Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

[apollomissions]

<br /><font color="yellow">Max - (02/26/06 02:32 PM) -Hey, cool! Are we showing examples of Telfrow's work that has been proven wrong?! <br /><br />Let me know, I've several examples...</font><br /><br />My intention is not to ridicule anyone. It is no secret that telfrow and I have been in strong disagreement for some time. This should not be taken to infer I do not respect telfrow.<br /><br />Evidence of data suppression by NASA is the topic. Since telfrow seemed to call into question Gene using my site as one of his many links I had made the added comments.<br /><br />The comparison image that I have posted is about as easy as it gets.<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Wait,,,, lemme check... According to Jon's criteria, why yes ... you did get that right, Jatslo.

 

[JonClarke]

"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 />So it seems. Nothing else explains why you have not answreed a simple question.<br /><br />How can an public request that a discussion be moved to a more appropriate forum be considered either political or bullying? I could have made the request in a PM to the mods (and have in fact do so) but prefer to keep my discussions transparent. <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 />You are right and your clarification is accepted thank you. But you should specifiy your accusations about other people. general accusations are pointless. if you think people have violated TOS spell it out, when, where how and who.<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>

 

[ag30476]

> Do you mean the way Maxtheknife rolled you up in <br /> /> the *you skeptics* frame of reference? <br />No. Not at all. You missed the point entirely. Read my link and try to understand. You are getting the content confused with the tactic.<br /><br />Max was asking a question, not to get an answer but to simply ignore and claim he already had evidence.<br /><br />He asked the question simply to launch his own statement. <br /><br />It was not even a trap or trick question.<br /><br />He wasn't debating at all. If anything, it was like trolling - he was asking a question simply to generate another post.<br /><br />In this way, he was disingenous.<br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Looks like *someone* cleaned up the past a bit, because I cannot find where you accused bonzelite for violations of TOS, nor can I find the comments that you made regarding moving this thread. Those statements by *you*, are the statements that got be fired up, so I am glad that your posts are no longer considered evidence.

 

[jatslo]

Responding from server-side? <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> I *suspect* something about you; are you affiliated with Space.com administration? I have seen what some might consider circumstantial evidence that *suggests* that you might be representing *administration*. If you *are*, then my focus will immediately shift to you, for reasons that I would not like to formulate at this time.

 

[JonClarke]

"Good holy grief, man. Why do you play these silly, transparent games!!?? "<br /><br />I don't play games.<br /><br />"I do not want to discuss all the hypotheses."<br /><br />Then why mention them in a thread that was obsensively about something else.<br /><br />"I want to point out that there is covere-up regarding those issues."<br /><br />Which you have not shown in any shape or form. It remains you assertion.<br /><br />"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 am asking you now, in this thread, to provide evidence. It's your assertion, you have to back it up. Otherwise you are dodging the issue. Now back up your statement that there is Iapetus data that has not been released.<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."<br /><br />Actually, as I recall that was jatslo's invention, not mine. But who started the expression is not the point, is it? You are the one accusing me now, aren't you? With out explanation or evidence.<br /><br />"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 /><br />No, I am asking, as I have asked before and will keep asking, how this is both political and bullying. If this was a home handyman's board, and a discussion was started in the gardening section about car maintainence, I would likewise ask it to be <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]

TO: space.com/CIA/NSA<br />FROM: agent ag30476<br />RE: jatslo<br />DATE: 02/26/06<br /><br />Test subject reacting within normal parameters. Moving on to phase IX of experiment. That is all for now.

 

[bonzelite]

posts are being edited here. and i wonder by whom? <br /><br />this post on page 5 was "cleansed" of the TOS violation assertions:<br /><font color="yellow">"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. " <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Jon"</font><br /><br />i know TOS info was deleted because my reply is directly below it, and in direct response to TOS violation accusations:<br /><br />my response, page 5:<br />Link<br /><font color="yellow">"^^^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."</font><br /><br />Jon began the TOS violation stump speeches, actually, right away in this thread very early on, before i addressed it on page 5. yet no evidence of his statements concerning TOS, in any way, remains in his posts. they were edited for content. <br /><br />this is ironic in that it proves that the powers in charge will edit and do anything they can to skew information to mold to an agenda. take note, to anyone reading.

