Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[telfrow]

Career? Life's passion?<br /><br />You're joking, right?<br /><br />I have a very successful career with a major corporation that has nothing to do with SDC, thank you very much.<br /><br />And my "passion" in life is making sure my kids and my grand kids are safe, healthy and happy. <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>

 

[geneftw]

(I didn't wanna edit my post again, so please consider this to be part of my previous post.)<br /><br />I found archives to one of the first message boards...from back in the stone age.<br /><br />"genetreelimb" said in the New Technology forum, "I read a theory that if you attach a log to the bottom of a heavy cart, and attach the log through centered holes in tree stumps length-ways, you can pull that cart much more easily."<br /><br />"RokClarke" said, "I've never seen that done. It's ridiculous. How can adding more weight to an already heavy cart make it easier to move. That's not technology; that's wishful thinking. This thread belongs in the "Dreams" forum.

 

[geneftw]

It's just a somewhat mildly entertained thought. Sorry. Didn't mean to strike a nerve.

 

[ag30476]

> I suspect the "built in obsolescence" thing is very over <br /> /> done.<br />Well that was my point. In reality, there is often little reason why people want to buy a new car other than they want a new car. The fact that there's a big used car market makes this easier too.<br /><br />In fact there's little reason for the price paid for a new car other than the buyers desire for luxuries.

 

[maxtheknife]

Gene: <font color="yellow">I've noticed something about you... </font><br /><br />Hey, you noticed that too??? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Telfrow.... Please do tell qso1 'bout that missing radar data... from your point of view. Seems quite relevant to the topic.

 

[telfrow]

Go right ahead, Max. Have at it. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

<i><b>Lmaoroflololol!</b></i>

 

[maxtheknife]

What does that mean? <font color="yellow">Have at it.</font><br /><br /> It is <i>evidence</i> of suppression is it not? <br /><br />Tell us why it <i>can't/shouldn't</i> be considered as evidence.<br /><br />Tell us why other pieces of evidence, which suggest the same exact thing, aren't considered a mounting pile of evidence.... I believe when that pile gets high enough, its called a preponderance?<br /><br />Face it, if I tell the story it gets swept under that same tired 'ol <i>ad hoc</i> rug of yours.<br /><br />If you tell it... who knows what might happen.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><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.</font><br /><br />at least we sort of agree on something. <br /><br />again, if we're talking specifically about the study of quarks, or the big bang, or atmosphere of titan, then that will not immediately resemble military activity. if we are talking about NASA as an organisation, which emcompasses the field of astronomy and myriad others, yes, that is ultimately answerable to the interests of national security and the military. it is not the civilian-only organisation that it claims to be. it is subject to secret projects and shadow funding. <br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

"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. here is but one of gadzillions: "<br /><br />You keep asserting this but don't provide evidence. A non-functioning link to a newspaper article about UFOs I do not take as evidence. And I don't count UFOs as space science or astronomy either. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Tell us about the missing Iapetus radar, Jon... You were around for that discussion weren't you?<br /><br />What qualifies as 'evidence' for you, I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[ag30476]

Max forget the radar. You need to lobby and gather funds for an Iapetus mission - think of the mirror images that could be there!

 

[JonClarke]

You are the one who thought it was missing Max. You are the one who has to explain 1) that it is, and 2) why. Not me, It's your story.<br /><br />Sorry to disapoint you but I am quite upfront about what I consider good evidence. There are many criteria.<br /><br />1) The infomation shuld be direct primary or secondary in nature.<br /><br />2) The source of the information has to be reliable, this is both the basic data and its analysis.<br /><br />3) It has to be independently confirmed<br /><br />4) It should be free of obvious bias or have the biases clearly stated <br /><br />These are the basic requirements of good scholarship. What do you accept as evidence Max?<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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Thanks, Jon... So far, so good 4 me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />edit: And it wasn't just <i>my</i> story or contention, Jon. We all participated in that discussion. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">So far, so good 4 me.</font><br /><br />So what does the topic of this thread have to do with you, Max? <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>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">You keep asserting this but don't provide evidence. A non-functioning link to a newspaper article about UFOs I do not take as evidence. </font><br /><br />i didn't know the link didn't function. no matter, i've provided other info. and you discount it <i>no matter what because it does not dovetail with your belief paradigm; therefore, this has become a 'talk to the hand' exchange. </i><br /><br /><font color="yellow">And I don't count UFOs as space science or astronomy either. <br /></font><br />of course you do not. talking with you is pointless on the matter, despite tremendous evidence and testimony. here is yet another one from this site, a book by an astronaut:<br />http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/gordon_ufos_000728.html<br /><br />there are many more accounts similar to the one cited. one would need the entire weekend to even begin sorting them out. you cannot say there is no evidence. there is heaps of evidence. <br /><br />the CIA covers this up among other things. it's mission in life is intelligence gathering, covert or otherwise. this is not a stretch to understand. UFO information has been part of the popular cultural landscape for decades, particularly related to the CIA and it's related agencies. <br /><br />SDC is not particularly pro-UFO, so i never expect the naysayer to suddenly experience clarity and "convert." that is not the point. as well, belief in UFOs does not invalidate or threaten conventional sciences, but, rather, walks among them. <br /><br />anyway, i need to eat something. my blood sugar is falling. i will jump back into this later. <br /><br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

