NASA astrobiologist claims ATS is spreading Comet ELENIN and 2012 HOAX

Originally posted by Conciliatore
reply to post by Trueman

 

no no, dont worry not offended at all, im just adding some objectivity here, just to remind how peoples can spew lots of BS , browsing ATs and posting here dont mean you're a saint

Im used to read idiots constantly believing any sorty of BS because "omg ATs say the truth"

edit on 10-5-2011 by Conciliatore because: (no reason given)

Hahaha...., brother, good to know. You're right, also what we read here need to be confronted with other sources.

Originally posted by IndiGo33
Both Comet Elenin and Asteroid Apophis are real, but these concerns about collisions are without foundation. Unfortunately there are a few popular websites that are known for suggesting multiple catastrophes, including popularizing the 2012 hoax. Two that show up in any search for “Comet Elenin” are godlikeproductions and abovetopsecret, both of which predict either a very close pass by Earth or a collision.

LINK: astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Funny to see ATS forum getting mentioned

Someone should suggest to NASA and this scientist that maybe if NASA did not have a track record of lying and misleading the public, then we would not have to speculate when they announce information.

They should really check their case of pretentious prig at the door before pointing fingers as well.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Trueman
reply to post by stumason

 

Ok, I just asked my 16 years old son why he doesn't want to use wikipedia for his homework. He said theachers recommend not to use it since it's not a reliable source.

Well, that settles it then. Your 16 year old son is obviously the font of all knowledge!

But seriously, if your son (or anyone) just blindly prints of pages and hands them in as homework, then that's bad. However, if your sone (or anyone) does their own research and writes their own work, then Wiki is just as good as anything else.

What you and alot of people seem to be missing is that factual Wiki articles are sourced and list their sources, you can check them for your self.

So, the irony is that these "teachers" would reject a paper sourced from Wiki, but would happily accept a paper based upon the sources the Wiki article is written from. Goes to show just how good these "teachers" are, really.

Well, yeah, my son is one of the best students in the school, with honors all the time.

Nobody said teachers would reject wiki, I said they recommend him not to use it. You are confused, check again.

Nothing wrong with wiki, but anybody can edit it and who knows what mistakes can be made.

Question : Are you a wikipedia contributor?

reply to post by Trueman

No problem friend, alway good to check different source of infos

Deny Ignorance

by the way.....

As if suffering a seizure during President Obama's post-inaugural luncheon wasn't bad enough, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) endured an additional ordeal Tuesday, as did his friend, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) -- death by Wikipedia.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Just and example.

Originally posted by Trueman
Well, yeah, my son is one of the best students in the school, with honors all the time.

Great! Let's hope he continues to do well

Originally posted by Trueman
Nobody said teachers would reject wiki, I said they recommend him not to use it. You are confused, check again.

Not really. It is they who are confused because of this misconception anybody can write anything about any topic, which is only partially correct. As it stands, Wiki is as accurate as any other website out there on most topics, but it has somehow managed to get this badge of being "unreliable" solely because it can be edited. As I have said prior, find me an article on a scientific topic that is inaccurate, In my experience, Wiki is pretty damn on the money in articles concerning the Sciences and most historical topics. Any articles which have discrepancies or are being queried are clearly labelled as such and given reasons why.

Originally posted by Trueman
Nothing wrong with wiki, but anybody can edit it and who knows what mistakes can be made.

Which is why it is reviewed, people can highlight inacuracies etc. Mistkaes can be made in the Encylopedia Brittanica (and the Nature study corroborates this) but if you cited that as a source, it would be taken as gospel. It is bias, nothing more.

Originally posted by Trueman
Question : Are you a wikipedia contributor?

Nope, not at all. Can't be arsed! But I do alot of historical research on Wiki, specifically about the UK and England and have actually learnt a significant amount. I will then cross check what I have read with other sources, many of which are actually the source the Wiki article is citing.

reply to post by Trueman

That guy can say whatever he wants us to believe and are we supose to believe him just because is astrobiologist or works for NASA?

No, you should believe your own objective research, never what somebody tells you.

In my post, I said that I "agree" with the astrobiologist, not, "I read his article and blindly believe everything he says without researching it for myself".

On the other hand, if it is a subject you are not familiar with, being pointed in the right direction (or wrong) and researching the claims to form your own opinion (right or wrong) is still better than blindly following.

