NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Well, where is the disclosure? all we have is a new book by Hoagland. Is he out to become richer once more?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Hmm, John, an interesting concept. I think you can come up with an equally catchy label for Hoagland and Bara, such as "Truth Profiteer". You see, a "Truth Profiteer" is one who is willing to inform his nation of the impending threat as long as they are handsomely compensated for this act. Charming characters, aren't they?

Thanks for your Personification of "armchair Patriot" buddhasystem. I begrudge no one making a profit on anything, with the possible exception of Halliburton.

Sorry, BS, no time to spoon feed you. Thanks for the post.

Im waiting for a copy of this book. Just ordered on Amazon.

John, how long do you think the USAF Space Command has been around for?

How come the S.C is so ignored by media? Their site is very much official.

(Forgive me for interrupting...I started reading this thread when it ended on page 4, now page 22 . Awesome!!. I was even inspired to pick up the book which is pretty interesting so far). But this evening, as I was kickin' the feet up and relaxing (Tuesdays are by far the worst day of the week IMHO), I turned to the History channel and watched a show called The Universe (regarding Venus and Mars). I started wondering about the people they were interviewing and would like to ask you guys, do you think they're all paid actors? If NASA is a (small) bunch of crooked liars, how can they interview all these people and still regard it as fact? I know television is 99.4% bs, but surely such secrets can't be supressed for so long? How can so many documentaries be made over planets and the like if it's complete and utter nonsense? On a side note, I SWEAR the background music they play during said documentaries, is made to completely bore the general public causing them to change the channel. Ya never know...

It is meant to bore the audience. One of NASA's primary goals is to make sure that people remain uninterested in space exploration so that civillian organizations don't get the bright idea to start building their own spacecraft (probably also not as hard to do as they profess) and go up into space to see the truth themselves. They maintain that space is a dark and scary placed lurking with danger at every corner and near impossible to traverse. While many people are interested in space to the point of obsession, ie trekkies, mainstream media makes sure it is regarded as fantasy only and doesn't go beyond that point. How many people have ever seen that Stargate episode where they are filming that Wormhole Extreme series in order to debunk any theories should any information about the program leaked to the public? I wonder if NASA has anything like that up their sleeve.

reply to post by buddhasystem

A "Truth Profiteer" is very honest and although he is loyal to his country he wants to be sure he is making money off the information so direly needed by his compatriots, and on which the future of humankind suqrely depends. Just like war profiteers, who reap profits off their fellow's misery in war time, "Truth Profiteers" consider themselves to be too valuable to render their services to the nation.

I totally agree with this. If i were privy to such valuable information i wouldn't be holding it for ransom especially if it were crucial to the development and future of all society. No way. I mean think about it for a minute, you gain international media attention and tell them you will give them disclosure. Come one come all. So as everyone is awaiting said disclosure it is held behind closed doors and off limits to anyone who doesn't wish to travel across the continent and pay, yet again, to hear breaking news that can change the course of human history.
So rather than alerting the media when you have it's full attention you make a documentary on the information and well you guessed it, sell it off yet again. By the time your documentary is aired, the media has been uninterested for some time on your so called new information and it has long since been debunked or ridiculed. Not to mention that documentarys have a much smaller audience than news networks do so the message isn't reaching as many people. And then after all that and much profit making, you are back to square one and didn't accomplish any of the goals that you apparently set out to. You give the better luck next time speech to everyone who believed in you and supported you and go back to the drawing board on your next scheme.
Well if im an "Armchair Patriot", keep in mind that it is Hoagland that is selling the armchairs. Not all of us are ex NASA consultants, Aerospace engineers, and experimental tests pilots complete with all sorts of government connections who spoon feed us the information that is then spoon fed yet again to the "Armchair Patriots".

New HD video from the moon!
Load it first for smooth viewing

Another patch for your collection-

More to come-

Originally posted by johnlear
Sorry, BS, no time to spoon feed you.

Sorry, John, but your spoon is empty in any case. If I want to live in a fantasy, I could always turn to "World of Warcraft", "Everquest" etc. What you are offering instead has about as much "nutritional value". Example: you are saying that gravity on the Moon's surface is much larger than the claimed 1/6 that of the Earth's. That would lead to an improbable value of the moon's density. Keep your spoon.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Example: you are saying that gravity on the Moon's surface is much larger than the claimed 1/6 that of the Earth's. That would lead to an improbable value of the moon's density. Keep your spoon.

Thanks for the post BS. Just one question: what do you think the neutral point between the earth and the moon is. Please give your answer in miles from the moon and please quote your source. Thanks.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
New HD video from the moon!
Load it first for smooth viewing

Awesome! Truly unprecedented. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Another patch for your collection

I'll see your patch and raise you one...




