Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[ag30476]

OK. I see your point of view clearer now. But plausible deniability only goes so far. Nixon was forced to leave office. Reagan was able to deny Iran-Contra but it's clear that he knew and the revelation hurt his legacy (not to mention that it ended the program and sent several aides to prison). WMD and the torture scandals - the current administration is fighting those scandals right now (I picked only Republicans but the Democrats have theor scandals too).<br /><br />Those relatively easy conspiracies - smaller in scale and duration than the UFO/long term suppression of science conspiracy - could not be kept secret. Maintaining the UFO/science supression conspiracy would be much harder.<br /><br />I imagine you've read Chomsky no? There is no more ardent supporter of the idea that the military indsutrial complex controls our foreign policy. But even he says it's not a small cabal of men in a secret room.<br /><br />I can understand it more if you said that mainstream science has a suppresive effect on real innovation in science. (I would argue this suppresion is overblown but anyway.)<br /><br />But it's really hard to see how all scientists and engineers everywhere can be controlled to such an extent that not one serious scientist is willing to break free - without there being some sort of police state. <br /><br />Did I say not one? How many researchers are there working on cold fusion? string theory? Not enough you say? So what? It only takes one really bright guy - one Einstein working on a forbidden idea and the whole supression effort would be for nothing.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">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. </font><br /><br />i cited myriad issues, that you acknowledge, yet it still doesn't count? right <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />out of respect for you personally, as i actually like you, i withdraw the assertion. i still do not get it, though. your fuming angry denial of scientific suppression is enigmatic. even if you personally do not corrupt data, which i was not implying, you will <i>absolutely not recognize such corruption takes place despite supported rebuttal.</i><br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Not to mention there are millions of scientsists working in thousands of specialisations in all the countries of the world, corss all boundaries of language, nationality, politics, economics, religion, whatever. Control of all these diverse and indpenendtent thinkers is impossible and is what makes grand suppression of science theories inpossible.<br /><br />Plus the fact that innovation in science is a fantastic way of making squillions of money. Do people honestly think that any innovation is going to be suppressed when people profit from it? It flies against the history of the last 200 years which has seen staggering advances in every field of science and technology simply because it is impossible to suppress research and innovation. <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>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">I can understand it more if you said that mainstream science has a suppresive effect on real innovation in science. (I would argue this suppresion is overblown but anyway.) </font><br /><br />right. that is a good way of seeing it. not the only way. but a good way. a more tenable example would be in the automotive industry. certain parts, not all, but many, are engineered to fail prematurely to maintain a dealer part industry.

 

[TheShadow]

If these guys are blacklisted, why do they have so many papers available at arXiv.org?<br /><br />Roger Ellman 20<br />Robert Gentry 3<br />Michael Ibison 8<br />Paul LaViolette 2<br />Jacques Moret-Bailly 23<br />Matti Pitkanen 5<br />Peter Rowlands 11<br />Florentin Smarandache 65<br />Frank (Tony) Smith 11<br /><br />What was the criteria for blacklisting (if they really were)?<br /><br />How do you parlay the archives on this one site to a massive general suppression?<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>

 

[Saiph]

have any support for that defective part assertion?<br /><br />While I can see that as a possible ploy, I also notice that companies who's cars are known require less maintenence tend to do better, so there's plenty of reasons for companies not to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"i cited myriad issues, that you acknowledge, yet it still doesn't count? right"<br /><br />They don't count because they don't point to something that is whole sale or systematic. They are isolated incidents that effect only a tiny fraction of the total volume of research.<br /><br />"out of respect for you personally, as i actually like you, i withdraw the assertion."<br /><br />Good, don't do it again, and think next time before you say something like it. It is utterly unhelpful.<br /><br />" i still do not get it, though. your fuming angry denial of scientific suppression is enigmatic. even if you personally do not corrupt data, which i was not implying, you will absolutely not recognize such corruption takes place despite supported rebuttal. '<br /><br />Again, you are moving the goal posts and don't seem to be able to see it. I have never said there have never been issues. But I see and you have not presented any evidence for a systematic, i.e. organised or general suppression of data. Can't you see the difference?<br /><br />You also fail to show the slightest evidence how this relates to space science and astronomy. <br /><br />Jon<br /><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>

 

[bonzelite]

excellent point about money. innovation in science is not across the board jinxed. money rules all. if innovation leads to money --then innovation is welcomed. if innovation leads to net losses, it is disdained. this is an archetypal hallmark of societies through the ages. <br /><br />

