Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[TheShadow]

I have read the infamous Brookings Institute Report and many of the references to it. That is why I mentioned the references to it as disingenuous and blatantly false. They really are. This is ground that most of us have been over too many times already. It is, to use the vernacular, ancient history. In this case, irrelevant ancient history. If you want to argue that point, start a thread on it. <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]

I won't have to ask geneftw whats being covered up on Iapetus. I just got back from the Hoagwash...I mean Hoagland site. Its not enough thet there has to be an ET explanation for the face on Mars. He then started claiming to see ET artifacts on the moon a few years back. One a monolith 9 miles high. Now he sees stuff at Saturns Moon Iapetus!<br /><br />If he'd just stuck with Mars, he might have had more people believing. Now were supposed to believe Iapetus is the Star Wars death star?<br /><br />Hoagie is smart however...he's making the big bucks and doesn't even have to be a preacher. <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]

http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata1.html<br /><br />http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html<br /><br />http://xfacts.com/spirit2004/<br /><br />http://www.libertythink.com/totalinformation/BlueMars.htm<br /><br />http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm<br /><br />From http://www.lunararcheology.org/background.html :<br />"The evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts was so abundant that thousands of extremely high resolution photographs taken from orbit and on the lunar surface were treated as "classified material," withheld from the public, and "cleansed" of identifiable artifacts or otherwise altered to support report conclusions before being released to NASA archivists, constituting the greatest photographic fraud in history.<br /><br />The publicly available "Science Reports" and NASA literature were written to conform to dogma requiring United States Geologic Survey (USGS) scientists and others to assess artificial structures and archeological artifacts as "geologic formations," as "rocks," as "boulders," and as "soil." A Lunar Impact Crater Theory was advanced explaining the natural formation of "Central Peaks," "Terracing" and outlying areas of "Ejecta," supported in large part by orbital images being altered to promote the misinformation."<br /><br />and <br /><br />..."Our review of over 5000 Apollo lunar images confirms that many of the frames were altered by numerous deceptive practices, airbrushing being one of them...."<br /><br />http://members.fortunecity.com/ianfraser/ap</safety_wrapper

 

[telfrow]

You're citing apollomissions as a source? <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]

Hey, Gene, Bonz, Jatslo! Some really awesome posts last night... er, I mean this morning! Sleep, people! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Telfrow, where's that missing radar data? Should we even bother to look for it? Do we have reason to believe NASA suppresses data and evidence? Why yes, we do.<br /><br />Come to think of it, back in '76, NASA said there <i><b>was no second image which confirmed facial features of the FOM. It is all just a trick of light and shadow. Nothing more to see here.</b></i> Thank God those two kooks, DiPietro and Molenaar, decided to find out for themselves. Remember.... NASA didn't even bother to <i><b>release</b></i> the second image. <i><b>Blatant & unambiguous evidence of suppression.</b></i><br /><br />Anyone else get the feeling that the scales are beginning to tip in the other direction?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />Ps... you're so right, Gene... Jon's denials are <i><b>much</b></i> less effective now than they were this time last year.

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Should we even bother to look for it?</font><br /><br />Have you bothered to look for 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]

Are you going to cite <i><b>any</b></i> sources or provide <i><b>any</b></i> evidence of your own on the subject? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

That isn't the point, is it? I've made my own contributions over the past year. What have you done?<br /><br />Share the story, Telf. <br /><br />It is evidence of suppression. That <i><b>is</b></i> the topic.<br /><br />

 

[telfrow]