 

[maxtheknife]

<img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Scales.... tipping.... over....

 

[maxtheknife]

Bonz: <font color="yellow">this is ironic in that it proves... </font><br /><br />Yet this thread remains is SS&A... hmmm

 

[geneftw]

" 'I want to point out that there is covere-up regarding those issues.' <br />Which you have not shown in any shape or form. It remains you assertion."<br />Link to a previous post<br />"I am asking you now, in this thread, to provide evidence. It's your assertion, you have to back it up. Otherwise you are dodging the issue. Now back up your statement that there is Iapetus data that has not been released."<br /><br />From EnterpriseMission:<br /> <br />"Bulletin!<br /><br /> During the December 31, 2004 fly-by, according to a published pre-encounter timeline just discovered, the on-board Cassini RADAR experiment—<br /><br /> Should have already acquired such critical new data on Iapetus! <br /><br /> But, remarkably – out of all the many experiments and observations carried out by Cassini during its Iapetus encounter last December -- JPL has not published any results from these first, new radar observations of Iapetus! The echoes were to be acquired in several time windows, spaced throughout the two-day encounter -- from “about 14 hours before … to 20 hours after, Closest Approach” (see timeline, below). <br /><br /> (gene says: The table didn't paste. Visit http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm to see it.)<br /><br /> In terms of how these and other Cassini radar observations were to be carried out, here is what another official JPL release has stated:<br /><br /> … At altitudes between 22,500 and 9,000 kilometers (about 14,000 to 5,600 miles), the radar will switch between scatterometry and radiometry to obtain low-resolution global maps of … surface roughness, backscatter intensity and thermal emissions. At altitudes between 9,000 and 4,000 kilometers (about 5,600 to 2,500 miles), the instrument will switch betw

 

[TheShadow]

Thank you for the clarification. Since you were the one that made the claim, it was your obligation to clarify it, not ours to find out why the discrepancy. In any case, changing the category a paper is filed under is not suppression if the owners of the site feel that it belongs there, no more than moving a thread from SS&A to Phenomenon is suppression if we feel it belongs there. I don’t know the history of Smarandache with arXiv, but if it is anything like some members here continually trying to get their threads into forums they have been told are inappropriate, then I can understand why arXiv might finally have to take more drastic action. <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]

That's right bonze, and that is not the only thing that was deleted. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ... And the powers that be keep asking us to provide evidence that is deleted ... , yet, this thread remains in SS & A, (hmmmm, as Max would say)...

 

[TheShadow]

Using the link you provided I decided to see what all the fuss was about. So I followed one of the complaints all the way through. <br />I chose one of the cases at random, Dr. LaViolette "The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting" , and read through what they had posted, including all of the email and letter correspondence between everyone involved.<br /><br />My conclusion is that the situation really is very similar to what we have here on Uplink. Dr. LaViolette tried to submit a paper to arXiv when it was at Los Alamos. He clearly did not qualify according to their guidelines. He tried to get sponsorship from people who also did not qualify. During that time arXiv moved to Cornell, which naturally initiated a policy revision. Dr. LaViolette was notified of this. He was also notified of why he did not qualify for submission a as an affiliate of Starburst Foundation. He tried to end-run around the policies by recruiting sponsors who did not even qualify themselves. Cornell has new policies in place. I seriously doubt that Cornell changed their entire policy structure to keep out Dr. LaViolette, although that is apparently what he believes.<br /><br />I don’t have time to check each of those cases, but if they are anything like this one, it isn’t suppression at all. I am sure the Cornell has reasonable guidelines, and that the administrators of arXiv have people they must answer to. They do not have an unlimited data base. They limit submission to accounts ending in .gov or .edu.<br /><br />Besides, arXiv is merely a preview area for papers that will be presented in journals. All it does is put the paper out there a little sooner. The entire case was absurd because Dr. LaViolette himself, during his appeals to have the paper archived, requested that they keep it confidential.<br /><br />FYI, this is as far as I am going to go on th <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]

