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

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.

Mahatma coat · 17-05-2009 2:17am

you believe, ET was here, but no contact.

King Mob wrote: »

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?

In fairness Kernel, he has ya here :P

there are a lot of lies in the space program there were shedloads of things coverd up, there may even be an overarching conspiracy behind it that we havent even begun to comprehend yet, but you seem to be hung up on what I myself would consider might have been a 'disinfo' campaign started for some reason in the seventies.

you should ask questions about the space program, some of your questions are bang on the money, some are miles off.

I believe that Armstrong and Aldrin were the first, to land on the moon and return safely using a majority of human invented technology

there were other missions both public and Top Secret.

you are lookin in the wrong areas for the coverup.

check out the radio transmissions.

jonbravo · 17-05-2009 4:39am

you want to believe!?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

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?

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.

Why try dis-credit my opinion becuse it is just that [my opinion]!?

Dont get me wrong im not pointing a finger at NASA and saying its THERE fault their is a cover-up, we will never find the answer to **** intelligent life outside earth**** without NASA.
And as i've also pointed out i don't believe NASA hold the power to tell the world about extraterrestrial life, even if THEY did find life.

the reason i believe that is.....
A]There would be a painstaking process of checking and verification.

B]It would certainly be the greatest discovery of all time, eclipsing the findings of newton ,darwin and einstein combined.[caution would be used or AKA a cover-up].

C]The knowledge that we are not alone would affect people's psyche and totally transform our world view.

D]Once proven intelligent[ET], scientists top priority would be to interpret the being or [ET].the impact on our society would depend upon its correct interpretation and its intention [We would not be dealing with moon dust or rocks]........

Now the statistic come's from.......google book...
The book's name ; Looking for life, searching the solar system by paul clancy,andre brack,G*****? Horneck.
Chapter; After discovery/life as a cosmic phenomenon. page 133...

i didn't just make it up as you can see!, thats not to say paul clancy and co... didn't:D.

jonbravo · 17-05-2009 5:09am

you want to believe!?

King Mob wrote: »

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

sorry king mob i forgot to answer your question....
hostile to the fact that there could ever be intelligent life other then us human being's.[if we did find ET].

King Mob · 17-05-2009 11:34am

jonbravo wrote: »

sorry king mob i forgot to answer your question....
hostile to the fact that there could ever be intelligent life other then us human being's.[if we did find ET].

And why would they be hostile?
Would they just go mad and start rioting?

Undergod · 17-05-2009 3:25pm

jonbravo wrote: »

[caution would be used or AKA a cover-up].

caution does not equal cover-up.

King Mob · 17-05-2009 3:32pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I believe that Armstrong and Aldrin were the first, to land on the moon and return safely using a majority of human invented technology

And which parts of the Apollo spacecraft weren't human invented technology exactly?
ANd how do you know they weren't human invented?

jonbravo · 17-05-2009 4:03pm

you want to believe!?

King Mob wrote: »

And why would they be hostile?
Would they just go mad and start rioting?

i have already addressed that question. take what you will from it...again i didnt make it up thats what i read.

jonbravo · 17-05-2009 4:10pm

you want to believe!?

Undergod wrote: »

caution does not equal cover-up.

its not like i said it did equal a cover-up........again, take what you will from it!

Undergod · 17-05-2009 5:14pm

jonbravo wrote: »

its not like i said it did equal a cover-up........again, take what you will from it!

What? Yes it is.

jonbravo wrote:

[caution would be used or AKA a cover-up].

AKA means "Also Known As". Caution would be used or also known as a cover-up. That's what you said.

jonbravo · 17-05-2009 6:31pm

you want to believe!?

Undergod wrote: »

caution does not equal cover-up.

this is what you think i meant ............. this is not what i meant when i wrote it ..... we differ in our thinking.. what more can i say!?
i'm not going to discuss this any more for i don't see a reason for it.

