XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.alien.research   
   XPost: alt.ufo.reports   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)