XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.ufo.reports   
   XPost: alt.alien.research   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/27/2025 1:40 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....   
   >   
   >  > What’s 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 — a biosignature —   
   >  > 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!  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.   
   >   
      
      
   Double post?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)