Re: NASA caught LYING TO YOU again!

On 8/2/2025 7:48 PM, JTEM wrote:
> 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?  Mental illness.
>>>
>>> #1.  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.  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.  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.  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  /Like/  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?  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!  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!
> 


Assuming that everything that you claim about me is true & correct is 
*not* proof that the claims that you are making in your OP are correct.

I am not in a position to referee your claims; such is the domain of 
scientific journals.  Remember the maxim in academic research, "No 
matter how bad a research paper is, there is a journal out there who is 
willing to publish it."  And, so, get to work!!

Dawn