Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

yevaud · Feb 25, 2006

Must go for the evening. Pick this up tomorrow, at some time or another. <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 25, 2006

It didn't happen. so regardless of myriad others who have come forth and made public statements that it does happen, we are to ignore these testimonies and only take your personal case into account? you are, then, the yardstick by which all national security matters are to be judged? it is your way, or it simply does not exist outside your sphere of knowledge and experience? you are aware that civilian companies directly support and/or cater to the military industrial complex, yes?

yevaud · Feb 25, 2006

You are playing the "arbitrary reference" game. In short, you feel free to pick and choose amongst the various experiences within a particular field. Mine are not relevant, yet those you subjectively choose (subjectively, as you have not worked within this field), are legitimate. Well? This is precisely what you're doing. You are choosing from references that appeal to you; I seriously question by what standards you perform your choosing. I *must* be wrong, though I am here, debating you now. Yet some Internet reference (of which you have not posted any data about, and are not here to be challenged) are to be taken seriously. Yet I am not. TERRIERS Satellite I worked on this project, built all of the Ground Support Equipment (GSE). This does not qualify me to have an "expert" opinion? I suppose that was what I meant by "I'm getting mixed messages as to 'proof' here." It appears to be entirely subjective and (no offense), "cherry-picked" to conform to people's deep-rooted suspicions. <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 25, 2006

i've posted links in the thread earlier. google away at "suppression in science," and see what happens. so lets take the case off of you personally. you may not have experienced anything remotely suspicious. as many probably never do either. but, as well, many DO. what i don't understand is why you do not entertain the possibility that it does happen, when many in their fields, replete with legit creds, have said that it happens? i just don't get it. why is this like going to the dentist?

jatslo · Feb 25, 2006

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800,000 for suppression in science. (0.28 seconds) Rebecca Clausen, "The Suppression of Science in the Pacific Northwest"Dissecting the Politics and Culture of Capitalism. mrzine.monthlyreview.org/clausen240106.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Lean Left » Bush Suppression of Science and the End3 Responses to “Bush Suppression of Science and the End”. tgirsch Says: January 31st, 2006 edit. Of course you realize the anti-global-warming folks are ... www.leanleft.com/archives/2006/01/31/5199/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of ScienceFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Suppression of Science. S. FRED SINGER. This is a personal account linking efforts to suppress scientific. publication about climate science and policy by ... www.hoover.org/publications/ books/fulltext/polscience/283.pdf - Similar pages The Democratic Daily Blog » Blog Archive » Republican Suppression ...Republican Suppression of Science. Posted by Ron Chusid ... 3 Responses to “Republican Suppression of Science”. Ginny in CO Says: ... blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=389 - 32k - Cached - Similar pages And Yet It Moves: The Realization and Suppression of Science and ...And Yet It Moves: The Realization and Suppression of Science and Technology. Author Igor, Boy Publisher Zamisdat Press ISBN 0934727007 Binding PB ... www.word-power.co.uk/catalogue/0934727007 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Examples of Suppression in ScienceDistinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals. By Sydney Harris, Detroit Free Press, (11/20/81). *The intellectual is looking for the right ...

maxtheknife · Feb 25, 2006

Hey... Get some sleep, u guys! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

nite nite.

Saiph · Feb 25, 2006

wow...this got big in a hurry. bonze: I'll admit a lot of the supporting tech for astronomy has military applications (rockets, and satellites)...but astronomy itself is...well, the least practical science around. It has no military applications (other than giving another reason to develope space technologies). Anyway, you guys have mentioned a good handful of possible supression cases. I say possible because I haven't looked into them, and can't say more one way or the other. But, I could point out a lot more cases of freely disclosed science. Look at the sloan digital survey site, the scientific journals (NASA ADS site is a good one). Also, a lot of the supression is likely to be the typical economical and social sluggishness that arises with any change. Does that mean some people or groups haven't purposefully supressed scientific results? Not in the least. I just think it's being heavily exagerated here. It's hard to accept that there is a widespread, and systematic suppression of scientific results in a time when scientific and technological advances are comming at the highest rate in history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

