Well, here is your evidence.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=KBOs

Both are defined by JPL as regions of space. By definition, they exist (unless you believe that the universe is not that large). JPL does not guarantee that there are oodles of objects there but does note that comets with periods greater than 200 years have apogees in the Oort cloud region.

Could you please tell me which of the “facts” given by JPL are lies, and how we can know that they are? I’m still looking for vast list of NASA lies; it seems that there are only two topics of lies that you know about (dirty snowballs and climate-change/global-warming/global-wierding/whatever-the-euphemism-is-today, and I have to agree with you on the latter, NASA has joined the popularity bandwagon on this topic). Meanwhile, I will continue to trust and respect NASA on all topics, save climate change.

The dirty snowball analogy is a good one and quite accurate. You should not complain about that.

The Kuiper Belt is now well confirmed. It isn’t very crowded, but there is plenty of evidence now that there are a lot of small and large objects out beyond Neptune’s orbit. We are finding them, in large numbers. Thus, you are wrong if you claim there is no scientific proof about its existence.

However, you are right about the Oort Cloud. There is no direct evidence for its existence, as yet. I myself have asked this question of several scientists and have gotten round-about hand-waving answers, which illustrates the lack of hard evidence, so far. The Oort Cloud is a theory that is reinforced by the approximate origin of many comets, but it is a theory nonetheless. At the moment we have no direct data from the cloud itself.

Just because they simplify the description for news-media consumption (reporters are all too often tech-illiterate, usually being English majors rather than science or engineering majors), does not make for a lie. I’m afraid that you will have to do better than that. You haven’t convinced me; I still believe most of what NASA says.

I was certain you would have thought that manned moon landings were a lie (top of the list) or hoax. Or maybe Hanson’s claims, the jist of which I actually don’t believe.

So, Orion, just how inaccurate is that? They have water ice, CO2 ice, ammonia ice, methane ice, carbonaceous goop, some stuff like methyl cyanide, etc. A bit of silicates. Maybe some metal bits. That sounds like dirty ice to me.

Two words: ‘climate change’.

Why would they lie?

And, what typically do they tend to lie about?