Intelligent life cover-up!?.[ET/UFO]

jonbravo · 13-05-2009 3:28pm

you want to believe!?

Undergod wrote: »

I always found this strange, the idea that if we were find life on other planets, it would be so easily analogous to Earth life.

Is there any reason that Martian microscopic life would have the same structures as Earth life? Like are these fundamentally sound principles that are likely to occur wherever self-replication springs up, or anything?

A habitable alien planet could differ from ours in many ways- distance from its parent star,gravity,moons ,chemical composition and so on....which could force the development of radically differrent life forms.
finding another planet with our kind of dinosaurs or people is un-likely then finding a remote pacific island.
Ulrich walter of the institute of astronauticsin munich,has done a study of alien physiology.He believes that the aliens are likely to have some similarities to life here on earth....carbon based life,basically composed of carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen and oxygen.
As such life require water for their survival,making them soft like our own bodies,a liquid to transport nutrients to all the body cells[blood].
Frank drake believes that intelligent aliens won't be too much different from us also.......an upright stance,a head with eyes up top for good viewing and limbs free to manipulate tools,a requisite too for a technological society.

Undergod · 13-05-2009 4:31pm

I've also seen proposals that other liquids could be used as biological solvents instead of water. Think Ammonia was mentioned.

Black Swan · 13-05-2009 4:57pm

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

I find the notion of the "government" effectively suppressing information discovered by the scientific community over time (as mentioned in this thread), especially as pertains to space exploration and discovery of other life forms problematic at best (a craic at worst!). It assumes that:

There is unity among the many different types of "governments" found in approximately 200 nations; governments that may be competitive and not always friendly towards each other (half of them have US State Department warnings for US citizens), yet agree uniformly and without exception to suppress scientific discoveries from earth-based observatories or outer space exploration?
That these governments could suppress very competitive "publish or perish" researchers and diverse faculties found in these 200 nations, from small numbers in small lesser developed nations to hundreds of thousands of scholars found in the larger developed nations; faculties in many of these developed nations where academic freedom is demanded and more often realised in virtually all research domains, except space exploration?
That these diverse governments can effectively censor the peer-reviewed and scholarly publications of perhaps a hundred diversely related journals found in many of the developed nations?
That the direct outer space exploration nations are uniformly, and without exception, not collaborating in their scholarship, and hiding or otherwise censoring what other scholars from non-direct space exploration nations can examine, analyze, and report upon, which flies in the face of the international space exploration collaborations among nations that's been going on for the past decade (i.e., shared space station, related satellites, and other outer space collection devices, etc.)?

I have a relative who has worked decades for NASA at Cal Tech's JPL, and I have shared such "conspiracy theories" with him in the past, and he laughed about the notion of so-called cover-ups by government with regard to space exploration discoveries by NASA (especially as pertains to the discovery of other life forms). NASA has always been in competition for funding with other government agencies, and to justify its existence to the US American taxpayer through changes in administrations, as well as all the diverse and competitive lobbies and special interests in a nation of over 300 million people.

Such discoveries of other life forms would be a boon to future NASA funding. In other words, to discover life on other planets would not be censored, but widely circulated, not only among the scholarly research community, but also with the news media, in order to justify future space exploration budgets (especially during these recessionary times when such programmes are often cut). You would see Nova, Nature, National Geographic, and other public broadcasting of such scientific discoveries widely circulated and not covered-up, if such discoveries were in fact made, and not alluded to by sensationalist and incredible red tops at checkout.

jonbravo · 13-05-2009 6:41pm

you want to believe!?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I find the notion of the "government" effectively suppressing information discovered by the scientific community over time (as mentioned in this thread), especially as pertains to space exploration and discovery of other life forms problematic at best (a craic at worst!). It assumes that:
There is unity among the many different types of "governments" found in approximately 200 nations; governments that may be competitive and not always friendly towards each other (half of them have US State Department warnings for US citizens), yet agree uniformly and without exception to suppress scientific discoveries from earth-based observatories or outer space exploration?

That these governments could suppress very competitive "publish or perish" researchers and diverse faculties found in these 200 nations, from small numbers in small lesser developed nations to hundreds of thousands of scholars found in the larger developed nations; faculties in many of these developed nations where academic freedom is demanded and more often realised in virtually all research domains, except space exploration?

That these diverse governments can effectively censor the peer-reviewed and scholarly publications of perhaps a hundred diversely related journals found in many of the developed nations?

That the direct outer space exploration nations are uniformly, and without exception, not collaborating in their scholarship, and hiding or otherwise censoring what other scholars from non-direct space exploration nations can examine, analyze, and report upon, which flies in the face of the international space exploration collaborations among nations that's been going on for the past decade (i.e., shared space station, related satellites, and other outer space collection devices, etc.)?

I have a relative who has worked decades for NASA at Cal Tech's JPL, and I have shared such "conspiracy theories" with him in the past, and he laughed about the notion of so-called cover-ups by government with regard to space exploration discoveries by NASA (especially as pertains to the discovery of other life forms). NASA has always been in competition for funding with other government agencies, and to justify its existence to the US American taxpayer through changes in administrations, as well as all the diverse and competitive lobbies and special interests in a nation of over 300 million people.

Such discoveries of other life forms would be a boon to future NASA funding. In other words, to discover life on other planets would not be censored, but widely circulated, not only among the scholarly research community, but also with the news media, in order to justify future space exploration budgets (especially during these recessionary times when such programmes are often cut). You would see Nova, Nature, National Geographic, and other public broadcasting of such scientific discoveries widely circulated and not covered-up, if such discoveries were in fact made, and not alluded to by sensationalist and incredible red tops at checkout.

first of all we have to agree, their is life on other worlds that we have found..for a cover-up to of happened...!?