<font size="+3"> No More Long URL’s or Hyperlinks</font><br /><br />Ok, that’s it. I am not going to edit any more over-long url’s or hyperlinks. <br />From now on, long-strung-together-with-dashes-sentences, long url’s, or long hyperlinks, which push the message window out past the width of the screen will be deleted. It does not matter if it does not do so on your browser. If the link is very long, assume it will adversely affect the viewing of other members and shorten it accordingly.<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>

 

[colesakick]

How does one shorten them? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[jatslo]

*disingenuous*; good luck with that one. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> How many times does he have to answer the same question, and how many times does the answer go right in one ear and at out the other? Maxtheknife answered all those questions early on in the thread. Unless they were edited for content by the *POWERS* that be, you should still be able to archive the data.<br /><br />Some hypothecations are untreatable; therefore, there is no burden of proof, yet, the string theory runs rapid in the *SS & A* forum, or legitimate science forums in general, whatever those are. *burden of proof* ? there is no *proof* in hypothesis, because, if there were, then it would not be an hypothesis. You can ask for the underlining data, but if the CIA told you that, then they would have to put you away under lock and no key. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />You commented on my "Biological Earth is a planet, and Mars is a planet, so Mars is a biological planet, as well" statement, as if, it were not valid. You are incorrect; my argument has two premises, and one conclusion, which makes the argument a valid one of *logic*. You on the other hand were more neutral to both possibilities; however, if everyone simply agreed with you, then there really isn't anything further to discuss and/or debate, now is there?

 

[TheShadow]

Your statement contains the Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. A hasty generalization is a general rule that is formed from only a few examples, or examples that are really exceptions. <i>"A bear lives at the zoo, therefore, all bears live at zoos."</i> <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]

HTML<br /><br /><a href="URL" />Shortened TEXT</a><br /><br />UBB<br /><br />[ url=YOUR URL]Shortened TXT[ /url] <--- No Spaces between "[" and "]", unless %20 space is a valid argument, that is.

 

[TheShadow]

title = Makes the given title into a hyperlink pointing to link.<br /><br />Example:<br /> FAQ makes a link to the FAQ at the top of the page.<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>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />FYI, this is as far as I am going to go on this. I do not have the time to argue this case or any other case with you or anyone else. I went the trouble to research this to show I am not dismissing this out of hand. </font><br /><br />ok. fair enough. <br /><br />i'm tired of the debate as well. lurkers, readers, other members will make of this as they will. there is other evidence and posts that abound that are beyond only the arXiv issue. <br /><br />i will maintain that as long as agencies capable of swaying information exist such as the CIA, DIA, NSA and their ilk, ancillary government and non-government entities will be subject to higher influence politically and philosophically.<br /><br />i will also add that such diligent measures to nearly instantly assail any claims that data is altered or suppressed, ie, to declare right away that no such practice exists, lends suspicion to the practice <i>unequivocally existing.</i> <br /><br />reread page 11 of this thread, my last post on that page, to gain further insight into such CIA-like data altering, on this actual site, before it is altered further. <br />

 

[jatslo]

Sure it is, but it is a highly debatable topic that prompts individuals to react on both sides of the line, and it is those debates, and/or deliberations that transmute the weaker hypothesis into a more defensible position that both parties can almost agree on. Actually, in the case of biology on Mars, we would probably see two highly defensible hypothecations, until something more definitive tips the scales one way or the other. No, not politics either, I am talking about evidence that substantiates or unsubstantiates either or.<br /><br />For example, evidence of gravitational oscillations proposed by Dval, might offer support for the existence of gravitons; notice that I did not say *prove*.

 

[TheShadow]

Link please, I am on page 8 <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]

<i> Sure it is, but it is a highly debatable topic that prompts individuals to react on both sides of the line, </i><br /><br />Debatable only in the sense that people will debate it. Not debatable in the sense that there is any evidence of biological activity on Mars to debate. By evidence, I mean data that contains enough information to be testable to a definitive conclusion. Apparently the only real debate is whether such testable evidence has been found but is being covered up.<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>