Re: NASA caught LYING TO YOU again!

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 8/3/2025 2:15 PM, % wrote:
>> 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 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.  I am not an expert; 
>>> few, if any others here, are experts either.  Get back to us when 
>>> your paper is online and any replies that you receive; please be sure 
>>> to include links.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>>
>> are we being graded on this
> 
> In any sense, "yes".  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

send them to jail