Overheal · 13-05-2009 7:35pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I find the notion of the "government" effectively suppressing information discovered by the scientific community over time (as mentioned in this thread), especially as pertains to space exploration and discovery of other life forms problematic at best (a craic at worst!). It assumes that:
There is unity among the many different types of "governments" found in approximately 200 nations; governments that may be competitive and not always friendly towards each other (half of them have US State Department warnings for US citizens), yet agree uniformly and without exception to suppress scientific discoveries from earth-based observatories or outer space exploration?

That these governments could suppress very competitive "publish or perish" researchers and diverse faculties found in these 200 nations, from small numbers in small lesser developed nations to hundreds of thousands of scholars found in the larger developed nations; faculties in many of these developed nations where academic freedom is demanded and more often realised in virtually all research domains, except space exploration?

That these diverse governments can effectively censor the peer-reviewed and scholarly publications of perhaps a hundred diversely related journals found in many of the developed nations?

That the direct outer space exploration nations are uniformly, and without exception, not collaborating in their scholarship, and hiding or otherwise censoring what other scholars from non-direct space exploration nations can examine, analyze, and report upon, which flies in the face of the international space exploration collaborations among nations that's been going on for the past decade (i.e., shared space station, related satellites, and other outer space collection devices, etc.)?

I have a relative who has worked decades for NASA at Cal Tech's JPL, and I have shared such "conspiracy theories" with him in the past, and he laughed about the notion of so-called cover-ups by government with regard to space exploration discoveries by NASA (especially as pertains to the discovery of other life forms). NASA has always been in competition for funding with other government agencies, and to justify its existence to the US American taxpayer through changes in administrations, as well as all the diverse and competitive lobbies and special interests in a nation of over 300 million people.

Such discoveries of other life forms would be a boon to future NASA funding. In other words, to discover life on other planets would not be censored, but widely circulated, not only among the scholarly research community, but also with the news media, in order to justify future space exploration budgets (especially during these recessionary times when such programmes are often cut). You would see Nova, Nature, National Geographic, and other public broadcasting of such scientific discoveries widely circulated and not covered-up, if such discoveries were in fact made, and not alluded to by sensationalist and incredible red tops at checkout.

This would be true... unless all the world leaders and NASA have been supplanted by Yeerks. Which is a very real threat when you think about it.

Kernel · 14-05-2009 12:05am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I have a relative who has worked decades for NASA at Cal Tech's JPL, and I have shared such "conspiracy theories" with him in the past, and he laughed about the notion of so-called cover-ups by government with regard to space exploration discoveries by NASA (especially as pertains to the discovery of other life forms). NASA has always been in competition for funding with other government agencies, and to justify its existence to the US American taxpayer through changes in administrations, as well as all the diverse and competitive lobbies and special interests in a nation of over 300 million people.

If NASA believed in transparency then why do they airbrush photos before releasing them to the public, and why do they have security procedures in place to vet everything - including transmissions (as can be seen in STS mission footage) before the public can access them?

SETI have similar procedures (on the record) in place in the event that they discover a signal. Why should things go through the government before releasing to the people if they don't have concerns?

Another question, if the superior technology is already here, why don't NASA have it?

Watch and read some Nick Cook (I've linked him many times), there's plenty of insider talk about the future (present?) propulsion technologies employing either anti-gravity or electrostatic lift which could account for many UFO sightings. Food for thought.

King Mob · 14-05-2009 12:41am

Kernel wrote: »

If NASA believed in transparency then why do they airbrush photos before releasing them to the public,

They don't. They only airbrush photos for publicity photos. There are huge libraries of images taken from load of different NASA missions available on the web.

Kernel wrote: »

and why do they have security procedures in place to vet everything - including transmissions (as can be seen in STS mission footage) before the public can access them?

Not exactly true.
Today you could follow the entire procedure of the approach and capture of the Hubble Space Telescope on video.
They also had a Twitter page.

jonbravo · 14-05-2009 8:42am

you want to believe!?

King Mob wrote: »

They don't. They only airbrush photos for publicity photos. There are huge libraries of images taken from load of different NASA missions available on the web.

Not exactly true.
Today you could follow the entire procedure of the approach and capture of the Hubble Space Telescope on video.
They also had a Twitter page.

just a silly question ....... why do NASA airbrush photos any-way!?

humanji · 14-05-2009 9:24am

jonbravo wrote: »

just a silly question ....... why do NASA airbrush photos any-way!?

Probably to make them more appealing to people. For example, they might have a photo of let's say a rock on the moon. But there could be something in the background at the side that takes the viewers attention away from what they want to focus on. So they aribrush out the distraciton. Photographers do it all the time, so I'd imagin it could be something like that.

Penn · 14-05-2009 10:08am

jonbravo wrote: »

A habitable alien planet could differ from ours in many ways- distance from its parent star,gravity,moons ,chemical composition and so on....which could force the development of radically differrent life forms.
finding another planet with our kind of dinosaurs or people is un-likely then finding a remote pacific island.
Ulrich walter of the institute of astronauticsin munich,has done a study of alien physiology.He believes that the aliens are likely to have some similarities to life here on earth....carbon based life,basically composed of carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen and oxygen.
As such life require water for their survival,making them soft like our own bodies,a liquid to transport nutrients to all the body cells[blood].
Frank drake believes that intelligent aliens won't be too much different from us also.......an upright stance,a head with eyes up top for good viewing and limbs free to manipulate tools,a requisite too for a technological society.

