Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[jatslo]

TheShadow: "... <font color="cyan">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 appear 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.</font> ..."<br /><br />The chief scientist (Soffen, G.); overseer of the Viking missions was quoted as discounting observed artificial looking phenomena as a trick of light with a second picture that did not exist, and (Sagan, C.) was quoted as saying that this was an unfortunate mistake. (Hoagland, R.), like any seasoned journalist, capitalized on this apparent mistake to twist the event into a *cover-up*, and/or lie. What we have here is a legitimate *Mistake*, or a *Cover-up, and/or lie*.<br /><br />"... <font color="cyan">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.</font> ..."<br /><br />I am relatively young, and I do not remember "1976" to much, but I do remember the Landers. I distinctly remember NASA claiming a positive for life on Mars, and then later rejecting that hypothesis as a false positive. I do not remember anything about satellite telemetry, (Hoagland, R.), or anything of that sort. In fact, I immediately lost interest in Mars, when NASA announced that Mars *was*, and still *is* a lifeless dry desert. That proposed false-posit

 

[JonClarke]

"You forgot to list number 5:<br />"I, myself have to believe in what the evidence supports, else it's not evidence.""<br /><br />This is a very garbled statement.<br /><br />What I think you are trying to say is that a person has to believe that the evidence to hand builds a coherent picture of something. That is true of every sphere of life.<br /><br />But unless a person scribes to a private view of truth then what is important is not whether or not a person believes this but whether than view can be substained by independent people then it means nothing except as a statement of my own understanding.<br /><br />For example I may think A is a frog, but unless other people observe a moist green skin, goggly eyes, hopping locomotion, croking, and other indication of froggy-ness then they are quite justified in considering A to be something other than a frog.<br /><br />It's the same with this whole widespread suppression of science thing. People are quite free to think what they will, but if they want to other people to believe that secret agencies are in fact suppressing scientific research then they must present evidence from reputable sources that can be independently verified. <br /><br />Instead, what has been presented here as evidence is a list of random, disconnected incidents that have nothing to do with space science and astronomy. So don't be surprised that people don't believe you.<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>

 

[jatslo]

Science is just the method of inquiry that requires the generation, testing, and acceptance or rejection of hypotheses, and a hypothesis is just an idea. However, if you cannot quantify you hypothesis, then it means nothing. For example, I could say, "Earth is a planet with microbes, and Mars is a planet, so Mars is also a planet with microbes." This is a valid argument, or hypothesis/idea. I see life all around me, everywhere, so why would life not exist elsewhere on other planets too, when my planet, in fact, has life? Am I to assume that we are alone, because NASA says so? No, this is suppression.<br /><br /><b>Testable Hypothesis:</b><br /><br />H _o: P = 0<br />H _a: P {does not equal} 0 <--- Two-Tailed<br /><br />-or-<br /><br />H _o: P = 0<br />H _a: P > 0 <--- Right Tailed<br /><br />-or-<br /><br />H _o: P = 0<br />H _a: P < 0 <--- Left Tailed<br /><br />There are two approaches; one is called the "Classical Approach", the other is called the "P-Value Approach". The Classical Approach has 5-steps in determining the acceptability or rejectability of the hypothesis in question.<br /><br />[1] Determine which test to conduct.<br />[2] Find {alpha}<br />[3] Some Fancy mathematics here<br />[4] Some Geometry here <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />[5] Make the decision to either reject or accept the hypothesis. if the solution falls within the critical region, then you *REJECT* H _o.<br /><br />These boards are not exactly friendly to mathematical nomenclature, or else I would show you. Anyway, contrary to what TheShadow said about burden of *PROOF*, the hypothesis only need be presented in quantified fashion, and the burden of *Acceptation* or *Rejection* falls on the individual or groups that it is being presented to. Anyone wishing to challenge the *HYPOTHESIS* must test the hypothesis against either an existing or new one in an attempt to *REJECT*. If it is accepted, then there is no need to test it.

