Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[JonClarke]

"Bias suppresses science, so NASA is biased, since there *IS* evidence that NASA suppressed science.<br /><br />[premise] + [conclusion] + [premise] = {valid}"<br /><br /><br />A classic synogism consists of premise 1 + premise 2 - /> conclusion. <br /><br />"Bias suppresses science" - true<br /><br />"so NASA is biased, since there *IS* evidence that NASA suppressed science." - not that you have presented any.<br /><br />Where is the vidence about the CIA supressing science you promised?<br /><br />Where is your evidence that I engaged in suppression and political bullying?<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

*Radar Telemetry* is withheld ... , and you have done nothing, other than "Cut & Paste" ancient news clips. NASA needs to release all data, regardless, for public scrutiny, because to do otherwise is highly *SUSPECT*.<br /><br />Wrong again. What Telfrow posted to not a news clip. It was an abstract of a presentation of at one of the world's premier geoscientific and planetary science conferences, the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.<br /><br />Since you don't seem to know what an abstract is, it is a summary of results presented at a conference. In this case the preliminary results of the Cassini radar investigation of a number of encounters with Saturnian moons, presented before the the author's peers. In most cases an abstract preceeds the detailed discussion of the results in a peer reviewed publication.<br /><br />The claim that Cassini radar data is being withheld is utterly untrue. You, Max, Gene, Bonzellite anyone could have found this by a simple search. But you didn't. Well, you have been told now. You will have no excuse to maintain this false position from now on.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Gene:<br /><br />"From EnterpriseMission:<br /><br />"Bulletin!<br /><br />During the December 31, 2004 fly-by, according to a published pre-encounter timeline just discovered, the on-board Cassini RADAR experiment..."<br /><br />You have been presented the link to the preliminary release of Iapetus data. Here is it again.<br /><br />http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/fm05_P22A.html<br /><br />Don't keeping posting untruths from TEM saying the contrary.<br /><br />Face it - there is no evidence of data supression about Iapetus. Learn from it - move on.<br /><br />Jon <br /><br />Edited for spelling <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"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 ..."<br /><br />Are you talking about me? I don't recall retracting anything. And I have not edited my posts for real or imagined TOS violations. I don't go round changing the record.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"all claims made by Jon to TOS violations have been edited for content. come to think of it, he personally probably did it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />I have not edited the record. If you can't find any TOS violations it is because they are not there and never were. So I suggest you withdraw the allegations of me being gulity of both TOS and of editing the record, because they are untrue.<br /><br />Why don't you address the real issue - where is the evidence that space science and astronomy data has been suppressed whole sale and systematically? <br /><br />Jon (edited for additional content) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[geneftw]

Why was the visual, IR, and UV data of Iapetus and other moons made public within days, and preliminary result of radar imagry of Phoebe acknowledged within days, while the radar data of Iapetus has been WITHHELD this long? If this: "P22A MCC:3001 Tuesday" (top line) is a date, all I can make of it is "Tuesday". The bottom line shows "2005" <br /><br />"Don't keeping posting untruths from TEM saying the contrary."<br />At that time, the results had not been released.

 

[yevaud]

Bonzelite:<br /><br />Please don't for a moment believe that because on <i>this</i> particular topic that I do not "budge an inch," that I will never do so. That's a pretty broad brush.<br /><br />I didn't create this thread, and I haven't posted all of the posts here. That I find much of the "evidence" here to be weak or unsupportable does not mean that I am, well, "deliberately obstructionist."<br /><br />Why is someone else's failure to convince me somehow a personal failure on my part? That's not terribly sensible. In point of fact, inasmuch as the Pro-side in the argument hasn't "budged an inch" either, then it is equally fair to ascribe all of that to them as well. <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>

 

[yevaud]

For example, here's several statements from the TEM site that illustrate why I find that there is data that will not be accepted:<br /><br />RCH: <i>… limb fitting of Voyager data shows that the shape of Iapetus can be described by an ellipsoid with half-axes 750 km X 715 km …. However, note that Iapetus’ shape is irregular rather than ellipsoidal … measured radii vary between 700 km and 780 km. An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual in the solar system [emphasis added] ….</i><br /><br />It's limb(s) as imaged are irregular as Iapetus is a quite battered and gravitationally stressed body. That is not, per se, evidence of artificiality by any means.<br /><br />RCH: <i>As stated earlier, natural solar system objects larger than about 250 miles across are round! The physics behind this is very simple: unless they’re made of high-strength metals (like iron), the self-gravity of any object composed of ordinary “silicates” (rock) above a certain size will crush all the “edges” down into a ball. So, how do we know that Iapetus is not made of such “sterner stuff” (I mean, some meteorites are iron …), which could then support much higher, “hundred-mile-long edges” -- even against the 1/40th Earth’s gravity calculated for its surface?</i><br /><br />Amalthea is extremely irregular, having dimensions of about 270x165x150 kilometers in diameter. Pallas has an average diameter of 608 km, and is irregularly shaped; Hygaiea has an average diameter of 450 km, and is irregularly shaped; Vesta has an average diameter of 538 km, and is irregularly shaped...<br /><br />RCH: <i>Cassini observed a dramatic, sudden INCREASE in received signal strength … as this first radar program on Iapetus was being automatically executed by the spacecraft. <br /><br />This would have occurred as one of Iapetus’ “flat panels” -- because of the “moon’s” rotation, coupled with the spacecraft’s motion -- approached ~ 90 degrees … relative to the receding NASA spacecraft radar. <br></br></i> <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Yevaud: <font color="yellow">a pretty broad brush. </font><br /><br />If the brush fits... <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Works both ways. If the evidence is "I feel," why then you will be there as well. <br /><br />Edited as this is really all I need to say on the subject. <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>