King Mob · 17-05-2009 7:29pm

jonbravo wrote: »

i have already addressed that question. take what you will from it...again i didnt make it up thats what i read.

No you haven't.
You have not explained what you mean by "Hostile" or explained a single reason why they would be "hostile" or shown anything to support the claim that anyone would be "hostile".

You mightn't have made it up, but it looks like someone did.

Mahatma coat · 18-05-2009 1:57am

you believe, ET was here, but no contact.

Mobby, mobby, Mob.

you have played yerself right into their hands

How would we know that the 'Scientific Community' Would be hostile

Well you consider yerself a member of the 'Scientific Community' and I think you have just demonstrated the level of Hostility that exists towards the mere concept.

could you imagine how you would feel if Someone were to come out with definitive proof that you were wrong and we were right, do you think that you would deal wit this revalation in a calm and sane manner as everything you ever believed was proven wrong in a single moment, and not only that but proven wrong by those you and others had labeled as Crackpot Kooks and poured scorn and derision on.

as for thwe Apollo missions, if I knew which bits specifically I would have said which bits.
mostly its the technology itself, the advanced leaps we made in technology in the 50's & 60's this it is theorised was as a result of reverse engineering alien technology.

King Mob · 18-05-2009 2:20am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mobby, mobby, Mob.

you have played yerself right into their hands

How would we know that the 'Scientific Community' Would be hostile

Well you consider yerself a member of the 'Scientific Community' and I think you have just demonstrated the level of Hostility that exists towards the mere concept.

I don't consider myself part of the scientific community.

But by hostile you mean asking for verifiable scientific proof?
If that is what he means then yes, I do think the scientific community would ask for that.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

could you imagine how you would feel if Someone were to come out with definitive proof that you were wrong and we were right, do you think that you would deal wit this revalation in a calm and sane manner as everything you ever believed was proven wrong in a single moment, and not only that but proven wrong by those you and others had labeled as Crackpot Kooks and poured scorn and derision on.

Your kinda mischaracterising me here. I never once said I believe aliens don't exist. If there is solid verifiable evidence then I'll be wrong. But it's never been shown here.

And even if there was solid evidence shown that aliens exist everything I believe would not be proven wrong.
Aliens existing doesn't prove the government did 9/11.

And even then I have no idea how I'd react and neither do you.
Personally I think aliens existing and being in contact with us would be the most amazing thing, well, ever.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for thwe Apollo missions, if I knew which bits specifically I would have said which bits.
mostly its the technology itself, the advanced leaps we made in technology in the 50's & 60's this it is theorised was as a result of reverse engineering alien technology.

And which technologies would they be exactly?
And how do you know they were reversed engineered?

There has been huge leaps in in commercially available harddrives in the last few years. There are 1TB hard drives available that are half the price and half the size of one I brought last year.
Therefore the only explanation is that it was aliens.

ilivetolearn · 18-05-2009 2:32am

you believe, ET was here, but no contact.

King Mob wrote: »

There are 1TB hard drives available that are half the price and half the size of one I brought last year.
Therefore the only explanation is that it was aliens.

Funnily enough there exists an American hardware company that goes by the name of alienware (subsidiary of Dell):

What's even funnier is that they were responsible for the world’s first consumer one terabyte hard drive according to this article:

http://www.physorg.com/news93018024.html

No, I'm not seriously implying that the storage device was reverse engineered from alien technology. It's just an ironic correlation that King Mob wasn't aware of.

Black Swan · 18-05-2009 3:00am

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

jonbravo wrote: »

A]There would be a painstaking process of checking and verification.

Agree. Validity and reliability checks would be conducted in accordance with the scientific method. But the second that these methods "suggested" a new life form, there would be a rush to announce the discovery to the national news media by the principal investigator or the director of the exploration project (before someone else tried to steal the credit with the first announcement). Researchers and scholars are very competitive, and would want their name tied to the discovery. We are talking days, maybe weeks, but not months or years before the news hit the airwaves.

jonbravo wrote: »

B]It would certainly be the greatest discovery of all time, eclipsing the findings of newton ,darwin and einstein combined.[caution would be used or AKA a cover-up].

