Aliens on Mars: Does NASA photo of ‘ALIEN statue’ prove UFO activity on Red Planet?

I'd already moved away from the Science forum.

 

To entice the feeble minded to click and read it, thereby generating ad revenue.

 

I don't think you're a fool, I think you're a liar. In the post I replied to you were attacking NASA, not the tabloids. I totally support condemnation of tabloid "journalism" but you'd have a lot more credence if you didn't keep on using those same tabloid stories as a basis for your attacks on NASA.

 

So if the tabloids are abusing, negating, and otherwise misinterpreting NASA announcements for profit, why doesn't NASA do something about it, because the practice is affecting its credibility. And just to confirm where I am on this, I still accuse NASA and other affiliated agencies of fantasizing for effect and funding. I can perceive it even if you can't. Or won't??

 

They’re in the same position as everyone else misrepresented by the tabloids and there is very little anyone can do about it unless they’re actually libellous (which generally won’t apply here). NASA responding directly to this level of rubbish (seriously, alien statues?) will only serve to give it credence and, as you constantly demonstrate, few people will go directly to NASA sources anyway so anything they publish that the tabloids choose not to pick up will be largely ignored.

 

If NASA's repute is on the line then NASA will do what it takes to rectify it, and if NASA doesn't then who GAF anyway.

 

Again, this isn’t a NASA issue, it impacts loads of different organisations and individuals. There is very little any of them can do about it so unless you have any specific suggestions, you’re not really in a position to blame them for not somehow preventing these stories being published.

 

If NASA didn't gild the lily so much, in other words big it up out of all reasonable proportions that even a fool would reject it as nonsense, the tabloids wouldn't be able to gild it even further.

 

Maybe you should start a thread about that which actually references material directly from NASA (something I don’t recall you ever doing in all of your constant moaning about them). You said this thread was entirely about the behaviour of the tabloids though yet now you seem to be making excuses for them. You’re also talking about a story claiming there are alien statues on Mars and I guarantee you’ll find absolutely nothing from NASA about that so it’s entirely on the hacks who made it up and the hacks who promote the stories, yourself included.

 

Leaving aside the tabloid exaggeration and the reason for it, NASA (and the others) is jazzing it up by publishing nonsensical and purely hypothesized (note that word?) 'facts and figures'. The difference between us is that I can detect the deception , but you can't.

 

And you're entirely free to start a thread on that topic. This is not that thread.

 

Yes I know I am, but now that I've got to the bottom of it (the advertising angle?) I don't care about the hyped-up nonsense that emanates directly from NASA - I can simply look on at it with self-satisfied bemusement, like I used to.

 

You clearly still don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) the key point; What you read in the tabloids isn’t coming from NASA itself. I doubt you’ve ever directly referenced a formal NASA source in any of your moans and you often seem to wilfully lack the understanding of what they’re actually talking about (though it is sometimes very obscure science). The very fact you consider hypothesis a fundamentally bad thing proves this.

 

A few things then,

1. Show us an article or publication where NASA has 'jazzed' things up
2. Do you know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory as you seem to be getting the two mixed up.
3. You do know that gravity is only a theory as well, right?
4. Falling back on arguments from incredulity, the one you keep on doing; because you can't believe it could be true so ignore any evidence; does not mean you can call it all a deception.

 

Well that's another difference between us - you believe hearsay but I challenge it - with prejudice, because I find it seriously annoying when someone attempts to deceive me.

 

You’ve still not established precisely what “hearsay” you’re talking about though. Again, you’ve not identified any primary NASA source you disagree with, though that wouldn’t be hearsay anyway. You do seem to blindly accept when the Daily Express claims that NASA said something and that is hearsay.

 

Have you ever seen a NASA pronouncement? They're so prodigiously long-winded (and we all know why, don't we? Think 'Bore them to death and they'll just accept whatever we say'?) that I defy anyone to not lose the will to live by the time they've reached the 78th paragraph. So I'll just go with my basic instincts, which seldom fail me.

 

FFS forget about the effing Daily Express?? Just read what I said to UK_archer and let's be done with it?

 

I'll happily forget the Daily Express when you stop quoting them. As for NASA publications, if you can't even be bothered to read and understand them, you're in no position to challenge them. You're obviously going to believe your "basic instincts" are always correct when you never challenge them. You're creating your own hearsay.

 

I'm not so dumb as to waste my time reading what I know to be a litany of lies, hyperbole, and ridiculous theorizing - are you?

 

How do you know the quality of what they write if you can’t be bothered to read it though? If you want to criticise what they write, you’re going to have to read it. If you can’t be bothered to read it, you can’t expect anyone to accept your criticism.

 

How can I explain it? Um . . . if I (in context) read something from a given source which is so outlandish that any intelligent and independently-minded individual - comme moi, for example? - will instantly and intemperately dismiss it as being so ludicrous and condescending that only a child would believe it, then I simply assume that everything else from that source will be equally ludicrous and condescending?? It's a bit like when I discover somebody has lied to me - I'll never take their word for anything ever again. I mean, I'd be a gullible fool if I did, doncha agree?

 

This link goes directly to a press statement made by the head of NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...t-on-nasa-s-moon-to-mars-plans-fy-2020-budget

Why don't you go and read it and then report back to us all of the parts of it that you believe to be "ludicrous and condescending"?

 

Not entirely. I don’t think one mistake is sufficient reason to dismiss an entire organisation out of hand, especially one as wide and diverse as NASA. I could understand taking more care with what they say in the future but automatically assuming everything they say is false is a s stupid as taking someone who once told you the truth and assuming everything they say is the unquestionable truth.

And anyway, you’ve still not criticised anything NASA has actually said, only what the tabloids claim they said and given we’ve agreed the tabloids constantly lie, why are you accepting anything they report on your “once burned…” basis?

There’s also the question of your judgement in assessing that initial item as “so outlandish” and you’ve never actually backed that up. I mean, you’ve been wrong before so based on your principle, I should just dismiss your opinion regardless.

 

It's because I wouldn't know where to begin. Let's try this one on you: about a year ago NASA put out a story about 'two black holes in some far-away galaxy many, many light-years distant (I'm colouring this a little bit for effect ), two black holes 'bumped into each other'. So three questions: one, do you believe it? two, how can two voids 'bump' into each other, and three, who would give a **** anyway?