Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[bonzelite]

page 11 HERE

 

[TheShadow]

Please provide a link to the page, not to what your browser sees. Use the "Link to this page" feature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Very odd. I am reading all about the purported suppression of science and selective presentation of "evidence." This being said, would Gene finally answer me why his own reference "in support" of his points actually contradicts them? Gee, I only posted the question at 5:21 AM, and note that in this (as other's have as well) it was not responded to.<br /><br />Here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

it's page 11 of this thread. click the page number. one page prior to this one. <br />difficult? <br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Isn't it irritating when people don't answer your questions?<br /><br />I know how u feel. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[geneftw]

FAQ <br /><br />THANK YOU! I've always wanted to know how to do that, but was too embarrassed to ask.

 

[jatslo]

There 240+ posts; I am lost ... There is quite a bit of editing going on though. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />, but I am not going digging for it again. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

yes. confiscation of data, CIA-style. <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

I can understand going back and editing a post, but to ask someone to provide evidence, in which the evidence was deleted is not cool, right? Sounds CIA'ish me me. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

yes. see page 11, my last post of the page. smells of CIA-type practices.

 

[geneftw]

I guess I don't know what you're asking. The link you provided was my posting of the Brookings report after it was mentioned. Then I was told to open another thread if I want to talk about it. I guess I missed something. What contradicts what? (In other words: Could you please repeat the question?)<br />BTW: I keep odd hours, and my daily schedule does not always follow the same routine. <br /><br />(edit): Never mind. I found it. I took that to be your opinion rather than a question since it ended with a period and not a question mark. There are statements in that report that say civilizations could crumble if...oops...I was told not to discuss that here.

 

[jatslo]

Well, yeah ... JonClarke asked me for evidence * HERE *, but when I went to archive it this morning, I found that the evidence was deleted. However, you cited one instance, so that is evidence, I guess. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Great eye for details, bonze!

 

[yevaud]

AH. No problem, I work odd hours as well.<br /><br /><br /><br />You mentioned the following:<br /><br />This Post<br /><br />This appears, on the one hand, to state that you do <i>not</i> believe that a coverup has in fact taken place. But you have taken the "side" that a coverup has and is taking place.<br /><br />My post to you:<br /><br />Here<br /><br />This points out that as a reference, the Brooking Report states that this is a minimal, if non-existant, issue.<br /><br />So you have me quite confused. Why did you post something that seems to contradict the assertation that science is being suppressed? Why did you (in that post) state that you do not believe it is taking place - if you then spend the remainder of this thread stating that it *has* taken place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

jatslo, then that makes several cases of data suppression on this thread. <br /><br />geneftw, good eye for detail as well: don't get baited; keep on "normal" topics here. any hint of you know what and they declare this a BS thread. they already cannot stand it as it is.

 

[geneftw]

Bonz,<br />Some people use threaded mode, and there are different size monoters and different settings for font size. Your page 11 may not be somebody else's page 11.

 

[bonzelite]

oh. didn't know that. <br />

 

[jatslo]

geneftw "... <font color="yellow">There are statements in that report that say civilizations could crumble if...oops...I was told not to discuss that here.</font>..."<br /><br />Yeah, the entire Middle East for starters, whoops... Did I let to much of the cat out of the bag? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

That's not answering my question, now is it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

"... <font color="lightblue">Research continued into early 70's by CIA's own admission during the Church hearings. John Marks, author of the best study of CIA mind control experiments, makes the subtle differentiation that the CIA congressional witnesses might truthfully say that all research done by the TSS Directorate had ended, since the programs were moved into other areas once operational techniques had been developed. Many of the names mentioned in reference to mind control research turn up in the few references to supposed dead-end research in ESP. * HERE *</font> ..." The CIA began work on mind control and ESP shortly after WWII, to the best of my knowledge. I promised to provide evidence of CIA suppression. Anyway, sometime in the late 60's, or early 70's this, so called, *Jedi Mind Trick* was exposed to some extent. As the story goes, or how I remember the story reads as follows: One or two scientists/principal investigators who, for years, were not allowed to discuss there research. The CIA was, in fact, suppressing these individuals in the Cold War Era.

 

[geneftw]

No, it isn't. I'm not allowed to answer it because TheShadow said this. Anyway, I guess y'all have discussed it enough in other threads.

 

[yevaud]

I see.<br /><br />I merely found what you posted there, as opposed to what you seem to believe, as terribly inconsistant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

military-industrial complex<br />(excerpt from wiki):<br /><font color="yellow">The term military-industrial complex usually refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests, which grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of World War II, although it can also be used to describe any such relationship of industry and military. It is sometimes used to refer to the iron triangle that is argued to exist among weapons makers/military contractors, The Pentagon and the United States Congress.<br /><br />The penultimate draft of the address in which President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term referred to the military-industrial-congressional complex, but it is said that Eisenhower chose to strike the word congressional in order to avoid offending members of the legislative branch of the federal government. The author of the term was Eisenhower's speech-writer Malcolm Moos.<br /><br />some strategic partners thereof, members of USGIF (United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation)link<br />AGI<br />BAE systems<br />Ball Aerospace<br />Boeing<br />Booz Allen Hamilton<br />CIA<br />DIgital Globe<br />ESRI<br />General Dynamics<br />Harris <br />IBM<br />Lockheed Martin<br />ManTech<br />National Geospatial Intelligence Agency<br />Northrop Grumman<br />Oracle<br />Orbimage<br />Raytheon<br />SAIC<br />Space Imaging<br />TechniGraphicS</font><br />

 

[TheShadow]

My preference are set to 30 posts per page. Therefore, the page this will appear on is page 9. There is no page 11. I could reset my preferences, but I won’t. Other members may have their preferences set to any other number they choose. Since you are the one presenting the link, it is up to you to make it available to everyone regardless of how they have set their preferences. That is why we went to the trouble of providing the “link to this post” feature. Someone who is attempting to debate on this level shouldn’t have so much trouble with the concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

right. i get it. link here

 

[TheShadow]

jatslo claims: <i> Well, yeah ... JonClarke asked me for evidence * HERE *, but when I went to archive it this morning, I found that the evidence was deleted. </i><br /><br />That is a pretty serious charge. Just what is it you think was deleted? Let me know what it was and where you think it should have been, and I will check it out. If any posts are being deleted here I want to know about it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>