Believers and Skeptics and In Between

[ocpaul20]

Yes I am sure people believe all kinds of twaddle, but you have not addressed the example I gave, which was the destruction of something which could have been a fossil and might have been scientifically significant. Now, we dont know what it was, because it has been destroyed.

Of course people crave drama and your news media probably sold millions of online/offline copies on the back of that. There is no reason to discount any or all conspiracy theories just because of that. It is easy to draw attention away from the case at hand and point to how people behave. There are a multitude of different ways people behave and no doubt there are medical names for many of them.

As director of a major international news organisation, you will know what is acceptable to print/release and what is not and I am sure that has changed over the years. I am equally sure you did not get to that position by allowing the release of "sensitive" news stories. That is a fact of business life, not a personal attack in any way.

[Vasily]

See the second comment regarding the destroyed "fossil" by Jan L Leon here:

You are being redirected...

I'll point out two things: the only tool the rover had was a grinder and a microscope so there's no way we could have found out anything else about the structure -- beyond grinding it down to see what was underneath it which they did. And if there was one organism there that meant there were plenty more (because reproduction) so they didn't destroy an irreplaceable fossil. What they did do was identify this area as a plac of interest for possible future missions.

Second, because something looks like a fossil doesn't mean it is one.

Pseudofossils

The "Crinoid" looks to me like a rock with three transverse cracks in it and although I haven't seen a scale on the photo it appears to be much smaller than terrestrial Crinoids. Also, people who look for earth species on Mars are mistaken - if multicellular life developed on Mars it developed separately and earth taxonomies wouldn't apply.

[ocpaul20]

I will point out some things too.
The RAT rover tool can brush clean a site as well as grind it, so it did not have to destroy the item - whatever it was. Fossils have become stone in effect and so there is nothing 'underneath' them except for more rock.

What they did do was identify this area as a plac of interest for possible future missions.

Big Deal. So they said to us, we have destroyed this whatever-it-was but in case we want to examine the site again later we will name it as a site of interest. Assuming of course we do send something or someone back to the very same place (which is very unlikely). Far more likely is that they will select another area of Mars to land in and this site will never be visited again for the site to be properly investigated.

because something looks like a fossil doesn't mean it is one.

Stating the obvious and I already said that it may not have been a fossil - but we will never know now. HAD IT BEEN a fossil, then that would have been a significant find, dont you agree?

The "Crinoid" looks to me like a rock with three transverse cracks in it

So now you are a fossil expert as well? Why should we accept your opinion any more than mine or any other person who is not qualified to make these statements? Trying to make definitive statements like this sounds very much like "Its only a rock" which has been shouted so many times before that it gets very boring and telling too.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

people who look for earth species on Mars are mistaken - if multicellular life developed on Mars it developed separately and earth taxonomies wouldn't apply

Really? Then there are many scientists who are 'mistaken' in your opinion. It is my understanding this is not the mainstream viewpoint so how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Why do thousands of people report aliens they have seen and encountered as humanoid (as well as other types) in appearance.
If there is/was water on Mars and there is/was an atmosphere, then it is likely similar water-based life forms will have evolved. There will be differences of course due to the different gravity, and composition of the atmosphere etc. If life on Mars is/was based on a non-water/non-carbon based environment, then it is quite possible they evolved differently, but we already have found water ice sub-surface and methane in the atmosphere.

This statement just illustrates how narrow and closed off thinking about alien life can be. They could be the ones who seeded life on Earth, and were just passing through - who knows?

[Vasily]

Ocpaul, why do you make everything into a big nasty personal battle? Ego, pride, misplaced anger, ongoing vendetta against those you think have wronged you, maybe a combination of things. I've given a decent shot at trying to discuss things reasonably with you, but now I'm done. I don't need your kind of unpleasantness.

[ocpaul20]

I don't need your kind of unpleasantness.

You see, I dont see what I have posted as unpleasant, mainly because I think I am responding to what you said. If we lived next door to each other, maybe we would not be best buddies, but I hope I get along with most people. So, I dont understand your comment.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing. Maybe I dont understand your culture well enough and you dont understand mine.

On this forum I dont expect to have to hold back from expressing what my life has taught me as long as it is within the T & Cs we should be able to have a vigorous discussion.

Unfortunately, I cannot let you or anyone else get away with making statements which I see as being misleading and surpressing the (subjective) truth. You probably feel the same way.

There are many ways to manipulate the situation to suggest to others things are not as 'bad' as they seem and for me, it is important that the (my) realities are acknowledged, not shoved under the carpet. Again, this is probably true for you too.

For example, there are many people who continue to believe the 9/11 was an inside job. There are many people who sit on the fence and there are probably far fewer who believe exactly what the government says. Same with the JFK assasination.

Not my fault the government has a bad reputation and one for testing nasty things on its population. Not my fault the government has lost all credibility that it is doing things 'for the people'. Evidence would seem to suggest that they dont have the best interests of the people at heart.

Don't you think that evidence is correct? I do.