Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

geneftw · Feb 26, 2006

That's right. Someone who is attempting to debate on this level should be born with the knowledge of everything there is to know in the world.

TheShadow · Feb 26, 2006

bonzelite claims: jatslo, then that makes several cases of data suppression on this thread. Care to elaborate on that? By suppression do you mean that you also think something was deleted from the forum? If so, tell me what and where is should have been. If not, what are you referring to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

TheShadow · Feb 26, 2006

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. Imagine that, suppressing information on classified projects during the cold war. WOW!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

yevaud · Feb 26, 2006

Ahh, I see. I read so fast that it appears I considered that you were saying science isn't being manipulated. My mistake, that was The Shadow, and you were responding to him. By using the Brookings Report as your evidence. Which then makes my question all the more relevant: Why did you post something that seems to contradict the assertation that science is being suppressed? Because that's precisely what the report says is not occurring. Edit: e.g., there is little if no evidence that this has occurred. This leads me to a few further points. Most important of which is, at which point in time do you "cross the line" into that a particular scientific topic is being suppressed? Because, frankly, all I have read in this thread is a loose and disjointed selection of "examples," not one of which denote or prove any sort of pervasive suppression. Random colloquial and second-hand stories don't cut it, frankly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Feb 26, 2006

all claims made by Jon to TOS violations have been edited for content. come to think of it, he personally probably did it. i responded to his accusations in the link i provided, as i cited TOS in my reply in response to his claims. and all such references, across mulitple posts, to TOS have been eliminated since then. gone. someone did it. and it was probably himself. but he could not edit mine as a mod could. so my reference to it remained. so i conclude it was him. not anyone else. that is all.

jatslo · Feb 26, 2006

Well, I didn't cite him word for word, because I wanted to give him the opportunity to retract, which he did apparently; however, he keeps asking me to present the evidence that he deleted. bonze, and gene actually cited him word-for-word, and that is what bonze is conveying to you, I think. It was the statements that JonClarke made that got me all fired up ...

TheShadow · Feb 26, 2006

Sorry, I didn’t know it was a secret. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

jatslo · Feb 26, 2006

... The CIA purportedly still do suppress science ... , or is that the NSA ... probably both They got there fingers in everyone's pie.

TheShadow · Feb 26, 2006

Here is a point of information that may be helpful to you. Moderators cannot edit the post of any member without the edited by [moderator’s name] (02/26/06 08:15 PM) tag being added by the forum software. There is no way around this feature. If a post has been edited, and there is no edited by…………… tag on it, we did not do it. Only the original poster can do that without leaving a tag. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

yevaud · Feb 26, 2006

Case in point: another random, unsubstantiated reference. I cite the following aspects of this debate: Many of the complaints I have read are due to "NASA not releasing" something. And of that, it in no way states or proves that they will not release information at some point. The root of the complaint appears to be the release isn't occurring to their satisfaction. No offense, but NASA could really give a flying wahoo about your time-complaints. The images and data will be analyzed in the time they feel they require, not to your expectations. Another is such as the above comment by you. Your fundamental deep-rooted suspicions about our collective inteligence angencies is not proof by any means. It is only indicative of your own personal suspicions. Next is the tenuous and vaporous nature of the topic. It goes from Cydonia to Iapetus to God knows what else, each time morphing to another area of science to attempt to prove that there is manipulation and suppression. Each time, evidence to the contrary has been stated, and ignored - leading to another twist in the topic. I wonder where there is anything here, save perhaps the belief of some that everybody in the world is out to get them. Another aspect is that there is a daisy-chain series of proofs to this. The same names keep appearing, and they refer to each other as "proof" something suspect is going on. If Carlotto cites Van Flandern cites RCH cites Carlotto, in what way is this proof of anything, except an "Old Boy" network. Curiously, the precise same kind of thing that you have stated in various ways that are what is occurring in science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

TheShadow · Feb 27, 2006

Of course. There are still a great many things that are a matter of national security, just like there are a great many things that are a matter of corporate security or proprietary necessity. There always will be. Our government is under no obligation to supply us with confidential or secret information, nor should they be. There are simply some things that we cannot be privy to. Did you know that there are more Russian agents in the USA now than during the Cold War? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

yevaud · Feb 27, 2006

To synopsize that for clarity, this is what I have repeatedly read, both in this thread and elsewhere: A point is made that science is being suppressed. A few references are made, usually referring to one of a small handful of individuals (and frequently the same individuals). This is always accepted by you as "solid evidence." Counter-arguments are made, with references, pointing out that no, this is not occuring. This is invariably discarded by you. I am intensely curious about this, as this appears to make you at least as guilty as the parties you state are manipulating scientific knowledge to the detriment of us all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 27, 2006