this is entertainment at it's best. bonze: I'll admit a lot of the supporting tech for astronomy has military applications (rockets, and satellites)...but astronomy itself is...well, the least practical science around. It has no military applications (other than giving another reason to develope space technologies). ^^^this entire statement is a contradiction. you admit that "a lot of the supporting tech for astronomy has military applications (rockets, and satellites)..." then you say "but astronomy itself is...well, the least practical science around..." what?! rockets and satellites are militarily applied from astronomical research--as you admit to-- yet this must be ultimately impractical and unrelated to astronomy or the military? and then you say: "it has no military applications..."yet you just said that it does. you have a penchant for self-contradicting and double-talking nonsense responses. i've caught on to this and you do not fool me. maybe what you mean to say is that astronomy as it applies to aerospace and the military has applications, but the study of quarks or the big bang has no practical use in the military, nor is this type of science suppressed. is this what you mean? or does what you mean further lend itself to the probability that you do not want to entertain the idea that science is suppressed, in general, as it applies to ideas in conflict with standard theories of astronomy, as such new data would upset the apple cart that you hold sacred. and this: "Anyway, you guys have mentioned a good handful of possible supression cases. I say possible because I haven't looked into them, and can't say more one way or the other. " yes, Saiph, we are all waiting for you to get back with us after you've graciously and level-

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

Bonzolite: "you outright deny at all costs any suppression? at all?" You've moved the goal posts. Your statement was with reference your statement that "if you believe that science is not suppressed on a grand scale" It is this to which I am responding. I see no evidence what so ever of this happening. Nor have you presented any evidence to this fact. No questions there are incidents of unethical behaviour or attempts of interest groups to influence results. Do you have any idea of the scale of scientific research? There are millions of scientists working in every country of the globe across all political, religious, and economic boundaries. It is impossible to suppress reulst on this scale. "the stance you have taken, that of absolute and unwavering denial of it, borders on minion status." Are you calling me a minion? Who to and what are your grounds? "all you need to do is google you butt off and find hundreds of suppression of science books and articles. the practice is as old as humanity itself. trade secrets, piracy, lies, deceit, coverups --all are business as usual and just another day in the 'hood. and, no, i'm not anti-capitalist. quite the opposite. here is but one of millions:" What is it? Hundreds or millions/ You can't have it both ways. Again, what evidence is this of large scale suppression of science rather than the activities of fallible human beings? There is a difference. What has this to do with space science and astronomy? Nothing. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

What is it? Hundreds or millions/ You can't have it both ways. Again, what evidence is this of large scale suppression of science rather than the activities of fallible human beings? There is a difference. ever heard of the CIA? you know what that is?

TheShadow · Feb 25, 2006

Do I need to remind the audience that Ph. D. Carlotto cited RCH in his paper involving symmetry of the Face of the Cydonia Landscape You seem to be fascinated with that PhD behind Mark’s name. It takes a lot more than an degree to make a person credible. IMO, his credibility hit it’s low point when he started citing fractal “analysis” as proof of artificiality on Mars. But citing RCH takes his credibility down even further. Don’t you get it? Those guys are all playing the same game. Wouldn’t you expect them to back each other up? I have been watching that game for years. There is no winner, science is the loser, and there are a LOT of fouls. The really fascinating thing is that they are still playing the same game and the ball hasn’t moved an inch. I don’t know what “sinister” thing you believe is going on here. If you find out, let me know and I’ll look into it. The only “minions” I have seen here are those from TEM <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