Exactly. We evolved into the creatures we are today by natural selection to best fit into our environment. Aliens would have a different environment to adapt to, but many features could likely be the same depending on their atmosphere, food, energy etc

Black Swan · 14-05-2009 10:38am

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

Kernel wrote: »

Watch and read some Nick Cook (I've linked him many times)

Nick Cook's government cover-up conspiracy claims in his book, The Hunt for Zero Point, are a repetition of many of the claims found in this thread.

Nick Cook is a journalist and not a scientist by his own admission. One scientist he relied heavily upon to write his book The Hunt for Zero Point has very questionable credibility (and that's being polite). For example...

A Nick Cook quote from "The Atlantic" interview regarding the contents of his book, The Hunt for Zero Point:

“I'm not a scientist. I have to defer to people I respect in the field, and one of them is definitely Hal Puthoff, a very sober-minded individual…”

This is the same Hal Puthoff that believed that Uri Geller could bend spoons, which was later debunked as a magic trick (Boyce Rensberger, "Magicians Term Israeli 'Psychic' a Fraud," The New York Times. 13 December 1975, page 59)?
This is the same Hal Puthoff who joined the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached the top OT VII level by 1971?
This is the same Hal Puthoff who wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities, including to have remotely viewed the planet Mercury using his mind only?

Another Nick Cook quote from "The Atlantic" interview regarding John Hutchinson also featured in his book:

“Hutchison is interesting, He's not a trained scientist. He's not an academic. He's just one of these guys who has an intuitive feel for electricity in particular, and other aspects of physics. He puts bits of machinery together. He tunes them. He adapts them. And from those pieces of machinery he's able to transmute metals—steel into lead, or lead into steel.”

How about "transmuting" lead into gold?:rolleyes: It's hard for me to find what Nick Cook writes as credible, when key sources he relies upon are incredible.

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200209u/int2002-09-05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Puthoff

Undergod · 14-05-2009 1:45pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Nick Cook's government cover-up conspiracy claims in his book, The Hunt for Zero Point, are a repetition of many of the claims found in this thread.

Nick Cook is a journalist and not a scientist by his own admission. One scientist he relied heavily upon to write his book The Hunt for Zero Point has very questionable credibility (and that's being polite). For example...

A Nick Cook quote from "The Atlantic" interview regarding the contents of his book, The Hunt for Zero Point:

“I'm not a scientist. I have to defer to people I respect in the field, and one of them is definitely Hal Puthoff, a very sober-minded individual…”
This is the same Hal Puthoff that believed that Uri Geller could bend spoons, which was later debunked as a magic trick (Boyce Rensberger, "Magicians Term Israeli 'Psychic' a Fraud," The New York Times. 13 December 1975, page 59)?

This is the same Hal Puthoff who joined the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached the top OT VII level by 1971?

This is the same Hal Puthoff who wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities, including to have remotely viewed the planet Mercury using his mind only?

Another Nick Cook quote from "The Atlantic" interview regarding John Hutchinson also featured in his book:

“Hutchison is interesting, He's not a trained scientist. He's not an academic. He's just one of these guys who has an intuitive feel for electricity in particular, and other aspects of physics. He puts bits of machinery together. He tunes them. He adapts them. And from those pieces of machinery he's able to transmute metals—steel into lead, or lead into steel.”

How about "transmuting" lead into gold?:rolleyes: It's hard for me to find what Nick Cook writes as credible, when key sources he relies upon are incredible.

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200209u/int2002-09-05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Puthoff

Looks pretty dubious alright. I'd be very Puthoff by that.

Kernel · 14-05-2009 4:52pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Nick Cook's government cover-up conspiracy claims in his book, The Hunt for Zero Point, are a repetition of many of the claims found in this thread.

Nick Cook is a journalist and not a scientist by his own admission. One scientist he relied heavily upon to write his book The Hunt for Zero Point has very questionable credibility (and that's being polite). For example...

A Nick Cook quote from "The Atlantic" interview regarding the contents of his book, The Hunt for Zero Point:

“I'm not a scientist. I have to defer to people I respect in the field, and one of them is definitely Hal Puthoff, a very sober-minded individual…”

How about "transmuting" lead into gold?:rolleyes: It's hard for me to find what Nick Cook writes as credible, when key sources he relies upon are incredible.

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200209u/int2002-09-05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Puthoff

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Nick Cook's government cover-up conspiracy claims in his book, The Hunt for Zero Point, are a repetition of many of the claims found in this thread.

Nick Cook is a journalist and not a scientist by his own admission. One scientist he relied heavily upon to write his book The Hunt for Zero Point has very questionable credibility (and that's being polite). For example...

I've read the book twice, and watched his documentaries. I appreciate your points that Puthoff and Hutchison are being largely discredited, I must point out that you use only two sources to attempt to disprove all of Cook's research. No, he is not a scientist. But that is irrelevent. He's researching and interviewing people with regard to the UFO phenomenon. If you want a scientist that has done the same, then use Dr. Allen Hynek. And for those who don't know, he started off debunking the phenomenon, and turned into a believer in the end.

Why not address the experiments of Podkletnov showing a weight reduction through the use of superconductors? Or Boyd Bushman?