Agree that caution would be exercised before announcing the discovery, but only to ensure that it was in fact a new life form and not an error in data collection, analysis, or interpretation. If you had something like the sci-fi film "ET" character walking about and trying to communicate, the confirmation would be obviously quicker, than some microscopic organism that would require a great deal of study to ensure that it represented a new life form.

But "AKA cover-up?" Why? I still don't see a compelling motive in this thread to justify a cover-up of the discovery of a new life form from today's NASA funded space explorations. The public of today is not going to go rushing off a cliff like a group of lemmings when they hear the news. If anything it will be the greatest public relations splash for NASA in the USA, used to justify not only next year's fiscal budget, but to ask for more monies.

Plus Obama and supporters will be thumping their chests in public announcements that this tremendous discovery occurred under their Democratic party administration, so the public should reelect them in 4 years rather than their Republican party rivals. There will be no cover-up... Just the opposite, with the Democrats blowing their publicity horns for the world to hear that the USA once again exhibits major scientific discovery under their leadership (and not the former inept Republican Bush-Cheney administration).

jonbravo wrote: »

C]The knowledge that we are not alone would affect people's psyche and totally transform our world view.

I think this is a very optimistic view of how transformative such a discovery will be in terms of people's day-to-day lives. Certainly the scientists and intellectuals will grapple with the meaning of the discovery, as may some religious leaders... But in the developed countries people will still have to go to work the next day, pay the mortgage or rent, buy food, etc., etc. After all the sensation of the discovery has been exploited to the fullest by the news media, people will get bored, and go back to their normal hum-drum existence, except for new fictional novels, telly shows, or films informed by the discovery, including a few Jay Leno jokes about the new life form every now-and-then.

jonbravo wrote: »

D]Once proven intelligent[ET], scientists top priority would be to interpret the being

Correction. Science does not "prove" anything, only "suggests" in the light of existent, reformulated, or new theory, methods, analysis, and findings. You only have "proofs" in such disciplines as logic, law, math, but not in science. If the evidence was compelling that a new life form existed and was intelligent by some conceptual definition and measurement, it would be reported accordingly, but not "proven."

To clarify, I do believe there are such things as government conspiracies, like the misinformation and lies that the Bush-Cheney administration used to scare the US American Congress and public into the 2nd Gulf War (Iraq War II's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, etc.). But I fail to see any compelling evidence in this thread that would suggest today's NASA would cover-up the discovery of a new life form here on Earth or should one of their space probes discover one. Quite the opposite, for reasons given earlier in this post.

ilivetolearn · 18-05-2009 3:42am

you believe, ET was here, but no contact.

Interesting post Blue Lagoon (I concur that egocentricism may negate their silence).

Here are a few interesting perspectives held by the scientific community:

Physicist Enrico Fermi is famous for his quip: "Where are they?" in relation to extraterrestrial civilizations. Fermi's Paradox as simple as it is challenges most schools of thought. His beliefs are motivated by the absence of evidence.

Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch:

We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community

I'd reccomend reading his document on Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation

In relation to current sitings he maintains:

Most of the observations are probably misinterpretations, delusions and hoaxes. I have seen people get confused by Venus or even Sirius when it is flashing colors low in the sky under the right conditions. Having been turned off by this, most scientists never bother to look any further, and so are simply blissfully ignorant that there may be more to it

This is one example of a member of the scientific community who is not hostile towards the existence of alien civilization but at the same time discredits various popular conventional claims.

I think its a healthy mix. Some views held in this thread are fairly polar in terms of the existence of alien civilization. Some blindly maintain that it's true in the absence of truth whereas others maintain that it can't be true due to the absence of truth.

Personally I believe that the absence of proof doesn't negate the probability but each to their own.

Mahatma coat · 18-05-2009 4:51am

you believe, ET was here, but no contact.