... Did you know that there are more Russian agents in the USA now than during the Cold War?... They are allowed access, in some new treaty, and I heard recently that Russian spy planes are allowed to fly recon missions is the US, as well. Is this what you are referring too, or something more sinister? All the WMD is openly tracked, to some degree too. Personally, I am more concerned with China ...

bonzelite · Feb 27, 2006

Many of the complaints I have read are due to "NASA not releasing" something. And of that, it in no way states or proves that they will not release information at some point. The root of the complaint appears to be the release isn't occurring to their satisfaction. No offense, but NASA could really give a flying wahoo about your time-complaints. The images and data will be analyzed in the time they feel they require, not to your expectations. that sounds good and all. but then to what extent do we hold out for the definition of "not suppressing?" what if NASA decides in it's lolly jolly way to indefinitely suspend release of data. what do you call that, then? and you think that an agency's denial of witholding is proof that they are not? you've got to be kidding me. anyone can say "no. of course we are clean. we're not witholding anything." and you can cite links and proof to that all day long. who cares. there is rebuttal with support here and elsewhere, often citing completely legit operatives, astronauts researchers --and you are telling me that out of all of their individual cases -NONE are credible? they are all paranoid schizophrenics? the CIA and NASA, which is the military, are not in bed and covering up heaps of information from the public at any given time? you truly believe that and would take a bullet for that?

jatslo · Feb 27, 2006

Oh, I thought the "Patriot Act" was common knowledge. The fact that are President authorized the CIA to spy on Americans in the POST 911 era is also common knowledge. Am I supposed to cite common knowledge? I hope you answer correctly, because I am burnt out.

geneftw · Feb 27, 2006

"Many of the complaints I have read are due to 'NASA not releasing' something. And of that, it in no way states or proves that they will not release information at some point. The root of the complaint appears to be the release isn't occurring to their satisfaction." There's data that has been altered. There's data that been withheld for decades. (See link, below.) "Next is the tenuous and vaporous nature of the topic. It goes from Cydonia to Iapetus to God knows what else, each time morphing to another area of science to attempt to prove that there is manipulation and suppression." Yes, of course. Cydonia is not the topic; Iapetus is not the topic. The topic is data suppression. There are various issues, such as Cydonia and Iapetus that point to that. "If Carlotto cites Van Flandern cites RCH cites Carlotto, in what way is this proof of anything, except an "Old Boy" network." Do you take into consideration WHAT they say, what there evidence is, where they got the evidence, or do you simply dismiss what is said because of WHO said it? "Each time, evidence to the contrary has been stated, and ignored - leading to another twist in the topic." I haven't seen evidence to the contrar of this stuff. In fact, it's been ignored.

yevaud · Feb 27, 2006

to what extent do we hold out for the definition of "not suppressing?" As most of you are not truly trained in a science, not to mention these specific sciences, in what way are you competent to determine this? The debate is fine, stimulating, , else I wouldn't be here debating the subject. However... I do have some experience, and most of the supposed supressions mentioned have perfectly reasonable counter arguments, I can tell you that. That they are not accepted by you doesn't automatically invalidate them. and you think that an agency's denial of witholding is proof that they are not? you've got to be kidding me. anyone can say "no. of course we are clean. we're not witholding anything." and you can cite links and proof to that all day long. who cares. Which in and of itself proves my point. You will only accept that which views science with vast suspicion, regardless of the source. By the way, that is the precise mirror-argument to my own, save that you say "if they do say they're clean, you will never believe them. Ever." I don't, per se, discount any scientific source until proven otherwise. astronauts researchers --and you are telling me that out of all of their individual cases -NONE are credible? they are all paranoid schizophrenics? So let me see if I understand this: when you post a small group (and they are a small group) of people who believe this, it is automatically correct. All else is lies. None of your cited people can be wrong, and must always be accepted at face value - no matter how much they contradict the mainstream. Any a source I (or anyone else on this side of the argument) might utilize must automatically be viewed with great suspicion, and are all likely liars in the pay of the Intelligence community. the CIA and NASA, which is the military, are not in bed and covering up heaps of information from the public at an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Feb 27, 2006

Do you take into consideration WHAT they say, what there evidence is, where they got the evidence, or do you simply dismiss what is said because of WHO said it? I see. Say, how many times must I state that I do, in fact, assess what I read? And the same might be said of what you say and believe. Except when that point has been made, you discount it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

qso1 · Feb 27, 2006

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html Found this link on page 10. Of course its supposed to be evidence of suppression of data. One of the websites asks "Whats wrong with this photo" in reference to a Mars photo on their page. I can tell you whats wrong with this photo. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11 which did not land in mountainous terrain. If this is the kind of data these people put out, is it any wonder people like me are skeptical? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

