NASA Researchers Claim Evidence of Present Life on Mars

I said it was my opinion that they must be hostile, in order for the top-secret designation of ETI to make sense to me. Not that, "everybody knows". Quit trying to argue, it's not working.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree with the DProject, that disarming our nukes, "was peacefull". It's also not out of the question that with so many witnesses that Greer misunderstood their claim, and perhaps don't like the direction their group is taking. Point of fact, I don't like the direction the group is taking. They are way off onto clean-air crap and weapons in outer-space stuff. I feel they need to stick to the fact that Saucer shapped disks are ETI vehicles as witnessed and proven by his witnesses first, then move to other things after the congressional hearings they wanted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A Space.com reporter fabricated that whole story. The Nasa response to it can be found at http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=418683#418683.
Space.com seems to be becoming more like Disover magazine all the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Try this BBC story.

 

Btimsah, I asked you why you were assuming that any aliens we encountered would be hostile, and what you said was this:

Now, your statement right there is that you are not "assuming" that any aliens would be hostile--you are saying that you KNOW any aliens would be hostile, and the reason you say that you know this is because "hundreds of people who used to work for the U.S. military", with "highest security classifications", think so.

And so my next, logical question is to ask you for proof of this statement, that there are hundreds of U.S. ex-military employees who believe that any aliens would be hostile.

And you are not able to provide this. Instead you merely say that it is your belief that the Top Secret Designation of ETI must be due to "TPTB" already knowing that the aliens that ARE out there, and are hostile.

That's an assumption, not a cite.

Also, where are you getting that there's a Top Secret designation somewhere for some kind of ETI information? What kind of ETI information do you think the military, or NASA, has?

Eh? Did you seriously expect to start a "NASA is covering things up!" thread in a place like sciforums and NOT have feedback ("arguing")? YOU started this thread, with your (yes, it's a conspiracy theory, Btimsah) conspiracy theory.



http://www.answers.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

NASA says they don't know whether there is life on Mars.
You assume there is life on Mars.
Thus, you assume NASA is either wrong, or is covering things up.
You assume, then, that the reason why we have not been officially informed by NASA that there is life on Mars is because they're covering it up. That's "a theory seeking to explain a disputed case as a plot by a secret group".

Your OP:

Why isn't NASA talking about life on Mars?

You: "Because they're know it's there, but they're covering it up, so we don't panic, and so they can reverse-engineer any alien technology they may find there, and because they already know the aliens there are hostile."

Me: Because they don't have proof that there is any.

 

Btimsah, Iris's well structured, logical post explains exactly why many of us think you have your head buried some distance up your rectal cavity.

 

NASA is brain dead.

This is why

 

Iris, I don't think you understand what an opinion is. So, I won't bother. If you can't even comprehend what I'm trying to say this won't get anywhere.

Nice try.

 

Although, I understand how you guy's operate with the group-mentality. A hypothesis is not good, unless one from the group hypothesis it. If someone outside the group suggests something interesting it's attacked.

The same was done here. Instead of taking my claim as a hypothesis it was taken as a fact by Iris. As is usual, Iris and Ophiolite decide to take my hypothesis and claim I'm saying it's a fact in a desperate attempt to win debating points.

Nice try though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's an interesting article relating to the possibility of life, and the growing evidence that there IS current life on Mars. Gil Levin is looking more and more like the godfather of this discovery. His experiment is the ONLY hard evidence we have that actually proves microbial life exists on Mars. What more do we need?

The Ice Storm?

 

We need a lot more. Levin's work is interesting and not without merit, but he hardly proves microbial life exists on Mars. What's interesting isn't so much your support of Levin's work so much as your inability to accept notions that even slightly counter your belief system. We discussed the whole Levin research already, and yet you still maintain that he "proves microbial life exists on Mars?"

The best that Levin's work has been able to do to date is give some very valuable insight on how to perfect the process of discovery. His experiment used on Viking wasn't conclusive for the very reasons that were already discussed.

But the inability to accept notions that are contrary to established beliefs, in spite of evidence, is called a close minded attitude, the very thing that woo-woo's consistently accuse the skeptics of possessing. I contend that it is quite the opposite.

By the way, I linked to some information about the story that Enterprise Mission abuses here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45114

 

You are missing something here. Three somethings actually. First, you did not express an opinion to Iris, you claimed a fact. You said that you knew aliens would be hostile, that hundres of experts supported that view. btimsah, that is a[n innacurate] claim of fact; not the expression of opinion. Iris understands what an opinion is, and now you do too.

You also believe that aliens would be hostile. While we accept that you believe this, we do not believe it ourselves. However, this leads to your second element of confusion. Believing something does not equate to proposing a hypothesis. It must explain an observation, and you have no observations that allow you to say, "I think that shows activity by hostile aliens."

Thirdly, you have no way of testing your belief. All you have are more beliefs. You believe NASA is covering up. You believe the military's in on it. You believe the government saw. You believe people would panic. btimsah, all these beliefs are fine. You are entitled to them. We don't share these beliefs, but then again, what large group of people always believe the same thing?

Your problem though is that all your beliefs do not amount to having tested your other beliefs. There is no test that you have proposed, and none that we know that you could propose, that would test some of your more interesting beliefs. Being unable to test your beliefs, meaning you have no way of disproving them, is a second reason that they are only your beliefs and not a hypothesis. Without a means of disproof you cannot have a hypothesis. Iris understands what a hypothesis is, and now you do too.

 

His findings WERE conclusive, as the compounding evidence that LIFE CURRENTLY EXISTS AT MARS continues to mount his findings appear more and more likely to have been geniune.

If you wish too fall on the old excuse NASA gave to dismiss his findings, then fine. I don't.

 

Genius, I said IF ALIEN INTELLIGENCE IS BEING COVERED-UP OR IS TOP SECRET THEN THEY MUST BE HOSTILE. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE NO THREAT.

That's my opinion, based on the hypothesis that it IS BEING COVERED-UP.

 

Then it's not an act, you truly are that ignorant. I don't mean that statement as an ad hominem remark, but in the most basic meaning of the word "ignorant."

NASA didn't "dismiss" Levin's findings. A body of scientists, independent of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration did. Scientists from universities for instance. And they didn't so much "dismiss" his findings as come to the conclusion, based on further tests, that non-biological agents could not be ruled out and were even very likely to have affected it.

Are you saying that you conducted tests that show differently? Did you even read the literature in peer-reviewed journals?

Never mind. There's no sense in answering. You're too close-minded to look past your own limited belief system that clings to the notion that hostile alien intelligences are visiting our planet. Your characterization of NASA as an entity of conspirators and oppressors not only insults every legitimate researcher (including Dr. Levin), but it is also telling of the limitations in your own intellect.

 

Uh, no. Suggestive, yes. Conclusive, no. The findings were not conclusive because nonbiologic causes could not be ruled out. You want conclusive, not just unlikely.

While you said that, you also made other statements of fact that were incorrect.

There could be other reasons for a coverup of aliens besides their being a threat. While I agree that this is your opinion, you previously stated this as fact, which is why everyone is biting your ass over it. And again, you call it a hypothesis, but you have given us no observation whatsoever that needs explaining, and you have given us no means of testing your belief. Again.

What is the matter with you btimsah? Are you unable to understand what you read, or are you uable to process logical thoughts?

Interesting that you call me genius; you must be comparing me to yourself.