The Robert Whidmer interview where he speaks of designing saucer shaped craft that are still design classified?

Billion Dollar Secret:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975546396136405829

I'd watch the whole documentary, but here are some highlights:

28:38 of this interview, is Bushman a raving looney? No, he is very well respected in his field. Also 54:50, Whidmer talks about the secrecy - this is important for many conspiracy theories. 57:30 Jack Gordon speaks about Skunkworks.

UFO Hunters Season 2 episode 18 is also a decent look at the nazi possibility of the bell. Unusual since the show seems to be blatant disinfo.

Black Swan · 14-05-2009 7:03pm

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

NASA PUBLIC RELATIONS PUSH FOR FUNDING. Today we are watching the space shuttle perform upgrades to the Hubble telescope live, with frequent updates on several of the news programmes throughout US America. NASA appears to be doing everything from a PR standpoint to improve its chances to be funded in the new federal fiscal year that begins on 1 October 2009 (just like my cousin at NASA-JPL said... see my earlier post). Sharing with the US American public what they are doing and discovering in space is the best way to get the funding they need during these stressed economic times, rather than to try and hide their discoveries for some mysterious and unexplained reasons, a position which is obviously opposed to the speculation found on this conspiracy thread.

WHAT RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED COVER-UP? And contrary to an earlier post on this thread contending that the space exploration discoveries would be withheld from the public and made secret because it might contradict various religious beliefs about the origins of life (e.g. creationism or intelligent design), it was announced today to millions of US Americans, while we were watching the Hubble upgrade space mission live action, that the new optics and electronics now being installed may allow us to see billions of years back in time. Now I have not qualified this last statement from any scholarly sources as to its potential for validity, but the mere fact that major news media networks (eg., ABC, CBS, NBC) are announcing that the Hubble may be viewing a universe billions of years old certainly contradicts the notion that such information would be withheld in order to not offend several of the religious beliefs found in US America?

TO AVOID PANIC COVER-UP? Furthermore, and contrary to earlier posters (and their sources) that contended the government would withhold space exploration discoveries from the public in order not to cause panic, I find this a very dated and untimely observation about how the public may respond to the discovery of life beyond our planet. Certainly there may be uneducated or misinformed members of the public that may express concern, but there will also be millions of others that will be thrilled by a discovery?

For example, the late 20th Century and early 21st Century populations of developed nations seem to love sci-fi films with space exploration themes like Star Trek, where they discover and interact with life on other planets or dimensions? I cannot envision the millions of Star Trekkie's running in panic from an encounter with other life forms, but rather I can see many of them rushing to their computers to be the first online to post Twitter or a YouTube vid of the new life form, or to hit the eBay market first and sell T-shirts with the image of the new life form!

Of course this non-conspiracy interpretation is a bit boring to read, and lacks the excitement of government cover-ups, mystery, and speculation about hidden, secret life forms flying about in their UFOs?

Kernel · 14-05-2009 7:34pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

WHAT RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED COVER-UP? And contrary to an earlier post on this thread contending that the space exploration discoveries would be withheld from the public and made secret because it might contradict various religious beliefs about the origins of life (e.g. creationism or intelligent design), it was announced today to millions of US Americans, while we were watching the Hubble upgrade space mission live action, that the new optics and electronics now being installed may allow us to see billions of years back in time. Now I have not qualified this last statement from any scholarly sources as to its potential for validity, but the mere fact that major news media networks (eg., ABC, CBS, NBC) are announcing that the Hubble may be viewing a universe billions of years old certainly contradicts the notion that such information would be withheld in order to not offend several of the religious beliefs found in US America?

George Deutsch.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Of course this non-conspiracy interpretation is a bit boring to read, and lacks the excitement of government cover-ups, mystery, and speculation about hidden, secret life forms flying about in their UFOs?

Buzz Aldrin.
Edgar Mitchell.
Gordon Cooper.
Donna Hare.

And the rest.

King Mob · 14-05-2009 7:40pm

Kernel wrote: »

Buzz Aldrin.

That is taken well out of context.
Buzz Aldrin has never expressed a belief in aliens.

If he wasn't taken out of context you'd see he goes on to explain it was probably a panel from the stage that contained the LEM.

Kernel · 14-05-2009 8:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

That is taken well out of context.
Buzz Aldrin has never expressed a belief in aliens.

Never mentioned aliens KM. UFOs are what I'm interested in.

King Mob wrote: »

If he wasn't taken out of context you'd see he goes on to explain it was probably a panel from the stage that contained the LEM.

Black Swan · 14-05-2009 8:37pm

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

Kernel wrote: »

George Deutsch.

What's your point? You provided no explanation, only a name. As to his credibility, how can anyone believe anything this person claims?

Thursday, February 9, 2006

George Deutsch, a controversial George W. Bush appointee at NASA, resigned his post as press officer the same day that Texas A&M University confirmed that he never graduated from the school. The resume of the 24-year old had claimed he received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Source: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/George_Deutsch_resigns_NASA_post_after_Texas_A&M_refutes_his_resume

Kernel · 14-05-2009 8:41pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What's your point? You provided no explanation, only a name. As to his credibility, how can anyone believe anything this person claims?

Thursday, February 9, 2006

George Deutsch, a controversial George W. Bush appointee at NASA, resigned his post as press officer the same day that Texas A&M University confirmed that he never graduated from the school. The resume of the 24-year old had claimed he received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Source: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/George_Deutsch_resigns_NASA_post_after_Texas_A&M_refutes_his_resume

Dig a little deeper.. the truth is out there. You asked 'WHAT RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED COVER UP?'.