[edit on 7-11-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by johnlear
Just one question: what do you think the neutral point between the earth and the moon is. Please give your answer in miles from the moon and please quote your source. Thanks.

My pleasure. It's circa 22k-24k miles. The link www.apollo-hoax.co.uk... contains an explanation how a wrong number of 43k miles originated. More on that confusion can be found on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

The surface gravity of an astronomical body such as the Moon is not directly related to the position of the neutral point between it and the planet it orbits. The neutral point between the Earth and Moon depends on the mass of the Earth, the mass of the Moon, and the current distance between them—which varies between the apogee of 405,500 km and perigee of 363,300 km, due to the Moon's orbital eccentricity of 0.055. In contrast, the surface gravity of the Moon depends only on the gravitational constant, the mass of the Moon, and the radius of the Moon (see the equation at surface gravity, and see Moon for the mass and radius of the Moon). The surface gravity does not depend on the distance to Earth or the Earth's mass, so the "neutral point" and "sphere of influence" are irrelevant to the Moon's surface gravity. The Moon's surface gravity is very close to one-sixth that of Earth's.[82]

Spacecraft from several nations have traveled to or past the Moon,[83][84][85] so unless all their space programs are part of the conspiracy, at least one should have indicated by now if the mass of the Moon was incorrect. Similarly, if lunar gravity was four times as high as generally believed, it would be demonstrable on Earth in unexpectedly large tidal action, the Moon's orbital characteristics, and the Earth's wobble. The Surveyor program Moon landers had an engine thrust of 150 pounds and their landing weight was approximately 660 pounds on Earth. Five of these spacecraft soft-landed on the Moon in 1966-68. If the Moon's surface gravity was much larger than one-sixth that Earth's, the spacecraft would not be able to soft-land on the Moon.

The website appears to be confusing the Moon's sphere of influence and the point at which the Moon's gravitation and Earth's are equal. NASA were concerned with the Moon's sphere of influence, which starts around 40,000 miles from the Moon, and marks the point where the Moon's gravity has more influence on the spacecraft's trajectory than the Earth's. The 'Apollo 16 Flight Journal'[86] comments on this: "we're scheduled to cross that mythical line known as the lunar Sphere of Influence, the point of which we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity on the spacecraft. Our displays here in Mission Control shortly after that point are generally switched over to Moon reference from Earth reference. The velocities that we have been watching decrease steadily up to now, will then begin to increase as the spacecraft is accelerated toward the Moon.." The point where the lunar gravity and Earth's gravity are equal is around 25,000 miles, so there's no discrepancy to explain: they appear to be measuring different things.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
New HD video from the moon!
Load it first for smooth viewing

That´s not HD, I´d call this crap lo-res. Heck, it reminds me of the videoquality of my cellphone

Got this reply, below, from the Kaguya-team this morning re when the hi-res images will be available for the public. I promptly asked them if the images will be prepared or touched in any way by NASA, because we know there is some level of cooperation JP+NASA. It will be interesting to hear, should I ever hear from them again that is

Message from Kaguya:

Hello,

The data obtained by KAGUYA will be available to the public
about one year after the end of its nominal operation, that is,
two years after launch. You can download them from our website.

Thank you$B!*(B

Kyoko

[edit on 7-11-2007 by exo.psych]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by exo.psych]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by exo.psych]

Originally posted by masterp
Is he out to become richer once more?

I doubt that Hoagland is "rich" by any means. These kinds of limited edition UFO or conspiracy books generally don't make a lot of money, and nobody's getting rich from them. Contrary to what you might think, the fringe audience is quite small. There is a very small number of UFO kooks who would even be interested in Hoagland's book, and very few of those would be willing to fork over any dough for it. The only people who make any money in the book business are established authors who can get decent advances. You can make more money writing self-help books.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

My pleasure. It's circa 22k-24k miles. The link www.apollo-hoax.co.uk... contains an explanation how a wrong number of 43k miles originated.

Thanks for the post BS. The actual neutral point is 43, 495 miles and the number comes from many different sources including Wernher von Braun and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

But before we proceed, you posted a chart which I have seen many times and proposes 2 different neutral points which, of course is impossible.

My question is there seems to be no 'source' for this chart. No one will take responsibllity for it. In others words no one you can go to and say, "Where did you get this figure?", or "how do you figure this?"

Its kinda one of those things that floats around and everyone just assumes, "yeah....there must be 2 neutral points."

So please let me know if you have any idea who fabricated that chart and then we will press on and I will show you why the gravity on the moon has to be at least 64% that of earths. Thanks.

