American Lawyer asks National Geographic Society to Publish Evidence He Discovered of Life on Mars i

Originally posted by ArMaP
It's amazing what people see. His paper (PDF file) is almost funny. .

In this case it is downright sad.

If I was worried about independent researchers gaining too much ground with regards certain elements of My space program, I would have someone do exactly as this man has done.

I would use someone with just enough credentials to get noticed and which seem to lend credence to his arguments... before you start reading them.

Upon doing this I could not help but feel that this matter is contrived apurpose, to further contaminate and muddle the work of serious researchers by 'creating an incident' that can be referenced in the future should any of those serious researchers start discussing and asking questions about the more controversial discoveries & data which NASA would rather suppress/ignore/obfuscate and even 'contaminate'....

*No matter. Our topic of interest has always been tainted by our own customized versions of cointelpro and we have an abundace of disinformation at our disposal, courtesy of the American Taxpayer...

Compare this Man's situation to prior cases of suspected cointelpro-type activities and behaviours. A pattern become readily apparent.

reply to post by Exuberant1


It wouldn't surprise me at all. There seems to be few of these people making headlines lately. Jeff Peckman comes immediately to mind... the new self appointed spokesperson for UFOlogy. Anything that man puts his name to is 100% snake oil.

These people need to be investigated thoroughly.

IRM

Strangely enough that humanoid/rock shaped thing looks like its holding a very similar pose to the famous bigfoot picture - anyone else see it?

reply to post by cropmuncher


Yeah someone else already brought that up earlier in the thread cropmuncher!
It's kind of the same but not really.

IRM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Upon doing this I could not help but feel that this matter is contrived apurpose, to further contaminate and muddle the work of serious researchers by 'creating an incident' that can be referenced in the future should any of those serious researchers start discussing and asking questions about the more controversial discoveries & data which NASA would rather suppress/ignore/obfuscate and even 'contaminate'....

I also thought of that, but it goes both ways.

Many people will never read the paper, just the news articles about it, and from all those people, some may even belong to that type of person that thinks that a lawyer, being someone that studied several years about a specific subject, must know a lot about all subjects, and will accept that there is life on Mars just because he says so. After all, he is a lawyer.

But another large (maybe larger, I do not have any way of knowing) group will start by thinking that being a lawyer he is probably lying to promote himself and will dismiss what he says without even looking at the paper. After all, he is a lawyer.

And judging from this thread, even with a link to the PDF easily available, several people did not think it worth the trouble of reading the paper (or did not saw the link).

I don't know how this can affect the present situation regarding peoples' opinions about life on Mars.