Alright here, I'll hand it to you:

wiki wrote:

Mr.Deutsch gained notoriety in late 2005 and early 2006, when it was reported that he had instructed a NASA website designer to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase Big Bang.[1] In his memo to the website designer, Mr. Deutsch wrote that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion... It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue." The memo also noted that the AP Stylebook calls for the usage of the phrase "Big Bang theory"

King Mob · 14-05-2009 8:47pm

Kernel wrote: »

Dig a little deeper.. the truth is out there. You asked 'WHAT RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED COVER UP?'.

Alright here, I'll hand it to you:

Mr.Deutsch gained notoriety in late 2005 and early 2006, when it was reported that he had instructed a NASA website designer to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase Big Bang.[1] In his memo to the website designer, Mr. Deutsch wrote that the Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion... It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue." The memo also noted that the AP Stylebook calls for the usage of the phrase "Big Bang theory"

Where's the cover up exactly?

Diogenes · 14-05-2009 8:54pm

Kernel wrote: »

Buzz Aldrin.

The same Buzz Aldrin who decked a moon landing CTer.

Lets see you think it's suspicious that Mythbusters use NASA information to prove the moonlandings happened, but at the same time are happy to take a NASA's astronauts account of a UFO sighting at face value.

Hilarious.

Kernel · 14-05-2009 9:11pm

Diogenes wrote: »

The same Buzz Aldrin who decked a moon landing CTer.

Lets see you think it's suspicious that Mythbusters use NASA information to prove the moonlandings happened, but at the same time are happy to take a NASA's astronauts account of a UFO sighting at face value.

Hilarious.

No. Try listening to the words that come out of Buzz's mouth We're talking about NASA coverups. He mentions none of the three A11 crew saying anything about the object. He was a part of NASA, the organisation in question. Therefore a primary source discussing a cover-up. Ah why do I bother?

Also, your logic is flawed by bringing up the fact that Buzz decked a moon landing CTer. The reason he decked him was because he was harassing him over a period of time. Buzz had enough, the rest you know.

King Mob · 14-05-2009 9:14pm

Kernel wrote: »

No. Try listening to the words that come out of Buzz's mouth We're talking about NASA coverups. He mentions none of the three A11 crew saying anything about the object. He was a part of NASA, the organisation in question. Therefore a primary source discussing a cover-up. Ah why do I bother?

They weren't saying anything about the object because they didn't want mission control to cancel the mission.
He says as much in the video.

But when he says he saw a ufo it's a primary source but when he says he went to the Moon it isn't?

Kernel · 14-05-2009 9:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

But when he says he saw a ufo it's a primary source but when he says he went to the Moon it isn't?

Why, I never disputed the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts went into space now, did I?

King Mob · 14-05-2009 9:20pm

Kernel wrote: »

Why, I never disputed the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts went into space now, did I?

Yes you have.
You have said several times you are on the fence.

Does Buzz Aldrin's testimony put you over the fence?

Black Swan · 14-05-2009 9:35pm

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

Kernel wrote: »

Dig a little deeper.. the truth is out there. You asked 'WHAT RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED COVER UP?'.

Mr.Deutsch gained notoriety in late 2005 and early 2006, when it was reported that he had instructed a NASA website designer to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase Big Bang.

First of all, the Big Bang is a theory in every sense of the term. In the methodology of science, there are no proofs, only the analysis of data that "suggests" a theory has merit in terms of how it describes, explains, and predicts phenomena. So no matter George Deutsch's motive, be it religious, political, or otherwise, in a scientific sense, he was correct by insisting that "theory" be added to Big Bang. There are other "theories" of the universe, including one that is post-modern in that it suggests more randomness and chaos than the Big Bang structuralist "theory."

Secondly, we live in a community of humans that have different interpretations of reality, and such humans may abuse their office at times to promote their bias, be it religious, political, philosophical, or the biases of those they identify with or listen to. It would be naive to suggest that humans are value free (see Max Weber in Economy and Society) and act accordingly once appointed to office. But to claim that he was part of a larger, organised conspiracy with a mission, goals, and objectives intentionally intended to block any discoveries of interplanetary life forms (including UFOs) in order to please the religious lobbies is a bit much to accept, especially in light of those space exploration discoveries thus far revealed that fly in the face of most religious belief systems, including today's announcement of the Hubble upgrades that may allow science to view billions of years contrary to most western religious beliefs (which the pro-conspiracy "theorists" in this thread have thus far conveniently chose to ignore)?

Diogenes · 14-05-2009 9:37pm

Kernal wrote:

Why, I never disputed the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts went into space now, did I?

So Buzz Aldrain is telling the truth when he says he saw a UFO and went into space, but he is lying when he says he went to the moon.

No. Try listening to the words that come out of Buzz's mouth We're talking about NASA coverups. He mentions none of the three A11 crew saying anything about the object

There were only three Apollo 11 crew. Is it not possible that they didn't see the object?

The reason he decked him was because he was harassing him over a period of time. Buzz had enough, the rest you know.

Ah so it wasn't the fact that the guy was calling Buzz Aldrain a liar, that annoyed him, it was the fact that he called him a liar several times, over a period of time.

Riiiiiggghhht.

bonkey · 14-05-2009 9:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you have.
You have said several times you are on the fence.

On the fence about going to the moon, not about going into space.