 

[JonClarke]

"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 />Which hypotheses are you referring to? The original post (I have no argument with the original news story, which I probably read before you did)? or the other "hypotheses" that "those from TEM" having been trying to drag into this thread? <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 are right. If the data does not prove the conjecture then it is not evidence for it.<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 />The it is at best disengenuous and at worst deceitful to post a thread that purports to be about one subject, a specific incident reported in the media, but that is really a platform to once again try and discuss favourte issues of " those from TEM" . <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 didn't know the link didn't function. no matter, i've provided other info. and you discount it no matter what because it does not dovetail with your belief paradigm; therefore, this has become a 'talk to the hand' exchange. "<br /><br />Not true. My "belief paradigm" as you call it (and I read Kuhn more than 20 years ago) in this area is based on clcusions derived from examination of evidence. You have not provided any information whatsoever that points towards a widespread and systematic data on the space sciences. <br /><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 /><br />Why should the unsupported testimony of an astronaut be considered more legitimate than the unsupported testimony of anybody else. I have no reason to believe that cooper did not believe he saw what he says he saw, but that in itself is not evidence. Mitchell believes in ESP - does that means that ESP is correct? Anders ceased to be ing a practising Catholic after going to the moon - does that mean others should? <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 />This is pure supposition on your part. Where is the evidence that the CIA or anyone else has suppressed space science and astronomy? Your opinion, anyone's opinion is worthless unless you suppy evidence.<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>

 

[ag30476]

> "Earth is a planet with microbes, and Mars is a <br /> /> planet, so Mars is also a planet with microbes."<br />Jatslo, I've read many times where you have made a similar argument. Honestly, you make no sense here. The argument is not logical at all. But maybe it's English that's the problem - I gather it wasn't you first language.<br /><br />Maybe in your argument you are trying to say: "Earth is a planet with microbes. The planet Earth allows the conditions for life. Mars is a planet that has been little explored. It may also have the conditions for life in some place we have not explored yet and life may exist there. So Mars may be a planet with microbes. As yet, we have not found any conslusive evidence for life. But neither can we say that no life exists on Mars."<br /><br />See, here is presented a less strongly worded hypothesis (Mars may have life instead of Mars has life). The benefit is that, first, the stronger has no proof, ie "Mars has life" cannot be confirmed at this time. The weaker hypothesis (Mars may have life) cannot be negated at this time.<br /><br /> /> Am I to assume that we are alone, because NASA <br /> /> says so? No, this is suppression. <br />Suppresion of whom? Obviously YOU are not suppressed.<br /><br /> /> These boards are not exactly friendly to mathematical > nomenclature, or else I would show you.<br />Not at all - you can write formulas with ASCII, or Word or some other app then screenprint and paste as pic, or freehand and scan and paste as pic.<br /><br /> /> the hypothesis only need be presented in quantified <br /> /> fashion, and the burden of *Acceptation* or <br /> /> *Rejection* falls on the individual or groups that it is <br /> /> being presented to.<br />Wrong again. This has been told to you before too hasn't it? The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim/hypothesis.<br /><br /> /> What is JonClarke going on about, with respect to <br /> /> *EVIDENCE*; evidence is in the eye of the beholder.<br />Wrong yet

 

[jatslo]

JonClarke: "... <font color="yellow">This is pure supposition on your part. Where is the evidence that the CIA or anyone else has suppressed space science and astronomy? Your opinion, anyone's opinion is worthless unless you suppy evidence.</font>..."<br /><br />Oh, I have evidence that the CIA covered and supressed science related to... but it is time for bed. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Tomorrow, I promise.

 

[JonClarke]

I can't wait! Please include the evidence that I am enagaged in political bullying and suppression while you are at it. You have yet to substantiate those claims either.<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>

 

[TheShadow]

jatslo says: <i> Sounds like double standard to me. </i><br /><br />As I expect you would see it. It is not. The standard is applied to the person making the original claim.<br /><br />atslo says: <i> I bet he is trying to trick bonzelite, </i><br /><br />Not at all. The claim was made regarding blacklisting, and also about designed early failure. It is incumbent upon the person making the claim to back it up with facts.<br /><br />BTW, in the future, if you have a rebuttal or comment to make, ensure that it is relevant. Long, irrelevant, cut-and-paste dialogs will be deleted.<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>

 

[geneftw]