Originally posted by Donoso
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

 

Completely true. Unfortunately every single "smoking gun" style of "break" tends to fade away and gets forgotten by everyone but a few.

Look at the Isaac/Drone issue. People stopped talking about it en masse and only recently was it found to be a viral campaign run by Alienware. The "true believers" deny that reality even though it's such a "doh, oh yeah!" sort of thing.

I'm still so completely underwhelmed. What's it going to take? What are these folks waiting for? For somebody to scan pictures and post them on these boards so they can file a lawsuit for more $$? Oh boy! Now that's a plausible conspiracy theory!

You have faulty logic. There is no marketing linkage between any of the drone images and the alienware merchandise. And by that I mean the original drone images and all of the adjunct CARET images should have, by virture of their viral marketing concept, some tie to the merchandise other than the background images for a website.

-Euclid

[edit on 7-11-2007 by euclid]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by euclid]

reply to post by exo.psych


No, that's not HDTV, that is a Flash video version (which degrades the image) of the original shot with the HDTV camera.

The Flash video is just 25% of the size of the real HDTV images, 1920x1080.

Zorgon said-
Yes there is a way... but I bet not more than a dozen here at ATS would even consider...

If we get enough people together to demand we get to see the images at NASA... How about if 100,000 marchers camp out on the launchpad for the next Shuttle Mission? Peaceful to be sure, but squat on the pad... what are they going to do? Launch and incinerate everyone?

If you'll check an aerial photo, you'll see that both shuttle launch pads are pretty far from the gates, they'd be difficult to get to. If you could get past the perimeter, you'd have to deal with getting through the swamps, alligators, leeches, and weird Florida insects that can be as big as your arm.

You might stand a better chance by sea, but the logistics of getting 100,000 on boats and then getting them onshore without being seen before they even hit the beach would take some planning. To say nothing of the percentage that will suffer seasickness. I don't really know if the beach is mined, but I don't know that it isn't either.

Squatting on the pad is probably not the best of ideas, as the amount of toxic chemicals around there would likely mean some of those volunteers would get some skin eaten off. Then again, maybe the hydrazine would sterilize the gator bites.

Then there's the raising of thousands of volunteers to begin with, that's going to take a while, especially when they hear about the giant bugs.
(or maybe/maybe-not mines)

A better plan might be to get a job at NASA.
Really!
Think about it.
They hire an awful lot of people, to do an awful lot of things. Somebody has to sweep those facilities, paint them, serve the food in the cafeteria, (which reminds me, regarding "Clean Rooms"....those are designed to assemble spacecraft where hair and dust in the wrong place could mean death to a satellite should such things get into a critical system. I wish the cafeteria at LaRC were so clean....I'm sure the lunchroom at JPL is all shiny and clean, but they have much newer facilities, and JPL and JSC seem to get more money for such things too, The buildings at centers like Langley and MSFC in Huntsville are all pretty old, leaky and some of them smell kinda moldy when it rains. NASA Langley just celebrated it's 90th anniversary for crying out loud, they could at least replenish the crap in the vending machines more often.
Rumor has it there's a machine two floors up from the cafeteria, that still has a Zagnut bar wedged it it's chute that Amelia Earhart paid for and never received. But I'm sure that's just a rumor.
But I digress...and so would you if you'd seen the fuzzball I found in my fries at lunch a while back. I say hairnets for everyone! Or at least point those enormous windtunnels AWAY from the cafeteria.......
I'm just sayin'.

There are plenty of jobs that require little or no technical or specialized skills or overachieving educational background. (think middle management) Getting a few people employed at some of the centers would mean having eyes and ears scoping out the real truth on a daily basis! Somebody has to shred the backlog of "anomolous" photos after every shuttle flight, why not you?
They don't even make you clip on a tie anymore! You got a Polo shirt? Trust me, you're ready for an interview.

A much better plan, a much SMARTER plan, with fewer alligators. Unless you get one of those photography jobs at the Cape where they set up high-speed cameras in the swamp. Yes, IN the swamp.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by buddhasystem

My pleasure. It's circa 22k-24k miles. The link www.apollo-hoax.co.uk... contains an explanation how a wrong number of 43k miles originated.

Thanks for the post BS. The actual neutral point is 43, 495 miles and the number comes from many different sources including Wernher von Braun and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The provenanance of the graph on the site www.apollo-hoax.co.uk... is explained on the same page. It appears that anyone with a spreadsheet can produce such curve. Of course, on of the two curves (the earth's g and the moon g) should have been inverted to give a clear zero crossing point. In fact, I just did it according to the formula 1/x**2-0.0123/(1-x)**2 and I get my 23k miles or so.