Max: <font color="yellow">Should we even bother to look for it?</font><br /><br />Telfrow: <font color="yellow">Have you bothered to look for it?</font><br /><br />Max: <font color="yellow">That isn't the point, is it?</font><br /><br />Yes, Max, that’s <i>exactly</i> the point.<br /><br /><br /> Cassini RADAR Observations of Phoebe, Iapetus, Enceladus, and Rhea<br /><br />From the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysics Union, held December 5-9 in San Francisco, California<br /><br /> <i>Operating in its scatterometry mode, the Cassini radar has obtained 2.2-cm-wavelength echo power spectra from Phoebe on the inbound and outbound legs of its flyby (subradar points at W. Long, Lat. = 245,-22 deg and 328,+27 deg), from Iapetus' leading side (66,+39 deg) and trailing side (296,+44 deg) on the inbound and outbound legs of orbit BC, from Enceladus during orbits 3 (0,0 deg) and 4 (70,-13 deg), and from Rhea during orbit 11 (64,-77 deg). Our echo spectra, obtained in the same linear (SL) polarization as transmitted, are broad, nearly featureless, and much stronger than expected if the echoes were due just to single backreflections. Rather, volume scattering from the subsurface probably is primarily responsible for the echoes. This conclusion is supported by the strong anticorrelation between our targets' radar albedos (radar cross section divided by target projected area) and disc brightness temperatures estimated from passive radiometric measurements obtained during each radar flyby. Taking advantage of the available information about the radar properties of the icy satellites of Saturn and Jupiter, especially the linear- and circular-polarization characteristics of groundbased echoes from the icy Galilean satellites (Ostro et al. 1992, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 18227-18244), we estimate our targets' 2.2-cm total-power (TP) albedos and compare them to Arecibo and Gold</i> <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>

 

[ag30476]

> BTW, accusations of members using this or <br /> /> that “tactic” are essentially ad hominem.<br />Er...um..not true. If true then I can't say someone used an ad hominem against me because that would be an ad hominem! In general, if someone is using bad tactic or logical fallacy, then we have to be able to call them on it.<br /><br />Also people use the words "ad hominem" too much. It is an ad hominem if a personal attack is used to discredit and argument, eg "Cydonia is not artificial because Hoagland is a nut."<br /><br />That is different from a simple insult, eg "There is no evidence that Cydonia is artificial. Hoagland is a nut." You may want to cut these out too.<br /><br />But it is valid to question evidence based on the source, eg "Your got your evidence from Hoagland? Then it must no be very good evidence." This has to be allowed.<br />

 

[TheShadow]

Good point, you are correct. I have edited the comment to reflect that. Thank you for pointing out my error. <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>

 

[jatslo]

TheShadow: "... <font color="gold">accusations of members using this or that “tactic” are allowed</font> ..."<br /><br />Could you provide samples, please; I am not sure I understand exactly what you are accusing *US* of. For example, *YOU* said, "... <font color="gold">Disingenuous debating <i><b>tactic</b></i> #22. Ask opponents to “prove a negative”. Since it is well known that it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the request is disingenuous</font> (* HERE *) ...", so is this a *NEW* policy you are planning to enforce. I actually find that your "... <font color="gold">debating tactic #</font> ..." ('s) are educational, and I wish you would do that more.

 

[maxtheknife]

You <i>still</i> haven't provided the context of the story, Telfrow.<br /><br />What were our/TEM's contentions, what were yours etc...<br /><br />Come on. Give it a fair shake. This is sounding more and more like a political debate than a real scientific debate. <br /><br />What you provided isn't really what we were/are after, is it?<br /><br />Surely you can be a little more specific...<br /><br />Thanx,<br /><br />Maxdnyf

 

[apollomissions]

geneftw - you have given a link to the website with which I am associated as one of a number of sources in your post of 02/26/06 07:18 AM. And, I find it interesting that telfrow, after establishing a clear history in two different threads of repeatedly making photographic assessments in which he was shown to be in error (and sometimes in gross error) would question this.<br /><br />The below photographic comparison of two 70mm frames purports to show the same sunlit face of the same boulder taken approximately from the same position within minutes of each other on the lunar surface. telfrow has previously stated that the two boulders are the “same.” <br /><br />This photo comparison is hard evidence of data manipulation or suppression. <br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Hey, cool! Are we showing examples of Telfrow's work that has been proven wrong?! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Let me know, I've several examples...