Which Hypotheses am I refering to? <br /> All of them.<br /><br />"Trying to drag into this thread"? <br />If you've read another of my responses to you, you'd know that was the original intent. It wasn't stated straight out, but I implied it so strongly that I thought it was obvious. Nothing at all deceitful or disengenuous about it.<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 />You are right. If the data does not prove the conjecture then it is not evidence for it."<br />There's what I've mentioned before. You expect evidence to prove something. It does not. That's why "evidence" and "proof" have two different definitions.<br /> <br />"This forum talks specifically about space science and astronomy."<br />Yeah. That's why I posted here. I'm talking about the suppression of space science.<br /><br />"The problem is you can't and you know it." <br />No, I can't. Don't have time, but it's scattered all through some other threads. Iapetus for example. But since you don't want to believe it, you refuse to except it as evidence.<br /><br />"Let me tell you what makes me uncomfortable. <br />People starting a thread that is supposed to be about one subject when it fact it is a stalking horse for another."<br />I've answered that twice, now.<br /><br />"People knowing nothing about a subject arrogantly telling those who do that they are wrong."<br />I don't know oodles & gobs about it, but I know enough to point it out. <br />I am not arrogant, but I can sure understand how a person who IS arrogant can deem me as such: I don't like arrogance and (depending on my mood) I won't cower to it.<br /><br />"People who refuse to follow the accepted principles of good scholarship as to what consists of a logical argument and valid evidence."<br />I'm not a trained scientist, but I believe that one of the ingredients of a logical argument is common sense, and that ignoring evidence is n

 

[geneftw]

Asking that a thread be moved to the BS forum because you don't believe or like the premise is political bullying. Please don't tell us that you need "EVIDENCE" that you've done that.

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite,<br /><br />The guidelines we have been charged with upholding require that members who make statements, especially statements that appear to contradict conventional wisdom, back up those statements with verifiable and credible facts. That is not to say that conventional wisdom is necessarily correct, but rather that when contradicting conventional wisdom, the burden of proof is upon the person making that contradiction. Here, the term “conventional wisdom” is defined as that which the majority of the credible participants in the field agree with.<br /><br />While you have addressed the car parts issue, you have failed to address my question regarding your “claim” that many scientists who were supposedly blacklisted from Cornell’s site have a total of 138 articles in the archive they were supposed to have been blacklisted from. I request that you do so now.<br /><br /><i> about the car parts ---why continue down that road? </i><br /><br />Because you, and you alone, brought it up.<br /><br /><i> ask any mechanic and they will corroborate that certain parts in cars are created to fail under apparently benign circumstances. </i><br /><br />I have. My brother was in the business of rebuilding automobiles and automobile engines for 25 years. I can say with certainty that your claim is false. It is apparently one of those urban myths that appear to gain their credibility from a basic misunderstanding of the technology involved.<br /><br /><i> did you know that on a late model Jeep Grand Cherokee, if you suddenly remove one of the battery terminals, it fries the ECU, </i><br /><br />I did not know that. But, having designed and manufactured several computer and printer circuit boards, I can tell you that removing the source of power from a circuit without proper precautions can damage the circuit. Most people do not realize that reverse EMF spikes can be in the multiple 1000 volt range. Although protection can be provided, sometimes the limitations of circuit design ca <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>

 

[geneftw]

I don't really wanna talk about this car thing, but I just feel compelled to bring up one little thing that happened to my son recently: His door handle broke off. It's made of plastic...not metal.<br />hmmm...

 

[Saiph]

well, I'll point out that I've had 3 door handles break of on me (apparently I'm rough on them) in the past couple years.<br /><br />2 were metal, one plastic.<br /><br />The plastic broke during a really really cold snap in nebraska. The metal ones broke under pretty standard circumstances. Heck, one I knew was wearing out, I could see it shearing as the weeks wore on. <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>

 