"Enough? When is a hypothesis baseless, but a valid argument,..." An idea is baseless when no evidence that stands up to scruinty is presented in its defense and when the purpveyors of the idea refuse to present that evidence when repeatedly requested. "and when is *your* opinion of false premise ever substantiated by the evidence that you apparently require? " You are the person prposing grand conspiracies here. You are the purson required to provide evidence and argument. You are one one failing to do so. "*evidence* of cover-up(s), and/or suppression of technological advances ... ?!?! The stealth aircraft were largely classified as UFO's by the public, until the government actually acknowledged that they existed. " Since the general public is gullible enough to believe that rocks on Mars are alien artifecats I don't have much faith in their abilities. Conversely even a modest perusal of the aeronatutcal literature would have revealed that there was a lot of research into sleath aircraft going on. I was aware of this stuff in high school. "Neither confirm, nor deny the existence of highly advanced propulsion technologies, that in there own right, will eliminate the need for fossil fuels, but are suppressed, because of their weaponization potential, etc. " Evidence for this? "Your statements sound like political *bullying*, and your very attitude in this matter sounds like the very *suppressive* nature that is currently being discussed in this thread. There are numerous ways to suppress individuals and groups, in which certain related methodologies are usually politically motivated. " I see, no evidence, no arguments to support your case, so you accuse me of political bullying". And what might my political agenda be? "Here is a message I posted for ZenOnMars just recently...." I was wondering how long it would take sometone to drag the face on Mars into it. We <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

^^^you must be in denial of those who have come forward to testify that there is suppression. you must also not want to googgle 'suppression in science' and start browsing around leisurely, as none of that is worthy of any proof --it is all wind and smoke? the notion of covert science is only fiction, then? there are no covert agencies in charge of any information, then? deliberate hiding of data is just NOT done, yes? such a thing is simply heresay?

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

"Last time I heard; space covered everything in a selected point in space time, and science, well, is the means by which humanity quantifies the particular space in question. " This is obfuscation and you know it. SDC as many boards to discuss many things - missions and launches, the environment, biomedicine, SF, etc. This board is specifically to discuss space science and technology. Broader socio-political questions belong in free space. Lunatic fringe subjects like UFOs go to phenomena. Grand unified conspiracy theories could find a home in either. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

^^^this is legislation from the bench that does not exist. this thread directly applies to space science and cites other areas of suppression that exist. the case you are trying to build is a transparent attempt to invalidate opinions that dissent from your own. supported rebuttal does not embody TOS violation or non-compliance. the rebuttals are being supported with evidence that you are in the throes of denial over viewing. excerpt: Astrosciences.info While Big Bang supporters relied more and more on their control over funding and open suppression of alternative views, the debate over cosmology burst into public view with the publication in May of an Open Letter on Cosmology in New Scientist, among the most prominent of popular science magazines. The open letter, denouncing the orthodoxy of conventional cosmology, urges the funding of alterative approaches. It has now been signed by hundreds of scientists from countries around the globe. The following review just touches on some of the mass of new data published in the past year and is in no way comprehensive... Big Bang Gets Geometry Wrong One of the striking predictions of the Big bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy, non-expanding space, as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects. But the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above,

Saiph · Feb 25, 2006

bonze, I'm not double talking. Rockets and satellites are not astronomy. Just like computers are not astronomy (and are used in it moreso that rockets and sattelites). They are technologies developed in other fields, used to further astronomy. Astronomy studies stars, galaxies, planets, etc, and serves no practical purpose, let alone a military agenda. In fact, one could assert that the relationship is the other way around. The military developed rockets and satellites to suit it's own needs (launch missles, and spy on others) and astronomy uses those once purely militaristic tools to do other research. So astronomical research didn't even result in rockets, though it does use them. Now, as for: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />me: "Anyway, you guys have mentioned a good handful of possible supression cases. I say possible because I haven't looked into them, and can't say more one way or the other. " bonze: yes, Saiph, we are all waiting for you to get back with us after you've graciously and level-headedly looked into them. we're waiting in the delicate balance for your approval. oh, gate keeper.<hr /></blockquote> Look, I was just forstalling any arguements over the validity of that evidence. I haven't had a chance to look at it. I.e., I'm saying I'm not ready to comment on it, not that you need my aproval. All I was pointing out, was that there is also plenty of evidence (and I provided a few examples) against the idea of widescale supression of science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Feb 25, 2006

bonze, care to curtail the huge url? I hate having to scroll sideways to read posts. I'd stick it inside the tag like so: [**url=http://.........h Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

^^^there's also plenty of evidence in favor of suppression. i didn't know how to shorten the urls.