 

[ag30476]

The automotive industry did try to build a good, econmic, relaible and easy to fix car that would last for years. <br /><br />But after the Model T, they found they could make more money by producing different models to "suit" consumers and builfding in obsolesence <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />have any support for that defective part assertion? </font><br /><br />yes. ask any mechanic. they will tell you. <br /><br />

 

[mental_avenger]

Which parts, specifically, are you referring to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

An innovation that leads to net losses is not an innovation. It is simply a bad idea.<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]

I suspect the "built in obsolescence" thing is very over done. More of a marketing ploy to justify people buying new cars or a catch cphrase to bag the automotive industry than actual hardware issues.<br /><br />Our current car has done of 300,000 km without a major engine or gearbox overhaul. Our previous one did over 500,000 before it was written off in a crash. Iadmittedly it had needed a bit more work, but then it had been driven pretty hard. But I think we would have not another 100,000 or 200,000 out of it.<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>

 

[Saiph]

But I'm asking you.<br /><br />Do you have any sources you can show me?<br /><br />To be fair, I wouldn't be suprised if it's true. It's just a statement that can, and should, be supported. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Again, you are moving the goal posts and don't seem to be able to see it. I have never said there have never been issues. But I see and you have not presented any evidence for a systematic, i.e. organised or general suppression of data. Can't you see the difference? <br /></font><br /><br />suppression is incremental and is wholesale. i've cited both. <br /><br />you avoided the post about the CIA. this organisation creates wholesale witholding of data <i>all of the time, as that is one major reason for it's very existence. science is not off-limits to this organisation.</i> <br /><br />is it constantly doctoring up every shred of science? no. <br />is it witholding of information, scientifically? yes. that is one of the founding functions of the organisation. <br /><br />to deny the existence of a highly organised effort, by an entity or agency, to classify and withhold data, is ok?<br /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

"suppression is incremental and is wholesale. i've cited both. "<br /><br />No you haven't. You have provided evidence (which nobody disputes) of the first not of the second.<br /><br />"you avoided the post about the CIA. this organisation creates wholesale witholding of data all of the time, as that is one major reason for it's very existence. science is not off-limits to this organisation."<br /><br />Provide evidence that the CIA has tampered with scientific information. <br /><br />"is it constantly doctoring up every shred of science? no."<br /><br />Like TEM does? I don't know of any organisation, except perhaps the young earthers who even come close to TEM for distorting and doctoring up shreds of data. <br /><br />"to deny the existence of a highly organised effort, by an entity or agency, to classify and withhold data, is ok? "<br /><br />How has this entity (which entity or agency, don't be shy, spell it out) has classified or witheheld scientific data?<br /><br />Specifically, who has done this with respect to space science and astronomical data? I have asked you this several times and no answer. <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>

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />the military industrial complex has a reach that is far and wide. and astronomy is on it's top ten list, as it must be, as it directly aids in the creation of military technology.<br /><br />Me:<br />Uh, hate to rain on your military parade but adaptive optics is but one example where mil tech eventually became astronomy tech. Can you give examples of how astronomy aids the military tech wise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

incremental and wholesale. <br /><br />CIA. i spelled it out. as well as the NSA. and others. former operatives have disclosed such information. this is not new. there are plenty of books on the subject. are you in a cave? press and media coverups are integral to these agencies. <br /><br />here is but one of gadzillions:<br /><br />A former director of the CIA, Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter, made an astounding statement which was reported in the New York Times on February 28, 1960 on page L30. "It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings....Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense....To hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel." At the link below, you can read the entire article and verify the contents by using the link to the New York Times archives to access the original article.<br /><br />http://www.WantToKnow.info/600228nytimes<br /><br />

 

[Saiph]