[TheShadow]

jatslo says: <i> (Hoagland, R.), like any seasoned journalist, capitalized on this apparent mistake to twist the event into a *cover-up*, and/or lie. </i><br /><br />It wasn’t until 7 years later that Hoagland began his investigation into the Viking images.<br /><br />jatslo says: <i> You are speaking, as if, you are a primary source of information on the events that transpired, </i><br /><br />Not at all. The information is all in the record. All you have to do is examine the events at the time and you will see that is what happened. My analysis is based on debates which transpired years ago. At that time I did a LOT of research into this area. I challenge you to find anything in the actual records of the time that refutes what I posted.<br /><br />jatslo says: <i> There was a time when movies were "Black and White" …. yadda, yadda, yadda….Who is to say that existing data on Mars will not be subjected to the same technological advances …. yadda, yadda, yadda….</i><br /><br />Irrelevant to the issue. My point was that NASA had neither the time nor the information to formulate a cover-up. In addition, I have yet to see ANYONE produce credible evidence that NASA or JPL have any incentive whatsoever to cover up evidence of ET Alien life, past or present. That includes, but is not limited to, the disingenuous and blatantly false references to the Brookings report.<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>

 

[TheShadow]

jatslo says: <i> (Hoagland, R.), like any seasoned journalist, capitalized on this apparent mistake to twist the event into a *cover-up*, and/or lie. </i><br /><br />It wasn’t until 7 years later that Hoagland began his investigation into the Viking images.<br /><br />jatslo says: <i> You are speaking, as if, you are a primary source of information on the events that transpired, </i><br /><br />Not at all. The information is all in the record. All you have to do is examine the events at the time and you will see that is what happened. My analysis is based on debates which transpired years ago. At that time I did a LOT of research into this area. I challenge you to find anything in the actual records of the time that refutes what I posted.<br /><br />jatslo says: <i> There was a time when movies were "Black and White" …. yadda, yadda, yadda….Who is to say that existing data on Mars will not be subjected to the same technological advances …. yadda, yadda, yadda….</i><br /><br />Irrelevant to the issue. My point was that NASA had neither the time nor the information to formulate a cover-up. In addition, I have yet to see ANYONE produce credible evidence that NASA or JPL have any incentive whatsoever to cover up evidence of ET Alien life, past or present. That includes, but is not limited to, the disingenuous and blatantly false references to the Brookings report.<br /><br />jatslo says: <i> contrary to what TheShadow said about burden of *PROOF*, the hypothesis only need be presented in quantified fashion, and the burden of *Acceptation* or *Rejection* falls on the individual or groups that it is being presented to. </i><br /><br />You have it backwards. The burden of proof is always on the presenter of the hypothesis. On these boards, as on any science board, when a hypothesis is questioned, it is incumbent upon the person who formulated the hypothesis to back up the claim with credible data. Failure to address challenges is a breach of debating etiquette. <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>

 

[TheShadow]

BTW, accusations of members using this or that “tactic” are allowed. They do not address the issue, and they do not address the source of data so they should be used sparingly. It is helpful to civil debate to restrict comments to the data or evidence when possible.<br /><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>

 

[JonClarke]

"Asking that a thread be moved to the BS forum because you don't believe or like the premise is political bullying. Please don't tell us that you need "EVIDENCE" that you've done that."<br /><br />Let's say you are right: how is this political? Explain your reasoning. <br /><br />But you are wrong. I have asked that this thread be moved because I believe the attempt of yourself and others "from TEM" were highjacking it into topics better discussed in Phenomena than here.<br /><br />And you haven't backed up your accusation that I have violated TOS. <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>

 

[geneftw]

"Irrelevant to the issue. My point was that NASA had neither the time nor the information to formulate a cover-up. In addition, I have yet to see ANYONE produce credible evidence that NASA or JPL have any incentive whatsoever to cover up evidence of ET Alien life, past or present. That includes, but is not limited to, the disingenuous and blatantly false references to the Brookings report." <br /><br />Check out page 48, paragraph 4.<br />http://www.anomalies.net/brookings/brookings_summary.pdf<br /><br />And here's an article about it:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

 

[JonClarke]

