https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845
I'm disappointed that there hasn't been updates,
and serious, above-board investigations.
I mean, they claimed some pretty strong evidence,
including images.
What I find most interesting about things like this
is both the approach (standard of evidence, etc)
and the implications. One needn't believe a
meteorite does or does not contain the remains
of living organisms in order to explore what it
would mean if, yes, it were accepted as true.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845
I'm disappointed that there hasn't been updates,
and serious, above-board investigations.
I mean, they claimed some pretty strong evidence,
including images.
What I find most interesting about things like this
is both the approach (standard of evidence, etc)
and the implications. One needn't believe a
meteorite does or does not contain the remains
of living organisms in order to explore what it
would mean if, yes, it were accepted as true.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705742582064496640
On 1/7/2023 11:44 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845
I'm disappointed that there hasn't been updates,
and serious, above-board investigations.
I mean, they claimed some pretty strong evidence,
including images.
What I find most interesting about things like thisYou should put some effort into trying to figure out if the publication
is both the approach (standard of evidence, etc)
and the implications. One needn't believe a
meteorite does or does not contain the remains
of living organisms in order to explore what it
would mean if, yes, it were accepted as true.
ever amounted to anything. Apparently there was criticism of the paper,
but the editor seems to stand behind the publication.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/17667810/journal-of-cosmology-editor-in-chief-rudy-schild
The journal itself seems to be set up like someone's blog. The article
being discusses is #2 on the first page.
https://thejournalofcosmology.com/indexVol22CONTENTS.htm
Popular science news:
https://www.sci.news/space/article00933.html https://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html
It doesn't seem to have amounted to much. Some of the authors cite the
paper in some of their later work, but those later works also haven't
seemed to amounted to much.
Ron Okimoto
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705742582064496640
You should put some effort into trying to figure out if the publication
ever amounted to anything.
Apparently there was criticism of the paper
It doesn't seem to have amounted to much.
Some of the authors cite the
paper in some of their later work, but those later works also haven't
seemed to amounted to much.
I wouldn't want to bad mouth Rudy Schild
Ron O wrote:
You should put some effort into trying to figure out if the publication
ever amounted to anything.
You just misspelled "Evidence" or once again you display your
obedience to some high priests...
Apparently there was criticism of the paper
Who cares? I didn't ask about a paper I asked about followups,
further investigations.
It's about evidence, not anyone's opinion on a paper.
It doesn't seem to have amounted to much.
"Science is a popularity contest."
They claim evidence -- their observations, data -- and at this point
the only thing that matters is confirmation of that evidence, or falsification. Not some paper, the evidence.
Some of the authors cite the
paper in some of their later work, but those later works also haven't
seemed to amounted to much.
"The status quo told me to ignore it."
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705489318794362880
Even the authors haven't advanced their evidence
so why should anyone else?
Do you understand how science works?
It's about evidence, not anyone's opinion on a paper.
That is the issue. What type of evidence is it?
"Science is a popularity contest."
Have they found more bits of the meteorite that shows what they claim
was not contamination?
They claim evidence -- their observations, data -- and at this point
the only thing that matters is confirmation of that evidence, or falsification. Not some paper, the evidence.
They put up what they have, and it hasn't amounted to anything.
"The status quo told me to ignore it."
A lot of sensible people wait until something convincing is put forward.
Ron O wrote:
Even the authors haven't advanced their evidence
If the evidence is valid, then their conclusions are sound.
Period.
So Step-1 is confirming that the evidence is valid. It's
observing/testing a physical object.
so why should anyone else?
You need me to explain the concept of reproducibility?
You need me to explain to you the significance?
Do you understand how science works?
Thanks for the irony.
CLAIM: *This* physical object, which can be observed and
tested, contains *These* structures and tests for *These*
compounds.
YOU: I don't understand why anyone would want to look at
that when the status quo can just tell us what to think.
It's about evidence, not anyone's opinion on a paper.
That is the issue. What type of evidence is it?