King Mob · 14-05-2009 10:04pm

bonkey wrote: »

On the fence about going to the moon, not about going into space.

Ah missed that.

But why take Buzz's word for it when he talks about a UFO (which he then in the same interview identified.) But not take his word about being on the moon.

And why would he never reveal anything that would imply the landing was a but let slip this thing about the UFO?
Wouldn't Nasa make sure he didn't?

Black Swan · 15-05-2009 12:52am

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

Kernel wrote: »

I've read the book twice, and watched his documentaries. I appreciate your points that Puthoff and Hutchison are being largely discredited

OK, that's two you agree have been discredited that Nick Cook uses as sources in his book. Now for number three, Allen Hynek, as you recommended?

Kernel wrote: »

If you want a scientist that has done the same, then use Dr. Allen Hynek. And for those who don't know, he started off debunking the phenomenon, and turned into a believer in the end.

To use your same wikipedia linked information regarding Allen Hynek, "reading deeper" as you have suggested elsewhere in this thread, there are serious methodological problems with his justification for making the major shift in his opinion from debunking to UFO advocate, which a credible scientist would be aware of?

Methodological problems with Hynek's decision by wikipedia quotes from the link provided by you:

"Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s..."

"informal poll" that was not statistically representative, therefore non-generalisable to the population of astronomers
"colleagues" - a bias sample of coworkers, collaborators, and/or friends

"Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science..."

small sample size (n=44), with even a smaller number pro-UFO (n=5), thereby making the calculation of percentages meaningless (For example, if you have only one UFO advocate and want to increase that number by 100%, you need only add one more for a total of two advocates, therefore calculating percentages for small numbers is meaningless!)

"Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs."

A statistically non-representative "informal poll," using a biased sampling of "colleagues," with small sample size (n=44), and even a smaller (n=5) number of UFO advocates cannot be compared with other polls statistically, making the 11% comparison meaningless
If we were to use his meaningless percentages, why didn't he accept the lack of supporting observations by the majority 89% (n=39) of his colleagues, rather than just the small minority 11% (n=5)?

Darrell Huff in his book How to Lie With Statistics cautions people in making decisions based upon percentages from small sample sizes (like those above), as well as those from non-representative and biased samples. (I can provide a great number of statistical textbook citations that will agree with Huff if needed)

jonbravo · 15-05-2009 3:41am

you want to believe!?

The essence of science [NASA] is that it is self-correcting.New experimental results and novel idea's are continually resolving old mysteries....
Those new experiments require both skepticism and imagination both, Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were... but without it we go no-where, skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from facts to test our speculations.
[NASA are only there to attain technology for science,as this is the only real important thing it share's to the the American people and/or the world.....it also give's a reason for the lack of interest ,as it is un-cool to most.]
The last thing NASA want is more question's then answer's before sharing with the world's people.THEY also know that 50% of the scientific communities would be hostile to the idea of life beyond earth.its a good enuf reason for a cover-up of intelligent life...nor is it the only reason one can imagine.

All life on earth is closely related. we have a common organic chemistry and a common evolutionary heritage.As a result our biologists are profoundly limited.

yes we have surpassed the science known to the ancient world but there are irreparable gaps in our historical knowledge, just imagine.....

off topic[should a poll be added for the laugh!?]

Dirty Dave · 15-05-2009 9:57am

I always found this theory interesting and it seems to make sense scientifically, to me at least....

Not sure if the numbers of stars and planets etc is accurate, but I'm sure the basic theory would still hold up - anyone know if this is still accepted?

As described by your friendly neighbourhood sci-fi author....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY

EDIT: Posted the link to show my opinion on whether there is life out there. I think that there is, or was, or will be life on other planets but I dont think they have been here. I'd love to see evidence of it before I die though.

King Mob · 15-05-2009 11:17am

jonbravo wrote: »

The last thing NASA want is more question's then answer's before sharing with the world's people.THEY also know that 50% of the scientific communities would be hostile to the idea of life beyond earth.its a good enuf reason for a cover-up of intelligent life...nor is it the only reason one can imagine.

What do you mean by that? Why would any scientist be hostile?
It would be the single greatest discovery ever.

Diogenes · 15-05-2009 11:33am

King Mob wrote: »

What do you mean by that? Why would any scientist be hostile?

I believe its the plot of the miniseries "V".

Kernel · 15-05-2009 1:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah missed that.

But why take Buzz's word for it when he talks about a UFO (which he then in the same interview identified.) But not take his word about being on the moon.

Well, as I mentioned, one of the reasons I am on the fence is that the Apollo 11 crew have been notoriously silent about the whole episode. If I landed on the moon, I'd never shut up talking about it. AFAIK Buzz has spoken once or twice on the landing.

King Mob · 15-05-2009 2:03pm

Kernel wrote: »

Well, as I mentioned, one of the reasons I am on the fence is that the Apollo 11 crew have been notoriously silent about the whole episode. If I landed on the moon, I'd never shut up talking about it. AFAIK Buzz has spoken once or twice on the landing.

So what if they don't give that many interviews? How many interview do astronauts usually give?

His official website seems to be very clear on the matter.
http://buzzaldrin.com/

He only gave one interview where he mentions this UFO, so why do you believe him then?
Was he lying on his other interviews (including one with Ali G)?

Diogenes · 15-05-2009 4:00pm

Kernel wrote: »

Well, as I mentioned, one of the reasons I am on the fence is that the Apollo 11 crew have been notoriously silent about the whole episode. If I landed on the moon, I'd never shut up talking about it.