They get payed to say every single word coming out of their mouth. REMEMBER, these are the same guys that say E.T.s don't exist.

I have heard this so many times, can you cite the actual source where NASA officially said that there is no chance that extra terrestrials can exist elsewhere in the universe?

Lawyers lie, doctors lie, presidents lie. Astrobiologist can do that to. In this case, this one made comments at the level of a cheap debunker, come on!....he says wikipedia is reliable.

Im not going to argue that politicians and lawyers lie, but...

Can you actually cite the portions of the article that are lies, then refute the claims made and show your sources?

nothing to worry about elenin, MOVE ON, move on now, move on. It will not even give us a light show, move on, move on now.

reply to post by stumason


I completely agree with you, but to play devils advocate, I must interject that a good reason for academics not allowing a wiki article as a source is not that it is unreliable, but that it takes away from the student actually doing the work of researching and using critical thinking skills on their own. Basically, wikipedia already did the work, so I can see why it would not be allowed.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Indeed and I feel the same way. In fact, that is the reason my younger brother was told not to use Wiki when he was at school. Not because it was unreliable, but because it was too easy.

Nerdy A-holes will Say Anything NASA to try and gain popularity.

Heaven knows they have less integrity than Judas.

Oh, yeah?

Prove it.

Their lack of integrity is shown in their moon pictures...why edit?

OP whatrhappened ? Your fingers get tired.? Two paragraphs of your own text when you post a thread.
No SnF

Astro guy says,

They claim that the comet's discoverer, Russian amateur astronomer Leonid Elenin, does not exist, and the name is a code based on ELE = Extinction Level Event. This is not only wrong but crazy. Do they think that if anyone really wanted to keep this comet secret they would use an obvious code like this to tell us that it was likely to hit Earth? Truly weird!

He's right it is wierd that the founders name is Elenin. But as Jack Nicholson once said,

" Don't blame me. I didn't name ya".

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Before I got to sleep brother, just search "NASA denies aliens".

Not
Another
Stupid
Astrobiologist

reply to post by IndiGo33


When frightened, poke fun at alternative news sites you're tying to discredit anyway.
Great tactic... Next?

reply to post by Trueman


Did you actually read any of those search results in your screen shot?

The first two say, and I quote:

"NASA denies 'alien existence in meteorites'"

Denying the existence of fossilized alien microbes in a meteorite is A LOT DIFFERENT than denying the existence of alien life in the universe.

The third hit is a link to the article that this thread is about.

The fourth is talking about the meteorite.

The fifth is talking about shooting down a satellite.

The sixth is somebody(like yourself) saying that NASA denies that aliens can exist.

The seventh is regarding Apollo 18 (which didnt happen).

As for number eight, your pic cuts off the context of the link.

So again, can you please show where NASA has denied that aliens can exist elsewhere in the universe?

Originally posted by IndiGo33
Both Comet Elenin and Asteroid Apophis are real, but these concerns about collisions are without foundation. Unfortunately there are a few popular websites that are known for suggesting multiple catastrophes, including popularizing the 2012 hoax. Two that show up in any search for “Comet Elenin” are godlikeproductions and abovetopsecret, both of which predict either a very close pass by Earth or a collision.

LINK: astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Funny to see ATS forum getting mentioned

well it's obvious they didn't read any of those threads,
just skimmed them over,
or they'd know that most of the time OP would get charbroiled from the flaming or the subject was merely being speculated upon; many of those threads became outright trollfests, others died out after orbital simulator software showed that what looked like a collision was the result of 2D thinking.

on what basis is ATS popularizing catastrophes or hoaxing?

even worse, they put us second

after glp

How much of my tax dollars did he get paid to browse this site to come to that conclusion?
ATS is spreading a conspiracy theory! Stop the presses!

Knowledge truly is power!
You can bet your ass they have think tanks that investigate the same worst/best case scenarios just like we do here. There are some solid contributors on ATS that come correct and do their homework. No matter how ridiculous some topics may seem its still a lesson in critical thinking. I sometimes have to remind myself of that.

I like having a choice. Being able to choose what I want to believe and how to view my reality. This site is something that should be studied and analyzed IMO. It’s an opportunity to analyze how large masses of people communicate. It’s a unique opportunity to understand more about collective psychology.

I think they are just jealous that ATS attracts so much attention.