You are aware that I did post cites. And so didn't you. Yet your
"Argument" here is that you have no clue what so ever...
Amazing. You are such a fraud! Such a faker!
"Science is a popularity contest."
Have they found more bits of the meteorite that shows what they claim
was not contamination?
They say: Look what I found in *This*!
You say: I can't understand why anyone would want to look at that.
Obviously they need to look at something else.
They claim evidence -- their observations, data -- and at this point
the only thing that matters is confirmation of that evidence, or
falsification. Not some paper, the evidence.
They put up what they have, and it hasn't amounted to anything.
So, back to Square-1: Where's the science? Where's the study of the meteorite that contradicts their finds? Where's the testing that yielded different results on the meteorite?
You know (speaking rhetorically), "Science."
"The status quo told me to ignore it."
A lot of sensible people wait until something convincing is put forward.
Wrong. You're a lying sack of shit.
You obey the status quo. In all cases. Even today you denounce the
physical evidence you could see, the evidence establishing that
Neanderthals were not a dead end. Even in hindsight you testify that
you are incapable of seeing it. BECAUSE the status quo told you not
to. But you believe DNA that you never saw, because the status quo
told you to.
Where someone who isn't a fraud would be wanting investigation,
identifying legitimate tests, offering predictions, you are "Arguing"
that everyone wait until the are told to believe otherwise.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705489318794362880
And if the evidence isn't sound
So Step-1 is confirming that the evidence is valid. It's
observing/testing a physical object.
Step 2 is validating that Step 1 produced useful evidence.
What is anyone supposed to do with unsubstantiated claims?
Reproducibility would be
CLAIM: *This* physical object, which can be observed and
tested, contains *These* structures and tests for *These*
compounds.
YOU: I don't understand why anyone would want to look at
that when the status quo can just tell us what to think.
All anyone wants out of them is confirmation of
Ron O wrote:
And if the evidence isn't sound
Nobody ever said that the evidence isn't sound. What they said is
that they needed to better establish facts. This is how science
works, not that YOU would know, but it tries to falsify claims.
NOTHING can ever be truly proven, outside of mathematics, but
it can be disproven! And when attempt to falsify a view fail, then
it becomes accepted.
So Step-1 is confirming that the evidence is valid. It's
observing/testing a physical object.
Step 2 is validating that Step 1 produced useful evidence.
You mean confirming what was reported, like I just said?
What is anyone supposed to do with unsubstantiated claims?
You're just making shit up, as you always do. Fraud.
You can't even read for comprehension here, in this group. You're
on record, here in this group, defending long ago debunked
"Evidence," while in another thread insisting that anyone who
was capable of seeing the real evidence, even in hindsight, is a
troll. You don't know what is and is not "unsubstantiated."
Reproducibility would be
Right. Like I need a lecture from a fraud... Sheesh!
CLAIM: *This* physical object, which can be observed and
tested, contains *These* structures and tests for *These*
compounds.
Yup. So true.
YOU: I don't understand why anyone would want to look at
that when the status quo can just tell us what to think.
Again, so true.
All anyone wants out of them is confirmation of
Not true. YOU want to be told by the status quo to believe
something else. You will cling to dung, insisting it is the
sweetest chocolate, is status quo tells you to believe it.
Who disputes the claims AND has tried to travel to Sri Lanka
to study the meteorite? Who has tried to go there and perform
testing, and what testing did they try to perform?
If people "Want" these things, as you made up then gushed as
if it were Truth incarnate, who are they? When did this happen?
These are YOUR claims, that people want these things. Fine.
What people? When? What did they want, specifically? Where
they willing to travel to Sri Lanka? When did they say this? Where
did they submit their proposals?
Tell us. You CLAIM this is the case so just tell us. If it's true, if
you are being honest then this is the easiest demand ever put to
you.. asking you to spell out the details you claim knowledge of.
Yeah, I called you on your bullshit.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705742582064496640
You snipped
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 422 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:59:44 |
| Calls: | 8,951 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,352 |
| Messages: | 5,992,477 |