Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[yevaud]

How is trying to inform and assist people in adhering to good science "supression," I wonder? <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]

man, this thread exploded in only a few hours. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />How is trying to inform and assist people in adhering to good science "supression," I wonder?</font><br /><br />when it skirts the issue. that is how.

 

[telfrow]

jatslo, you and others here have been pounding away on this SDC conspiracy theory, both publicly and privately, for while a while now. <br /><br />There have been insinuations and shadowy hints that the posters you noted are not "what we appear to be" and have some sinister purpose in our stance here. You've mentioned government agencies (i.e., the CIA), cover ups and politics in your posts. <br /><br />Honestly, that kind of thing warrants little more than a one liner.<br /><br />You - and others - continue to dance around the issue with hints and allegations. You obviously believe there is more going on here than meets the eye in regard to myself, Yevaud, JonClarke and The Shadow. Why not just come out and say it? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[yevaud]

How has any issue been skirted? So far, we have been asked to accept artificiality of something based on several images, superficial terrain features, and arbitrary lines and angles drawn between equally arbitrary other nearby objects.<br /><br />I've addressed this aspect of this every way from Sunday. The fact that my perfectly legimate concerns have been ignored doesn't detract from those concerns. <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>

 

[telfrow]

Skirted the issue of artificiality?<br /><br />Eleven threads with Max, Zen, et.al., thousands of posts, and at least 10Mb of PhotoShop files on my portable hard drive. <br /><br />That's "skirting the issue?"<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[yevaud]

"Eye of the beholder," I'm afraid.<br /><br />We're far beyond where anyone in any remotely related scientific field would have given up in exasperation, were this a public event or dissertation.<br /><br />Apparently...<br /><br />That some of us have expertise in this area is irrelevant to them.<br />That there has been no science to their determinations is irrelevant to them.<br />That we raise serious concerns is irrelevant them.<br />That they gloss over our serious concerns is irrelevant them.<br /><br />In fact, this seems to have boiled down to a pointed third-degree as to how "connected" you, myself, Jon, Saiph and others are. Inappropriately so, I might add. <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]

no. not the Max thing. i don't care about that. he can have his pick-up-stix pages.

 

[yevaud]

Ok, so where? <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]

the minion behavior is obvious. you'd have to be braindead to not see it. regardless, it will not change one way or the other, despite what anyone thinks. the show will go on. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

<p>"... There have been insinuations and shadowy hints that the posters you noted are not "what we appear to be" and have some sinister purpose in our stance here. You've mentioned government agencies (i.e., the CIA), cover ups and politics in your posts. ..."<br /><br />Is that so; coming from someone who's got a link. Your hypothesis is meaningless unless you can quantify your assertions, which you did nothing of the sort. In fact, I see only *your* opinion* in your minion, SIR.<br /><br />telfrow: you and others here have been pounding away on this SDC conspiracy theory, both publicly and privately, for while a while now ..." Oh, really; you know from experience that I traditionally have my PM tool turned off, or do I need to get a link as evidence. I only recently just turned it on, because TheShadow ordered me to. I appall *politics*, which are often *EVIL*. Your mention of private deliberations only further incriminates *you*, and your kind. <br /><br />"... that kind of thing warrants little more than a one liner ..." <br /><br />"... You - and others - continue to dance around the issue with hints and allegations. You obviously believe there is more going on here than meets the eye in regard to myself, Yevaud, JonClarke and The Shadow. Why not just come out and say it? ..."<br /><br />Let the audience decide. I call on all of those that are suppressed to rise up and battle the minions of misinformation, now and for ever more, because all though we walk in valley of death, we shall fear no *EVIL*. Don't just read this post, login and post, knowing that Jatslo is here to help in any way that he can..</p>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Your mention of private deliberations only further incriminates *you*, and your kind.</font><br /><br />No, that specifically refers to series of communications between myself and a SDC member, who made some similar statements to me through a series of PMs. If he wants to give me permission, I'll name him, and discuss the specifics of his communication. Unless, of course, he would like to come forward of his own accord and post/discuss what he mentioned in the PMs. <br /><br />I have no way viewing anyone else's PMs. And to insinuate otherwise is a paranoid delusion. But I leave that to the "audience" to decide.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Is that so; coming from someone who's got a link. Your hypothesis is meaningless unless you can quantify your assertions, which you did nothing of the sort. In fact, I see only *your* opinion* in your minion, SIR. </font><br /><br />If the first part of that ("coming from someone who has a link") made any sense whatsoever, I'd respond.<br /><br />I'd be more than happy to go back through your posts and gather links to your rants if you like. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, this has all been quite edifying. However, the original topic here was, "Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression."<br /><br />Of course they are. Science is all about objective truth, not subjective agendas. That there are those who would pervert data, aims and means to their own ends is a regrettable fact of life everywhere.<br /><br />However: it does not condemn the greater whole. 99.99% of NASA (and other governmental and Academic agencies) are perfectly legitimate. <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]