U tell me... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[geneftw]

UFOs obviousely ARE space science. If they exist, they are manufactured by advanced civilizations from other planets, which illustrates that the ingredients of life are strewn throughout the universe, and that is of importance to us, considering we should be out there someday looking for places to mine, farm, colonize, trade, etc.<br /><br />And please don't try your tired ol' statement "No evidence of UFOs". There's worlds of evidence (not proof) of it. You've used it too much. It works less now than it used to. The fact that you are not swayed by the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[geneftw]

You forgot to list number 5:<br />"I, myself have to believe in what the evidence supports, else it's not evidence."

 

[jatslo]

"... <font color="white"><b>NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars</b> </font> (* HERE *). ..."<br /><br />Catching NASA in an outright *LIE* is the holly grail, so to speak. For example, a judge and/or jury listening intently to presented evidence by opposing parties will base creditability upon the statistical probability that the presenter *IS* truthful. Catch the presenter in just *ONE LIE*, and the judge, and/or jury will throw all evidence related to the violator out. That is why people are so devoted to catching NASA in a *LIE*, because in doing so, they gain popular support for there cause.<br /><br />This reminds me of something that was conveyed to me while I was working at IBM; "<i>You can do all the good in the world, but it only takes one bad thing to erase it all ..."</i> The following is an excerpt from the *LINK* above: <font color="gold">"... But NASA never investigated the question of artificiality of the formation in good faith. That the appearance of a face was a trick of light and shadow <i><b>was an ad-hoc announcement by Viking scientist Gerald Soffen made in a press conference on July 25, 1976</b></i>. That the face had disappeared in a second frame taken several hours later <i><b>was a lie</b></i> (an "unfortunate misstatement", according to Carl Sagan); <i><b>no such picture</b></i> was taken, and none could have been taken due to <i><b>the fact</b></i> that at the time the second picture was supposedly taken, Cydonia was already in the dark. </font>..."<br /><br />The article says that Gerald Soffen was a Viking scientist at the time, but that really does not imply that he worked for NASA; I mean, maybe he is a contractor or affiliate speaking as an individual, and not for NASA. Gerald Alan Soffen (1926-2000), was the Chief Scientist for the NASA Viking missions to Mars (* HERE *). I noticed

 

[TheShadow]

Bonzelite,<br />You made several statements that have been called into question. In order to continue debate you must address the rebuttals when they are presented in response to your claim.<br /><br />This is a science forum. If someone here makes a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove it. It is not the responsibility of other members to disprove it. The burden of proof is on you. In the case of this thread, the burden of proof is upon geneftw who started the thread, and upon you, who have presented arguments in support of the contention.<br /><br />You can start by addressing the questions in these two posts. Relevant answers with relevant backup is required, not just one-line rejoinders. <br /><br /> blacklisting <br /><br /> car parts <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>

 

[qso1]

bonzelite:<br />it is not the civilian-only organisation that it claims to be. it is subject to secret projects and shadow funding.<br /><br />Me:<br />Where NASA is concerned, what evidence do you have of the above, especially shadow funding? <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>

 

[jatslo]