Well once again is your own bias skewing your version of what an astronaut should and shouldn't do.

Neil Armstrong has given dozens of interviews, toured the world, travelled to Russia, all because of the moon landing. He has an authorised biography. Thats hardly "silent".

AFAIK Buzz has spoken once or twice on the landing.

Buzz Aldrin Austroaunt Interview gives 38,000 links.

So again, do you think Buzz Aldrin was telling the truth about seeing a UFO but lying about landing on the moon?

Kernel · 15-05-2009 7:00pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Well once again is your own bias skewing your version of what an astronaut should and shouldn't do.

Neil Armstrong has given dozens of interviews, toured the world, travelled to Russia, all because of the moon landing. He has an authorised biography. Thats hardly "silent".

Buzz Aldrin Austroaunt Interview gives 38,000 links.

So again, do you think Buzz Aldrin was telling the truth about seeing a UFO but lying about landing on the moon?

Diogenes, this will be my last post here for a long time (or possibly ever). I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be, and I have no idea what google hits on Buzz Aldrin interview is supposed to prove either. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Bye.

Diogenes · 15-05-2009 7:13pm

Kernel wrote: »

Diogenes, this will be my last post here for a long time (or possibly ever).

Promise? :pac::p:D:pac::p:D

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be,

It's pretty simple really, you claim that you're on the fence about whether the Apollo 11 landings occured. Yet at the same time feel that the evidence of Buzz Aldrin gives about an incident during the Apollo 11 moon mission is true, but that means you're convinced he's telling the truth about seeing a UFO, but possibly lying about going to the moon, on the same mission

and I have no idea what google hits on Buzz Aldrin interview is supposed to prove either. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Bye.

Duh, That it proves that your claims that Buzz has only given two interviews, is utterly bogus.

:cool::rolleyes::D:pac::p:rolleyes:

Kernel · 15-05-2009 10:49pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Duh, That it proves that your claims that Buzz has only given two interviews, is utterly bogus.

:cool::rolleyes::D:pac::p:rolleyes:

I googled 'world war 1' and got 216,000,000 approx pages. I guess that means that there were a lot more than one world war eh? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:**** sake, right that's it, don't tempt me back with more easy rebuttals, time is money.

Diogenes · 15-05-2009 11:26pm

Kernel wrote: »

I googled 'world war 1' and got 216,000,000 approx pages. I guess that means that there were a lot more than one world war eh? **** sake, right that's it, don't tempt me back with more easy rebuttals, time is money.

:eek::eek::eek:Blimey are you still here? The dying bird at the end of Swan Lake made a less belaboured exit than you :eek::eek::eek:

Here's Buzz with Ali G

ScienCentral With Buzz Aldrin

Here's Buzz discussing his role in the documentary "in the shadow of the Moon"

January Magazine

So I've er doubled the number of Buzz Aldrin interviews you claim are in existence in 2 minutes.

But hey remember what started this, your claim that Buzz Aldrin was a reliable witness of a UFO during the Apollo 11 mission but, at the time you couldn't be 100% sure his mission, went to the moon, and the basic paradox you are deftly trying avoid.

So er

:rolleyes::D:pac::p Answer please the question, or are you going to continue your impression of Brave Brave Sir Robin? :rolleyes::D:pac::p

King Mob · 15-05-2009 11:35pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Here's Buzz with Ali G

"The moon does exist and we went there."

QED.

Kernel · 16-05-2009 3:44am

Diogenes wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:Blimey are you still here? The dying bird at the end of Swan Lake made a less belaboured exit than you :eek::eek::eek:

Here's Buzz with Ali G

Buzz never mentions walking on the moon at all there. The moon is real and we went there doesn't equate to 'we walked on it' King Mob. QED nothing. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

ScienCentral With Buzz Aldrin

Again mentions nothing about walking on the moon. What souvenirs does he have? Err... a book and a tootbrush he took in the capsule with him. Great.

Diogenes wrote: »

Here's Buzz discussing his role in the documentary "in the shadow of the Moon"

Again he's talking about a documentary made by Ron Howard. Spends more time talking about beards..... :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

January Magazine

Another epic fail I see!

jonbravo · 16-05-2009 5:43am

you want to believe!?

Diogenes wrote: »

Promise? :pac::p:D:pac::p:D

It's pretty simple really, you claim that you're on the fence about whether the Apollo 11 landings occured. Yet at the same time feel that the evidence of Buzz Aldrin gives about an incident during the Apollo 11 moon mission is true, but that means you're convinced he's telling the truth about seeing a UFO, but possibly lying about going to the moon, on the same mission

Duh, That it proves that your claims that Buzz has only given two interviews, is utterly bogus.

:cool::rolleyes::D:pac::p:rolleyes:

why do you all bring up this topic it has notting to do with the thread at hand!??????????????
that proves notting,, one way or another!????????????

6th · 16-05-2009 10:43am

you believe their is a cover-up of intelligent life.

Diogenes wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:Blimey are you still here? The dying bird at the end of Swan Lake made a less belaboured exit than you :eek::eek::eek:

Here's Buzz with Ali G

ScienCentral With Buzz Aldrin

Here's Buzz discussing his role in the documentary "in the shadow of the Moon"

January Magazine

So I've er doubled the number of Buzz Aldrin interviews you claim are in existence in 2 minutes.

But hey remember what started this, your claim that Buzz Aldrin was a reliable witness of a UFO during the Apollo 11 mission but, at the time you couldn't be 100% sure his mission, went to the moon, and the basic paradox you are deftly trying avoid.