Saiph · Feb 25, 2006

which is quite possible, and when I've got time I'd love to chat about it. Oh, another resource for shortening links: tinyurl.com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

ag30476 · Feb 25, 2006

bonzelite, a military industrial complex with as much control as you propose - the supression of the entire scientific community - cannot exist without exercising control. If you want a model for control look at totalitarian societies or the societies of despotic tyrants that preceded totalitarianism. Those societies controlled thoughts and actions . And they did that with the best tools possible: fear and torture - a fear that pervades all aspects of life - and torture and death for those not controlled by the fear. Look at this discussion - it's fear free. Look at all the UFO web sites and all the alternate science web sites. The entire Internet is about decentralization not control. Is there a military industrial complex and does it influence our society? Yes. Are there government conspiracies and is government influenced by vested interests? Yes. But is there a shadow government acting across different Presidential administrations and across nations with such superb skill that they can manipulate the entire scientific and engineering community without using fear or absolute control - I don't think so.

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

"Do you have a problem with making a case involving JonClarke, Saiph, Yevaud, telfrow, and TheShadow, in regards to suppressive behavior(s)? Your little one liners are attempt to draw attention away from the fact that there are individuals who post in SDC, who are suppressive in the political extreme. Do you deny this? In fact, your multiple one liners might be construed as a cover-up, or your attempt to cover-up something that is exposed. Do you have any idea how silly this sounds? Those asking for evidence to support wild claims are guilty of "Suppressive behaviours"? No, the are gulity of not presenting an evidence-based case in a cogent manner. "Your little one liners are attempt to draw attention away from the fact that there are individuals who post in SDC, who are suppressive in the political extreme." Who are these individuals? In what forum? Where is the evidence of political suppression? "your multiple one liners might be construed as a cover-up, or your attempt to cover-up something that is exposed." Are you accusing me of being party to a cover up? What is your evidence? That I point out how baseless claims on the artificiality of Cydonia are? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

bonzelite · Feb 25, 2006

ag304, the suppression is selective. it is not totalitarian like China. i'm not ever believing it is. in an open society, it is more difficult to hide things. we are not north korea or anything near that. we do not see daily police with machine guns at checkpoints. that is not my schtick. in this case, the weapon of choice is plausible deniability. that goes very far in free society. no police state required.

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

"you must be in denial of those who have come forward to testify that there is suppression. you must also not want to googgle 'suppression in science' and start browsing around leisurely, as none of that is worthy of any proof --it is all wind and smoke? the notion of covert science is only fiction, then? there are no covert agencies in charge of any information, then? deliberate hiding of data is just NOT done, yes? such a thing is simply heresay?" You are still dodging the issue. Where is the evidence of a systematic and wholesale suppression of science? I have asked you repeatedly and you have not come up with it. Isolated incidents do not count. And you have not backed up your claim that I am a minion or who I am a minion to. Produce the evidence or withdraw the assertion. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Feb 25, 2006

"Web Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800,000 for suppression in science. (0.28 seconds) " Searching by "suppression in science" gives only 84 hits. And this includes hits that are for quite legitimate associations such in sentences like "Martha McClintoch's famous article Menstrual Synchrony and Suppression, in Science magazine (1971) http://www.mum.org/director.htm So much for research by google. So where is your evidence of systematic widespread suppression of science, as opposed to isolate incidents that have brought criticism, and humiliation to the perpretators? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

ag30476

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page