I'm editing this to add a caveat at the start
This is not a Personal attack at mob, even though some people will decide it is simply because I posted it and dont like mr Mob all that much.

if anything its a plea to Mob to come off the fence and take a stand, one way or the other just grow a set and actually declare what YOU believe in.

At the moment all we get is that you dont believe US, but yet you have never offered an original thought of your own, so please consider this post carefully

Well hows about before we continue you come Off the Fence and declare where you stand, rather than just waiting for other people to make their declarations and attempting to take a contrary position each time, lets put your cards on hte table and state what you Believe.

also What are you studying currently? you have alluded to 2 different courses, one being Philosophy and one being Physics yet I see no depth of knowledge being demonstrated on either subject.

and one final point

If there was even the remotest posibility that you would read one of the books recomended to you with an open mind I would pay the 7.50 meself, so that is also a disengenuos proposition on your part IMO

if someone says to you, the answers are in this book then the onus is on you to read the book and formulate your own opinion or Fvck off away from the debate til the next 'soft target' comes along

Black Swan · 18-05-2009 5:36am

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

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Interesting post Blue Lagoon (I concur that egocentricism may negate their silence)...

Personally I believe that the absence of proof doesn't negate the probability but each to their own.

My posts on this thread have not challenged the notion that we may someday discover other life forms. Or, for that matter, be discovered by other life forms. Where I fail to see compelling evidence are in the data and justifications given by some posters (or their sources cited) for the existence of a government (or NASA) conspiracy to cover-up the discovery of other interplanetary life forms.

To summarize, it would not be in NASA's best interests during the greatest economic meltdown in USA history since the Great Depression, with threatened budget cuts, to hide the discovery of interplanetary life that resulted from one of their multimillion dollar space probes (or other costly investigations into ET life). On the contrary, it would be in the best interests of the Democratic party, that now controls the presidency, US Senate, and US House to announce to the world the discovery of interplanetary life, thereby making it appear that scientific discoveries are being made under the Democrats, and only wars and economic recessions are attributed to the former Republican Bush-Cheney administration. Plus, the announcement of ET life would be so sensational as to distract the public from the screw-ups the Obama administration is starting to make.

6th · 18-05-2009 9:48am

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

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm editing this to add a caveat at the start
This is not a Personal attack at mob, even though some people will decide it is simply because I posted it and dont like mr Mob all that much.

if anything its a plea to Mob to come off the fence and take a stand, one way or the other just grow a set and actually declare what YOU believe in.

At the moment all we get is that you dont believe US, but yet you have never offered an original thought of your own, so please consider this post carefully

Stating something isnt personal abuse doesnt mean it ok to post. This is clearly aimed at the poster and not a post. I believe the following elements of the charter cover it:

• Claims, Evidence, Proof
If you are stating something as fact please post your sources or any relevant links/info. Doing so will strengthen your point. Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not.

• Flaming
Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted. Attack the post, not the poster. Minor infringements will warrant a warning followed by a ban. Serious infringements and/or intentional flaming will receive an automatic ban.

• Respect other posters
Snide remarks and bitching will not be tolerated, nor will accusations thrown at other members of the Boards.ie community. Singling out a poster or posters, including stating things like "some posters on here" could land you in trouble.

King Mob · 18-05-2009 10:52am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm editing this to add a caveat at the start
This is not a Personal attack at mob, even though some people will decide it is simply because I posted it and dont like mr Mob all that much.

if anything its a plea to Mob to come off the fence and take a stand, one way or the other just grow a set and actually declare what YOU believe in.

At the moment all we get is that you dont believe US, but yet you have never offered an original thought of your own, so please consider this post carefully

I would have thought my position was pretty clear: there is not enough evidence to support a belief in it.
But you see I'm technically on the fence because despite your insistence to the contrary, I'm open minded.

If there's solid verifiable evidence I'll believe it. There has been none presented.

But yea I should maybe stop asking so many questions and believe.

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

Comments