 

[jatslo]

*Yes* please do continue ... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[ag30476]

> Could you provide samples, please; I am not sure I <br /> /> understand exactly what you are accusing *US* of. <br /> /> For example,<br /><br />Though it's not addressed to me and I'm not Shadow, I'll give my opinion of what an bad faith tactic is:<br />Link <br /><br />Don't mean to pick on Max but I have to give somebody as an example. <br /><br /><i>**edited to create shorter hyperlink. Please people, make short links out of those long URL’s so it doesn’t push the screen out beyond the width of the monitor.**</i>

 

[telfrow]

And what does any of this have to do with my work, Leo's work, Max's work or apollomission's work? <br /><br />The title of the thread is "Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression." <br /><br />BTW, AM, I only asked the question to clarify if it who he was citing as a source - the site or you, since you've explained before that you are not the sole contributor. You've answered my question with your post. <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>

 

[jatslo]

Do you mean the way Maxtheknife rolled you up in the *you skeptics* frame of reference? If so, then the same can be said about rolling me into *Hoaglandite* grouping or classification, which is false, by the way, since I try to hold a unbiased opinion on speculation.<br /><br />... as in, *it* may or may not be the case, based on insufficient evidence, or circumstantial, at best ... yada, yada, yada ... <br /><br />Could it be that Max detects bias on your behalf, and appropriately labeled you as so?

 

[jatslo]

Bias suppresses science, so NASA is biased, since there *IS* evidence that NASA suppressed science. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />[premise] + [conclusion] + [premise] = {valid} <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

Telfrow: <font color="yellow">And what does any of this have to do with my work, Leo's work, Max's work or apollomission's work?</font><br /><br />In a word... <i><b>credibility</b></i>

 

[jatslo]

*Radar Telemetry* is withheld ... , and you have done nothing, other than "Cut & Paste" ancient news clips. NASA needs to release all data, regardless, for public scrutiny, because to do otherwise is highly *SUSPECT*.

 

[maxtheknife]

Don't ya just love it when a story comes full circle? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

Well, duh ... even, if, the data is worthless, *it* must be released, and the data collection process must be transparent, or that *too* is highly suspect, which leads to speculation about cover-up, and or lies ...<br /><br />Did I get that right, Max?

 

[bonzelite]

shadow, and others, as there are many examples, i will address <i>one case</i> first, as the reader of the posts, in this debate, can begin to surmise the "shadow play" (pun intended) that is going on. <br /><br />concerning arXiv.org:<br /><br />Florentin Smarandache --65 papers published<br />^^^ok. this looks benign and seems to contradict my argument that suppression is happening. <br /><br />however, as we look further into the matter, Smarandache has this to say:<br />excerpt from http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Smarandache.html<br /><font color="yellow">I am on the blacklist of arXiv. First, any math paper I submit to arXiv in any subject <i><b>is automatically converted to GM (General Math).</b></i> Many papers of mine are clearly in Logic or Number Theory, <b><i>but the moderator Mr. Greg Kuperberg changes them to GM.</i></b> He went even further and e-mailed to a friend of mine in Australia not to cooperate with me!<br /><br />Similarly, in the Computer Science area, <i>my papers are <b>automatically converted to Others,</b> instead of Artificial Intelligence.</i> I wrote to Dr. Joseph Halpern, the moderator for this area, and he hardly has changed my computer science papers' subject to AI, but the last paper submitted was again automatically changed to OH [Others].<br /><br />In Physics it's even worse! Any paper that challenges the theory of relativity or other mainstream idea is brutally rejected, as happened with some of many of papers. But I could upload one in CERN-EXT, which now does not exist any longer. In Physics, any paper that bears my name is automatically deleted from arXiv!</font><br /><br />just because these people have published works does in no way mean they are not blacklisted or that suppression is a falsehood. i invite the readers of this debate to visit the site and take time to assess the individual case histories of each person. this way, a clearer p