TheShadow: "... <font color="gold">Bonzelite, You made several statements that have been called into question. In order to continue debate you must address the rebuttals when they are presented in response to your claim.</font> ..." Yeah, right!! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />, as *IF* it is possible to respond to all the *ONE* liners that *you* are apparently opposed to. Sounds like double standard to me. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /><br /><br />The following excerpt by drwayne directly contradicts *your* ascertainments, "... <font color="gold">This is a science forum. If someone here makes a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove it. It is not the responsibility of other members to disprove it. The burden of proof is on you. In the case of this thread, the burden of proof is upon geneftw who started the thread, and upon you, who have presented arguments in support of the contention.</font> ..."<br /><br />####################################<br /><br />drwayne said, "... <font color="cyan">OK, you have formed a hypothesis. An idea if you will. <br />Believe me, that is both the easy and the hard part. <br /><br />It is hard in that it is creative, but also requires understanding. It is easy in that it is, at this point, just an idea. Many people come up with ideas. What takes an idea from the easy regime to the special regime, and into the rarified air of a theory is what follows: <br /><br />You have to start thinking about how to either look at existing data, or think of experiments that would provide evidence that support or not support your hypothesis. (Note I did not say "prove" - seeking to prove something shows a bias that make your thinking questionable) <br /><br />Now, for your specific example, one potential place to look at the data is in the area of neutrinos. You have to understand for your process exactly what flavor of neutrino you expect to see, and at what rates. <br /><br />Neutrinos also are one area that is still somewhat of a problem for the standard</font>

 

[TheShadow]

The problem with your quote is the same thing that has always been wrong with it. It takes the comment out of context and attempts to make it <i>appear</i> to be deliberately misleading. That is not the case. Gerald Soffen was the Chief Scientist on the Viking Mission. That does not mean that he was intimately familiar with ALL of the details, but he oversaw the entire project.<br /><br />That day in 1976 was a very hectic day for the Viking Team. The images from Mars were just coming in, and they were processing them as fast as they could. There were many people there doing dozens of different jobs behind the scenes, such as the actual processing of the raw data into images. Others were still working with managing the spacecraft. Still others, like Soffen, went out to meet the press. As new images and information came in, Soffen was updated by workers conferring with those working on the images. He in turn, relayed that information to the eagerly waiting media. <br /><br />When the image of the “face” was processed, those on the team were more amused than concerned. I am sure this feeling was relayed out to Soffen. He was told this was probably a trick of light and shadow, and that is what he told reporters. Later, in the confusion, someone (no one knows who) looking at what he thought was the same area, assumed that the “trick of light and shadow” was gone and sent the word out to Soffen.<br /><br />I have never seen anything that makes it look like anyone lied or that anyone tried to cover up anything. Considering the scale of the mesa, almost 2 square miles, it is easy to see why no one there seriously considered it to be artificial. Remember, Hoagland was there and even he didn’t think it was artificial. That is probably why no one ever bothered to correct the error in reporting the “face” missing in the second frame. It simply was not important, it was an insignificant detail that just didn’t matter.<br /><br />It wasn’t until many years later that Hoag <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>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />You can start by addressing the questions in these two posts. Relevant answers with relevant backup is required, not just one-line rejoinders. <br /></font><br /><br />this is <b>debate forum</b> #1. <i>not science.</i> the science here is a vehicle for intellectual debate. that is all.<br /> <br />and you are resorting now to only debate tactics 101 because there is credible threat to certain positions in the thread that you disagree with. and your job is to discredit those who ultimately do not agree with you. you do not fool me, shadow, in your biased debate tactics. <br /><br />science is covered up. period. here is another example:<br />http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg<br /><font color="yellow">US Army, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden<br />Some of the breakthroughs in the past have been deliberately suppressed. T. Henry Moray was inspired by Tesla’s work. There was absolutely no question that he had a system that produced 50 kilowatts out of a 55-pound box. There are all kinds of skullduggery that happened there. The Russians even tried to kidnap him at one time. Gabriel Crone invented a true negative resister, working on a Navy contract for Stanford University. He was never permitted to reveal the exact way that he constructed it. There is real stuff in cold fusion. 600 experiments worked, for goodness sake. Probably 50 inventors have invented free energy systems….What we have is a situation where the entire structure of science, industry, and the organizations of science and the patent office are against you. I’ve been a victim of quite a bit of suppression. So has any other legitimate researcher in the area. And behind this, we have a few people who are quite wealthy and who own these things. The more powerful the agency, the more they will resort not only to legal, but to extra-legal means to suppress their competition</font>