TheShadow · Feb 27, 2006

The fact that are President authorized the CIA to spy on Americans in the POST 911 era is also common knowledge. Actually, that is not true. The FBI and CIA have always had the ability and authority to “spy” on Americans. That is their job. The only thing that has changed is the requirement for a court order in advance, a prerequisite that could easily jeopardize a critical surveillance due to the time delay. They are still held just as accountable after the fact, so they have to be very careful. The requirements for a surveillance are just the same as they would have taken to a judge to authorize, but without waiting for a signature. In fact, it is probable that they are even more careful without that signature because they run the risk of repercussions if the surveillance was not really legitimate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

yevaud · Feb 27, 2006

You see, this thread is incredibly difficult to address directly, at this point. First one point is made as to suppression. It is accepted without question. It is not questioned that they may not be right. Only that all others must be wrong. So this evidence is posted. Counter arguments are made and not accepted. The veracity of the people who make the claims are accepted, unconditionally. Yet any counter-reference is immediately suspect. The rub here is that you are talking about a relative handful of people - many of who bear no real accreditation at all - opposed by an entire body of science, with tens and hundreds of thousands of individuals within it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

geneftw · Feb 27, 2006

"...all I have read in this thread is a loose and disjointed selection of "examples," not one of which denote or prove any sort of pervasive suppression." THEN YOU"RE NOT READING THE DANGED POSTS!!! (Well, actually I know you are. You're just pretending to be stupid in order to wear me down. Congratulations. It's working.) I don't intend to go through all these posts to copy/paste every time I respond to something. It's there. Look for it if you can't remember it. "Random colloquial and second-hand stories don't cut it, frankly." A yeller leaf fell from a tree. A pecan hit me on the noggin. The geese're flyin' south....Are those random events? Sounds like it, but they ain't. They indicate autumn. Did the colloquial way in which the above was written have any bearing on the context of the message? Nope. Second-hand??!! You mean it don't cut it if I didn't personally suppress or manipulate data with my own hands?

yevaud · Feb 27, 2006

I don't intend to go through all these posts to copy/paste every time I respond to something. It's there. Look for it if you can't remember it. Why not? After all, you are on of the principles here who stated them in the first place, in this thread. Further: I recollect you stated time constraints as a reason you never answered my post/question of this early am. What ever gave you the impression I don't suffer from them as well? No, I am not being "stupid." I point of fact, I am stating that when you post a reference from <yadda /> that says <yadda> said something, that is second hand. If TEM states that an image has been suppressed - and follows it up with their own "interpretation" of same, that is second-hand. Although, as these images directly from the source are always considered to be manipulated, it appears to be fruitless to make mention of them. They will always be discounted as having been "gotten to" by "the man." And that last appears consistantly throughout this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

geneftw · Feb 27, 2006

"Why not" Because I assume they...er 'Cuz I reckon you read what I wrote. Unless we were in the...er ...'Lessin' we was in them labs ourselves, ain't it all second-hand? Manipulation is kinduv a way of suppressin'. There's side by side pictures ashowin' there's been some manipulatin' goin' on. "Although, as these images directly from the source are always considered to be manipulated, it appears to be fruitless to make mention of them. They will always be discounted as having been 'gotten to' by 'the man.' " Well, not ALWAYS. And it ain't pointless, as explained in the paragraph up there 'buv this'n'. "And that last appears consistantly throughout this thread." Like whar??!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Well, folks, I been at this long enough. There's other stuff I wanna go 'n' do. 'Till nextime...

bonzelite · Feb 27, 2006

you cannot even entertain the remotest glimpse of a possibility that coverups do happen. why? for the sake of debating an extremist position? you will not even budge an inch? any testimony that addresses suppression is across the board ALL false?! and those who state that it may be happening to them are all disqualified individuals, including the accredited people cited in examples here? i'm incredulous. we are not saying all science is covered up. we are not saying that at all. we are not saying the vast legions of professionals are all "in on it" and really "evil." that is in no way the point and never was. most go about their lives and make a living and don't even want to know anymore than what they need to. ignorance is bliss. we are saying that the practice is there. even if it exists in 1% of cases, that still makes it happen. it has been written about extensively. i think i've exhausted myself on this whole issue. there is apparently no middle ground on this issue! this topic has become nearly as logger-headed as a debate about the big bang or "what happens at the event horizon." unbelievable.

Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

geneftw

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

geneftw

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

qso1

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

geneftw

Guest

yevaud

Guest

geneftw

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page