they always do.
Every so often
they have to have a
sensational headline for the surface readers,
the click-bait junkies, and the meme intellectuals
to keep the "narrative" circulating
alive, fresh, exciting etc.
But if you just dive
under the headline for a few minutes
you'll see they bury the truth
they don't want you to hear about.
What they want you to think
is in the headline.
What they don't want you to know?
Is buried at the end Of the story.
Been seeing this for years on end now
across disciplines.
Witness:
find signs of ancient life on Mars?
explains how we determine ‘life’
4/22/26 The Conversation
"As with the compounds
discovered by NASA’s Curiosity rover,
they may not readily meet
the biosignature criteria
of being unambiguously
biological."
That was an astrobiologist.
With all the hoopla associated with this crap
you would have thought they found fucking ET.
Cause its what they wanna make you think.
On to the piece:
"But is it evidence of life?
It’s not yet possible to determine whether it was delivered by a meteor (or comet or interplanetary dust particles), was formed through geological processes or may be linked to potential ancient life on Mars."
(3I/ATLAS was shedding crazy amounts
of organic material into the solar system.
See point 4
Avi Loeb medium 4/23/26
It went right by Mars.
Duh...)
"This begs a few questions:
What exactly is life? How do we know what to look for? Why is it so hard to determine if an organic compound came from life or not?"
"As an astrobiologist, my job is to study life in the universe. I have participated in several NASA and Canadian Space Agency (CSA) projects focused on learning how to detect signs of life, as well as training astronauts to be field scientists."
"This has taken me to field sites in the Antarctic, hot springs in Western Canada, volcanoes in Hawaii and underwater in British Columbia."
"It can also help us understand the other potential non-biological processes that can form organic compounds like ones that have been found on Mars."
"Meteorites can contain organic molecules such as amino acids and hydrocarbons that look very much like ones we would expect to be left behind by living organisms."
"But life is not the only way organic molecules can form. Some abiotic chemical reactions can produce organic molecules with no life required. These abiotic processes can lead to the formation of simple organic molecules, life’s building blocks, that form the basis of more complex components.'
("Life's "building blocks"
don't
and never will
because they can not
give you
the information/instructions needed
to get life.
That always has to come from an outside source
(at least initially)
and requires an input mechanism.
So have fun with that.
Holla when you figure it out.
Some of us already have.
See how hard that was?)
"It’s not easy to decide
what is a biosignature
and what might have
an alternative explanation."
(Translation:
Its easy for us to be wrong.)
But damn if we dont see this kinda shit:
"Did NASA’s Curiosity rover
find signs of ancient life on Mars?"
every time we turn around regardless.
Yawl need help?
Figuring out why that is?
Seriously?)
"Analysis of samples brought back to Earth from the asteroid Bennu in 2023 found organics such as sugars, including ribose, for example. Ribose is a component of RNA. This does not mean that there is life on Bennu, instead it shows that these biologically important molecules may be widely distributed in the solar system.'
(AND?...
Without information?
No life.)
"These kinds of investigations tell us that there are some organics that may not make good biosignatures because there is an alternative non-biological explanation."
(So?
It's easy for us to be wrong.
We don't know where it came from
and it may not be a
" good biosignature because there is
an alternative non-biological explanation "
Gotcha...)
Dude never even said
what life is
and he
is an astrobiologist...
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING
THEY CAN NOT EVEN DEFINE.
But boy it sure gets the faithful all riled up
just like it was intended to.
No comments:
Post a Comment