 

[ag30476]

> *disingenuous*; good luck with that one. How many times does he have to answer the same question, and how many times does the answer go right in one ear and at <br /> /> out the other? Maxtheknife answered all those questions early on in the <br /> /> thread. <br />My link was about one question that Max asked, one question HE asked. One question HE asked repeatedly although it WAS answered repeatedly.<br /><br />My post was not about questions that were asked of him before that post. I asked him no questions in that post. I was claiming Max was being disingenious when HE ASKED THAT QUESTION.<br /><br />Here is a SIMPLE question for you jatslo. Please read at my post (here it s again below)<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=451518&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&vc=1 <br /><br />Please tell me the following: <br />1) What is the question that Max asked that I said was a bad tactic?<br />2) Why did I say that it was a bad tactic?<br /><br />That should not take you long at all if you focus and concentrate on the argument in the post. After you answer those 2 questions and only after you answer those, then tell me if you agree with me or not and why. Otherwise, you make no sense.<br /><br /> /> Unless they were edited for content by the *POWERS* that be, you should still <br /> /> be able to archive the data. <br />Irrelevant. Again, for clarification, let me repeat: I was not complaining about Max's content or whether Max had answered questions posed to him. I was complaining about a question that Max was asking - a question he asked simply to use as a launching pad to post his assertions again.<br /><br />Why am I going on and on about this? Because YOU asked for an example of a bad tactic. I think Max's tactic at that point in the thread was dis

 

[maxtheknife]

Hey, Gene... Jon went 'down for the count' with these few but simple posts from the Civ on Mars thread series. Let's see if he's ready this time...<br /><br />What do ya say, Jon? Ready to make some intelligent comments about this yet? I mean we had to wait a ridiculous amount of time for you to comment the first time around and when you finally did... Your response was clearly lacking and completely unsubstantiated i.e. <i>unscientific</i>. You even claim to have made notes, but never even bother to post them. What can one assume from that, I wonder... Scientific suppression? What else could one surmise from this?<br /><br /> A GEOLOGIC/GEOMORPHIC INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH TO SOME OF THE ENIGMATIC LANDFORMS IN CYDONIA, James L. Erjavec and Ronald R. Nicks<br /><br />Part 2 of same paper<br /><br />Part 3 of same paper <br /><br />Link to Jon's non-response <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

ag... Go get the McDaniel Report and <i>read</i> it. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />You might be surprised at how mistaken your logic is.

 

[ag30476]

Heh, you like doing that don't you Max? You think you made a point by doing that or you believe someone will think you made a point by doing that. In fact, you're not answering me at all. <br /><br />I only made one snide comment to you in this thread which you chose to ignore. <br /><br />Now I'm responding to jatslo on logic and rhetoric and you choose to "criticize" my logic by advertising the MacDaniel report. Yes, advertising. By the author's own ommision "Although much of the below is now outdated, it is reproduced here to provide an understanding of the genesis of The McDaniel Report. (copies of The McDaniel Report, which has become a collector's item and still contains valuable information, are still available from the author)"...for $15. Nice.<br /><br />You make no argument. You refute nothing of what I say. But who knows? Maybe some lurker out there will think you've actually scored. If so, then he's probably the kind of person that would be awed by your mirror images.<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

No... I <i>know</i> I made a point. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[ag30476]

Childish Max. And without imagination. Yet you want to be taken seriously.<br /><br />You can cut, flip, and orthorectofy images to your heart's content Max. But logic breaks if your stretch it too far.

 

[CalliArcale]

All right, this thread has gotten completely out of hand, in my opinion. It isn't about anything anymore, and it's full of some very nasty and unsupported allegations against other members. That sort of thing is not acceptable.<br /><br />Folks, if you want to discuss these subjects, here are my recommendations:<br /><br />* Do it in the appropriate forum.<br /><br />* Do not hijack an existing thread in order to discuss your pet topic. You can do that in another thread. It's especially obnoxious when it's a topic on which you've already got an active thread going.<br /><br />*Leave the personal attacks at home. In particular, do not accuse other members of wrongdoing without some very good evidence presented at the time you make the allegation. Frankly, personal attacks are almost never neccesary or even useful to an argument. They only make things worse.<br /><br />Consider this bit of wisdom:<br /><i>The chances of making a fool out of yourself while trying to degrade someone else approaches 1 (certainty) with every disparaging remark.<br /> -- Ben Gilmore</i><br /><br />I am now going to lock this thread. People are welcome to resume discussion in more appropriate locations provided they can do so with a modicum of decency. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>