There can't be two neutral points in that equation, and the statement about "the second point" in that link can only be interpreted in the way which is commented upon by Wikipedia:

The 'Apollo 16 Flight Journal'[86] comments on this: "we're scheduled to cross that mythical line known as the lunar Sphere of Influence, the point of which we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity on the spacecraft. Our displays here in Mission Control shortly after that point are generally switched over to Moon reference from Earth reference. The velocities that we have been watching decrease steadily up to now, will then begin to increase as the spacecraft is accelerated toward the Moon.." The point where the lunar gravity and Earth's gravity are equal is around 25,000 miles, so there's no discrepancy to explain: they appear to be measuring different things.

My question is there seems to be no 'source' for this chart. No one will take responsibllity for it.

Well the author of the link where it's posted obviously does. I vouch for the location of point of intersection of the two curves (the real neutral point), becase I just repeated the calculations myself.

So please let me know if you have any idea who fabricated that chart and then we will press on and I will show you why the gravity on the moon has to be at least 64% that of earths. Thanks.

If you want to use the 43k value to demonstrate the 64%, dont' bother because I can do the calculations myself. I can't tell you how von Braun arrived to the 43k value, except at about this distance the gravitational pull of the Moon becomes somewhat comparable with the Earth's, so as astronauts commented, that's where you need to start reconing with it. I just did some graphing myself and yes, this is true. The complete equilibration would happen circa 23k miles.

If I accept that the lunar missions did happen (and I believe they did, including orbiting and landings), you can't explain how they did it -- the orbiters/landers weren't designed to operate in the 64% GRAVITY. (I know one theory which claims that there was an antigravity device onboard Apollo ships, but that's way too rich). The accent module would have never made it back to the orbit. Ths Chinese craft (and the Japanese as well) would have crashed into the Moon if they used wrong "g" in their calculations. And they didn't crash.

continued-

I did get a chuckle out of the comment from a previous poster regarding NASA being run by a small cadre of people and the rest being paid actors.
Sorry, the pay is not that great, even for engineers and astronauts, considering the hours and the Screen Actors Guild is a pretty strong union. They'd be on strike after the first week. Even the dinner theatre circuit professionals would balk at a rehearsal schedule that went on for years before a show.

Check with your nearest center, and watch for the RFPs that NASA publishes. Requests For Proposals are their way of saying "Help Wanted".
They'll use more governmental officialese type language, but it'll say something like "Airbrush artists wanted, no previous experience necessary, attention to detail not required" or something to that effect. Sure, lots of the listing will be technical in nature, but not all. And even with the most meager of positions YOU will be able to claim to be "a NASA insider", and you might be able to turn that into money on the side.

You'll get to answer a lot of UFO questions too, every engineer I've asked tells of going to a Christmas party or family function, after the introductions, the question almost always comes up, "What do you do?" They reply, "I work for NASA", it'll either be the disappointment that they are not an Astronaut, or the "Tell me about the UFOs!" question. Both of which often lead to awkward moments. But if you KNEW about the UFOs, and could tell them in great detail everything you've learned in studying the subject, think what a difference you could make. And word of these things coming from an insider?
Makes a difference.

You REALLY want to fight something that monstrously huge, do it from the inside.
The belly of any beast is where it's vulnerable.
A bit like hunting squamp,(the Ardurian kind, not the urban slang)
without having to slather on the sour cream & chives.
(a really obtuse analogy, Perhaps a prize is in order)

[edit on 7-11-2007 by SpaceMax]

metaldemon2000
It is meant to bore the audience.

Then they could learn a thing or two from an agency like "Housing and Urban Development!

One of NASA's primary goals is to make sure that people remain uninterested in space exploration so that civillian organizations don't get the bright idea to start building their own spacecraft (probably also not as hard to do as they profess)

And you're not doing it because.....?
Seriously, give me say $500M in financing, (financing, not cash money) and I'll hook you up. I've got COTS competitors on speedial, Gary Hudson, Burt Rutan?
They'll put you up there for some firm banking. That's a promise.

They maintain that space is a dark and scary placed lurking with danger at every corner and near impossible to traverse.

Well, you won't burst into flame at the Van Allen Belt, but safety is a big issue. Getting up there is a whole lot easier than getting back down. Airlines ticket sales would be even tougher with a 4% fatality rate

ever seen that Stargate episode where they are filming that Wormhole Extreme series in order to debunk any theories should any information about the program leaked to the public?

Great episode, did you know there's a room inside Cheyenne Mountain with a sign that says "Gate Room"? It's a closet, but what does that tell you about Air Force personnel?