and it would need to be HUGE.
[24] IT HAS ALSO BEEN SYNTHESIZED ABIOTICALLY IN THE LABORATORY.
Which requires biology. This is something you would already know
if you had reading comprehension:-a A human, a living thing is
what synthesized it!
[25] For comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the European Space Agency
sampled the cloud of dust and gas shed from the comet.
This is just repeating the same claim you made earlier.
It's padding...
[24] [26] DIMETHYL SULFIDE HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ABIOTICALLY IN LABORATORIES
And this was the second claim that you made.
You're pretending to have made four points when you didn't.
[27] These comet-based discoveries contradict the suggestion that
dimethyl sulfide is an indicator of life on other planets.[28][25][29]
[30]
No they don't. They can't. For starters, if they meant that much
you wouldn't have repeated them, pretending you have four points.
Secondly, it is a biosignature, it is evidence for life. And what's
more, together with other biosignatures it's very good evidence.
Being retarded, you think something all by itself has to be rock
solid proof or it isn't evidence. Well it is evidence. And it's
very strong evidence.
The James Webb Space Telescope has possibly detected evidence of DMS
in the atmosphere of the exoplanet K2-18b.[31][32][33][34]
Several reviews have confirmed it, and even NASA in it's denial
doesn't exclude it.
Which means it was found three times, at least.
I didn't write that paragraph
]Dawn Flood wrote:
I didn't write that paragraph
You posted it. It was your excuse for an "Argument."
And it was stupid. You almost made two point but you
repeated both, pretending that you almost made two
points. And I say "Almost" is because one of your idiotic
"Points" is that life -- humans -- can synthesize it, which
of course requires life...
If you thought about it, which you can't, you being retarded,
your pathetically weak excuse for an "Argument" against life
represents an excellent argument in favor of it.
The in favor of alien life is strong, you're idiotic
rationalization is weak...
On 8/4/2025 11:46 AM, JTEM wrote:
]Dawn Flood wrote:
I didn't write that paragraph
You posted it. It was your excuse for an "Argument."
And it was stupid. You almost made two point but you
repeated both, pretending that you almost made two
points. And I say "Almost" is because one of your idiotic
"Points" is that life -- humans -- can synthesize it, which
of course requires life...
If you thought about it, which you can't, you being retarded,
your pathetically weak excuse for an "Argument" against life
represents an excellent argument in favor of it.
The in favor of alien life is strong, you're idiotic
rationalization is weak...
Dimethyl sulfide is NOT an unambiguous signal of biological life!
Period.-a Ergo, it is possible that completely non-biological
reactions are producing dimethyl sulfide.
Dawn
On 8/4/2025 11:46 AM, JTEM wrote:
]Dawn Flood wrote:
I didn't write that paragraph
You posted it. It was your excuse for an "Argument."
And it was stupid. You almost made two point but you
repeated both, pretending that you almost made two
points. And I say "Almost" is because one of your idiotic
"Points" is that life -- humans -- can synthesize it, which
of course requires life...
If you thought about it, which you can't, you being retarded,
your pathetically weak excuse for an "Argument" against life
represents an excellent argument in favor of it.
The in favor of alien life is strong, you're idiotic
rationalization is weak...
Dimethyl sulfide is NOT an unambiguous signal of biological life!
Period.-a Ergo, it is possible that completely non-biological reactions
are producing dimethyl sulfide.
Dawn
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/4/2025 11:46 AM, JTEM wrote:
]Dawn Flood wrote:
I didn't write that paragraph
You posted it. It was your excuse for an "Argument."
And it was stupid. You almost made two point but you
repeated both, pretending that you almost made two
points. And I say "Almost" is because one of your idiotic
"Points" is that life -- humans -- can synthesize it, which
of course requires life...
If you thought about it, which you can't, you being retarded,
your pathetically weak excuse for an "Argument" against life
represents an excellent argument in favor of it.
The in favor of alien life is strong, you're idiotic
rationalization is weak...
Dimethyl sulfide is NOT an unambiguous signal of biological life!
Period.-a Ergo, it is possible that completely non-biological reactions
are producing dimethyl sulfide.
Dawn
ergo is my favorite word!
jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:all the nuts say that
On 8/4/2025 11:46 AM, JTEM wrote:
]Dawn Flood wrote:
I didn't write that paragraph
You posted it. It was your excuse for an "Argument."
And it was stupid. You almost made two point but you
repeated both, pretending that you almost made two
points. And I say "Almost" is because one of your idiotic
"Points" is that life -- humans -- can synthesize it, which
of course requires life...
If you thought about it, which you can't, you being retarded,
your pathetically weak excuse for an "Argument" against life
represents an excellent argument in favor of it.
The in favor of alien life is strong, you're idiotic
rationalization is weak...
Dimethyl sulfide is NOT an unambiguous signal of biological
life! Period.-a Ergo, it is possible that completely
non-biological reactions are producing dimethyl sulfide.
Dawn
ergo is my favorite word!