XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.alien.research   
   From: f00@0f0.00f   
      
   Attila wrote:   
   > On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:35:24 -0500, Dawn Flood   
   >  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....   
   >>>   
   >>>   > 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   i feel we will detect life outside our planet before 2050.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)