So er

:rolleyes::D:pac::p Answer please the question, or are you going to continue your impression of Brave Brave Sir Robin? :rolleyes::D:pac::p

Diogenes banned for 1 week.

King Mob · 16-05-2009 11:33am

Kernel wrote: »

Buzz never mentions walking on the moon at all there. The moon is real and we went there doesn't equate to 'we walked on it' King Mob. QED nothing. :rolleyes:

You're joking right?
You're actually going to argue semantics?

Kernel wrote: »

Again mentions nothing about walking on the moon. What souvenirs does he have? Err... a book and a tootbrush he took in the capsule with him. Great.

It's another interview which you claim he rarely gives.

Kernel wrote: »

Again he's talking about a documentary made by Ron Howard. Spends more time talking about beards..... :rolleyes:

Have you actually watched "In the Shadow of the Moon"? It's fairly clear cut on the matter.

Kernel wrote: »

Another epic fail I see!

So you have to see him say the words "I walked on the moon"?
Because he never said the word UFO or aliens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pQ1gWzs40
"Where were you on July 20th 1969?"
"On the surface of the moon."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6_FG7ol2-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bn8cbHAhS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkoVYsyQ31U

This one he explains what he was actually talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpVV6x7xQlY

He even went on Space Ghost Coast to Coast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhF4SWPdbz4

So how many interviews is too few?

Do you think Buzz Aldrin never actually claimed that he was on the Moon or something?

How come his interview where he talks about a UFO (which he identified) is a first hand account from a reliable witness but when he says he walked on the Moon it's a lie?

Undergod · 16-05-2009 3:04pm

King Mob wrote: »

So you have to see him say the words "I walked on the moon"?

Though, to be honest, why would Buzz Aldrin saying "I walked on the moon" actually change anything? He could just be lying.

He's not going to take part in a massive conspiracy to fool the whole world into believing in America's space dominance, and then circumspectly step around the question of whether or not he went to teh moon just to avoid telling an outright lie.

King Mob · 16-05-2009 3:08pm

Undergod wrote: »

Though, to be honest, why would Buzz Aldrin saying "I walked on the moon" actually change anything? He could just be lying.

He's not going to take part in a massive conspiracy to fool the whole world into believing in America's space dominance, and then circumspectly step around the question of whether or not he went to teh moon just to avoid telling an outright lie.

Because kernel seemingly is taking Buzz's testimony about seeing an object during the mission as fact.
If that is the case, why is Buzz Aldrin's testimony about walking on the moon not as trustworthy?

Undergod · 16-05-2009 3:19pm

Yeah, we're agreeing here.

Black Swan · 16-05-2009 4:25pm

the evidence of a government cover-up of ET life does not appear plausible

jonbravo wrote: »

The last thing NASA want is more question's then answer's before sharing with the world's people.

If this was a credible observation, then:

Why do many scholarly journal articles from NASA funded research projects specify "limitations" of the research, or areas that need further study?
Why do Ph.D. dissertations with astrophysics or related space exploration research topics originating from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Labs (JPL is funded by NASA), normally have a "limitations of the research" in their data analysis or results chapters, as well as a suggestions for future research section in their concluding chapter?
Why do college textbooks that explore topics related to space exploration often mention what is not known, in addition to what is suggested from research as factual? A lot of what has been accepted as known has come from NASA funded research, as well as mentioning future projects NASA intends to conduct about the unknown.
Why? Because the science of discovery is typically a collaborative effort over time in that it gradually builds on the shoulders of those who proceeded them. That's why literature reviews are typically required briefly in scholarly journal articles, and entire chapters of literature review in dissertations. Things missing are often disclosed in the literature reviews, which in turn justify the new research and funding.
Why? Because many graduate students who seek a research topic will begin with a literature search of both dissertations and scholarly journals to find where suggestions for future research have been published. These suggestions cover what is not known, encouraging research that will someday reveal, describe, explain, and predict phenomena.
Why does Nova, Nature, National Geographic, and other science-based programmes mention frequently to the public what is not known, many of these unknowns based upon NASA findings?
Why don't you visit a science library at a major university to see that what is not known about space exploration or life on other planets are openly discussed, and not being hidden from any members of the public who can read at a college level?

jonbravo wrote: »

THEY also know that 50% of the scientific communities would be hostile to the idea of life beyond earth.its a good enuf reason for a cover-up of intelligent life...nor is it the only reason one can imagine.

Where did you get this 50% statistic? Source? Link? Secondly, who is "THEY?" I hear about "THEY" all the time on this forum, but I really don't know who "THEY" are.

Well, I can remember my cousin (who has been a NASA funded scientist at Cal Tech's JPL for decades), often stating that he and his colleagues on "The Hill"* believe that someday life forms will be discovered on other planets. This is something that really excites them. The sending of NASA funded probes to other planets (which they have been doing for years) and discovering life is one of the reasons he pursues his career in space exploration at JPL.

*Most of JPL's NASA funded labs are located on what they nick named "The Hill" in a city nearby to Pasadena called La Canada, California, only about 50 miles from where I currently live. I've visited JPL and Cal Tech several times, and hung-out in Cal Tech's Pasadena libraries freely snooping through science journals, dissertations, and books of interest, and no one representing "THEY" has ever tried to limit or censor what I read. Cal Tech in Pasadena is an open campus, meaning that the public can just wander onto campus and into their libraries.

Intelligent life cover-up!?.[ET/UFO]

Comments