So you want to discuss all your hypotheses? We have done that, and those from TEM haven't demonstrated anything.<br /><br />This thread is about supposed widespread and systemmatic suppression of space science and astronomical data. The only example you mention is this post is Iapetus. But where is the evidence that data has been suppressed? You say it is too hard to find in all of the threads. But since the key proof of your allegation is this factual information you must be able to come up with it. Until then you have have a baseless allegation.<br /><br />"My accusations are not wishy washy. I could substantiate them if I wanted to spend hours and days searching for and copy/pasting posts. But that would be unnecessary. You know it's true whether you pretend to know it or not. And so do others. "<br /><br />Either retract them as you have with me (thank you by the way) or demonstrate it. Otherwise it's just baseless.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />PS By the way, yes I think our exchange over the "dune in the crater thing" was fruitful, let's see if we can repeat that mutual success.<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>

 

[geneftw]

You said, quoting me,<br />" 'Asking that a thread be moved to the BS forum because you don't believe or like the premise is political bullying. Please don't tell us that you need "EVIDENCE'" that you've done that.' Let's say you are right: how is this political? Explain your reasoning."<br />I'm speechless.<br /><br />"And you haven't backed up your accusation that I have violated TOS."<br />This is from my previous reply to you. I guess you haven't seen it, yet:<br /><br />You said,<br />"you accuse them of violating TOS (as so many of you repeatedly do). Are you talking about me?" <br /><br />I responded,<br />"NO, SIR. Not you. But several others clearly do on a regular basis..." <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>The Brookings Report <b>briefly considers</b> the possibility of keeping some information from the public, <b>but otherwise does not suggest a cover up of any sort.</b> Moreover, the report is some 45 years old, and in all likelyhood, most of the suggestions and conclusions are no longer relevant; the question of how widely the report's conclusions were considered may remain an open question.<br /><br />In "The Brookings Report Re-examined," Keith Woodard writes that the Brookings Report <b>"did raise the possibility of withholding information, but took no position on its advisability.</b> 'Questions one might wish to answer by such studies,' intoned the report, 'would include: how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?' <b>Those two sentences comprise the report's entire commentary on the subject of covering up the truth."[3]<br /><br />It is important to note that the passage often quoted (and often misquoted) regarding humanity’s reaction to the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligent life was only a paragraph</b> in the portion of the study that dealt with the support for space related activities by the public. That section investigated the influence of space activities on different groups of people, and the influence of those people on space activities.</i><br /><br />Very interesting indeed. It appears this does not support your position and, in fact, somewhat contradicts it. <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>

 

[qso1]

Back on the bottom of page 1, I asked geneftw exactly what data is being covered up on Iapetus. Not suprisingly no answer and were on page 10 now. <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>

 

[geneftw]

Good holy grief, man. Why do you play these silly, transparent games!!??<br />I do not want to discuss all the hypotheses. I want to point out that there is covere-up regarding those issues. When I brought up Iapetus, I said "for example." I had no intention of also bringing up the "cat box image", etc. Where is the evidence that there is data suppression regarding Iapetus? The fact that certain radar data was not released to us. You mentioned my posting the same stuff over and over. Now your asking me to do just that. The info is over there in the other thread(s). Look it up. If you could remember it, I wouldn't have to come up with it again.<br /> <br />I have not accused you of violating TOS. In fact, I've stated that I am not. I do accuse you of the term you invented: political bullying. Are you saying that if I don't go back and look for the posts where you say the thread should be moved (very apparently because you don't agree with the issue) and copy/paste it in THIS post that my accusation is baseless? Why? Don't you remember saying it?<br />Of course, the part about it being "because you don't agree" can't be proven, but it's very apparent. I ain't retractin'.<br /><br />"PS By the way, yes I think our exchange over the "dune in the crater thing" was fruitful, let's see if we can repeat that mutual success."<br />That strikes me as arrogant.<br /><br /> (edit): I just thought of something:<br />Asking you why you play these games, and in the same sentence, calling them transparent was not a very well-thought sentence. But I'll leave it. Poetic justice, I guess.

 

[geneftw]

I saw this post immediately after reasserting an accusation of tactical manuevers after being misconstrued on a similiar issue. I'll stop, but please watch how such things are provoked by other types of ad hominem remarks.<br />Thank you very much for saying, "Please restrict comments to the data or evidence. This applies to everyone." <br /><br /><br /><br />This applies to everyone. <br /><br />(edit):<br />Does this also mean that I shouldn't be accused of Trojan Horsing?<br /><br />