Ahh, now that's some evidence.<br /><br />of course, I'm wondering if the public thinks of UFO's the same way the airforce does...i.e. as likely enemy aircraft and spy planes, not alien joyriders.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Uh, hate to rain on your military parade but adaptive optics is but one example where mil tech eventually became astronomy tech. Can you give examples of how astronomy aids the military tech wise?</font><br /><br />the fields are complimentary. without knowledge of astronomy, aeronautical engineering, physics, sputnik would have never been created and there would have been no space race. no apollo. no shuttle. no military ventures into outer space that exist today.<br /><br />ever heard of a sextant?<br />http://www.mat.uc.pt/~helios/Mestre/Novemb00/H61iflan.htm<br /><br />Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System<br />http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html<br />http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/<br /><br />Postwar Radio Astronomy and the US Military<br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v25n4/aas183/abs/S106.html <br /><br />http://space.about.com/od/usmilitary/<br />Organizations /> <br />US Military Astronomy & Space Resources - Military Technology<br />US military applications for space exploration and discovery. Utilizing technology from NASA and other space agencies for US military purposes. From war to peace, home or outer space, discover links to space or astronomy related US Military resources. Military Links.<br /><br />US Naval Observatory - US Military Links<br />The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of the oldest scientific agencies in the country, established in 1830 as the Depot of Charts and Instruments. Today, the U.S. Naval Observatory is the preeminent authority in the areas of Precise Time and Astrometry, a

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />because of this, astronomy in general is ultimately a living extension of the military industrial complex, absolutely and totally.<br /><br />Me:<br />Good links. However, knowledge of astronomy does not mean the military controls it as you implied in the statement above. This kind of thinking allows no room for the possibility that astronomy is done by astronomers without military intervention or control. Much of astronomical observations have no military value. The statement by its very wording (Absolutely and totally) expects that we will look at any astronomy as ultimately beholden to the military which in turn makes all astronomical data suspect.<br /><br />BTW, I know what a sextant is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

He's right there. Little of the standard, available equipment used by Astronomers today could be efficiently used by the Military anyways.<br /><br />Hubble? Useless for military purposes. Any given observatory? Ditto. Arecibo? Nope. Research satellites (weather and climate, observational)? No, specifically designed and built military platforms have them all beat to hell for that kind of work.<br /><br />Are many research projects NASA funded? Why sure. But the type of research conducted, and the expected results are generally not useful for any military application. <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>

 

[geneftw]

We have provided evidence many, many many,........many, many..........times on a lot of different issues. But you, as you accuse us of doing, dismiss it. If you do not agree with the hypothesis, you seem to think we are trying to say our evidence is proof, but since it ain't, you say it's not even evidence.<br /><br />In this thread, links have been posted citing evidence of science suppression. But it ain't proof, so you say it's not evidence.<br /><br />You have me wrong about the hidden agenda thing. My agenda is not hidden at all. My first statement, "Well, well, well! It seems that we, from TEM aren't the only ones who think data is being suppressed:" (introducing the article) could only be construed as an in-your-face reference to the fact that y'all balk balk at our belief that NASA suppresses data. Since the article shows that they do indeed, isn't it as plain as day...a goes-without-saying kinda thing... that I would have OTHER data in mind? Such as data about the kind of stuff us TEMers discuss?? No, my agenda is not hidden, and it isn't a Trojan Horse bringing in Iapetus. It's an OPEN argument for the possibility of data suppression re all thing TEM. And my post that you quoted me from ("I'm glad it did." ...Further brings out what I'm getting at. My agenda is not at all hidden. In fact, I thank you for making clearer what I thought was already clear.<br /><br />You said, "You are not really interested in this story or the serious issues it raises. You just want to try and gain credibility for the rediculous claims of TEM." THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! (Except for the "ridiculous" part.) After aaaalllllllll these posts, somebody FINALLY understands that!! YIPPIE!! <br /><br />NASA is a space agency.<br />Science is...uhm....science.<br />The things that you know I'm refering to are about space.<br />The suppression of space science, and all that is implied from there is about space science.<br />This thread does belong here. Your personal non-acceptanc

 

[Saiph]

Astronomy in the form of celestial navigation was used for military purposes. Okay.<br /><br />How about now?<br /><br />Without astronomy it is possible for aeronautical engineering to have developed They didn't use any astronomy knowledge in the designing or building of ships or planes, only for navigation.<br /><br />Physics would have developed as well. Granted, without some astronomical work some thing would have been harder to find supporting evidence for, but not impossible.<br /><br />Sputnik didn't have anything to do with astronomy. It had to do with rockets, and intimidation.<br /><br />Now, without astronomy, there really wouldn't have been much motivation for the shuttle, or the space race. Well, again, intimidation was a key factor for that, so we may still have gone to the moon. Any actual astronomy involved in the space race was a secondary objective. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[geneftw]

Ya know?:<br />That SDC conspiracy thing does sound kinda goofy, but I have to admit that I've entertained that notion, myself.<br /><br />Why are so many of you always, always here immediately taking adament oppositional stances to anything and everything that hasn't been printed in the mainstream? It's like you've made it your career and/or life's passion.