NASA itself is pretty open to full disclosure of their science. it is the powers above them, namely the CIA, that are the suppressors. to hang it on NASA is misguided. yet the suppression is there, has been there; will continue to be there. it runs leaf and vine throughout the corridors of power. <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Well, perhaps so. However, in scientific fields (Astronomy and it's various subsets here), it's generally pretty free of politics.<br /><br />Trust me on this - Astrophysics isn't terribly "sexy" to politicians in general. It rarely, if ever, achieves the level of "let's manipulate or withold." <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]

you raise good points. yes, astronomy is geeked out to the hilt. it is not sexy whatsover. but is central to holding the keys to many of the ultimate questions that inevitably arise about life. so it is among the most guarded of the sciences. <br /><br />it's low profile, it's "squareness," boredom factor, un-relatability, esoteric nature, geek factor, enable it to be quietly waiting in the wings and molded like clay. in this way, it is the perfect agency for manipulation, as much of it passes as shadows in the night beyond detection. and whatever is disseminated publically is often believed by many as gospel. <br /><br />furthermore, MUCH of this field is DIRECTLY connected to the <b>military</b><i> --the most guarded of all agencies of secrecy --given A#1 priority exemption from disclosure.</i> <br /><br />because of this, astronomy in general is ultimately a living <i>extension of the military industrial complex, absolutely and totally.</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>astronomy in general is ultimately a living extension of the military industrial complex, absolutely and totally.</i><br /><br />That was never my experience.<br /><br />And I might add that I went to school in my 30's, after not only being a veteran with a prior Top Secret security clearance, plus significant work in various electronics areas, but also having worked on several NASA funded projects. Nary a hint of suppression, and I would have been far more keen to it occurring than the average student - or professor, for that matter.<br /><br />And it didn't, any more than I would have expected. <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]

^^^ but that gets us nowhere fast when data is hidden or spun to reflect the interests of higher agencies. this absolutely DOES happen. <br /><br />the military industrial complex has a reach that is far and wide. and astronomy is on it's top ten list, as it <i>must be, as it directly aids in the creation of military technology.</i>

 

[bonzelite]

do you know what the military industrial complex is, Yevaud?

 

[yevaud]

Geezus...<br /><br />I have worked for it, Bonzelite. I have not only been in the Army (6 years, combat in Grenada), but thereafter worked for several Defense Contractors, and then thereafter school, where I worked on Federally funded scientific projects. My dad was a full-bird Colonel. My older Brother Dave is a two-tour combat veteran of Vietnam. My (WWII vet, deceased) uncle Stan worked in the defense industry for over 30 years, ending up with Lincoln Labs as a science writer.<br /><br />The question should more rightly be, "do YOU understand it?" Because on the face of it, you don't have the personal experience base to make those claims. <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]

Seriously now. No bulling around. I would know squat about your profession, except superficialities, and I admit it freely.<br /><br />Why is it different here, when the roles are reversed? <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]

ok. of course you know what it is. i figured you would, having been part of it (and i respect your service, by the way. that is a non-partisan compliment of honesty. ulitmately, i do not have quarrel with you. but we're debating. so here we go...). <br /><br />are you aware of other entities that are directly affected and affiliated with this military industrial complex? you realize some affiliates are civilian-based. you do agree with that, yes?

 

[yevaud]

Why yes, certainly. But you can't say that their "effect" wouldn't be noticed - particularly by such a suspicious character as me. I am very canny, and I have dealt with security before.<br /><br />It didn't happen. <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]

"All I can see to do is try and think openly based on the facts you can find and go from there...... "<br /><br />yes. you're preaching to the choir.