What is with the trust of NASA?

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


I'm not gonna debate 911 in here. I'm not a scientist but I take everything I'm told about that day with a grain of salt whether its coming from the official sources or the conspiracy theorists. In my opinion the only true stance to take on 911 is "I'm not sure who did it or what happened exactly" because claiming anything else is ridiculous.

I just don't like all the certainty that people show about things like the moon landing, NASA hiding stuff, 911, or any other topic this site deals in. You've got these people running around you are 100% certain that only their special brand of nuttiness is the truth. There are only a handful of things I would be so bold as to say I know for sure.

I really doubt NASA is pulling a cover-up, maybe they just dont know what to do with the UFO activity, and so they put up the veil of silence on the issue.

It would be important to note that the majority of NASA employees do not know squat about photo anomaly airbrushing, nor do they know any other secrets.
I doubt even the director knows much. All the special research projects are super compartmentalized and hidden from the average employee.. Those that are cleaered to know some things on an administration level would be told to leave certain people and areas alone.
The areas and hidden departments dealing with super secret research and stuff like that are totally off limits to the average joe or mary at NASA. ie; plausable deniability. If you think of the run amok military industrial complex as a cancer, then nasa certainly has a terminal case of it, although it is hidden very well, with just a hint of some things leaking out here and there.

Well the explosions were filmed as the buildings fell so I don't know what your not sure of... (if you've done the research and it doesn't take much)
NASA is a government run agency and whether they are paid more to keep quiet or they don't like it but run with the program nonetheless they lie.

Has any one noticed NASA is slowly ending there flights to space? HMMM funny right and putting it the hands of "private" companies they know whats coming seems to me there securing there seats for sure so they are not left out when this happens. It will and it will be chaos...

Originally posted by STBPEJC
Has any one noticed NASA is slowly ending there flights to space? HMMM funny right and putting it the hands of "private" companies they know whats coming seems to me there securing there seats for sure so they are not left out when this happens. It will and it will be chaos...

What are you babbling about?

I suppose all of that is true, if you are looking at it in a complete vacuum and through a fun house mirror.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


My homepage is yahoo every once in awhile they will say some really revealing news. In the article it stated NASA would end sending man to space because it costs to much money for one i believe it said 65 million for each astronaut. What i was trying to say is there packing there bags and heading for safety in DUMBS

reply to post by STBPEJC


Only the shuttle missions are being cancelled, although I get the feeling they'll use them for a bit longer than planned.

NASA still have dozens of space missions in development and still running, such as the LRO mission and the Solar Dynamics Observation mission.

As for privatising space? They should have done it years ago if you ask me...





[edit on 21/5/10 by Chadwickus]

Well They did'nt get the name 'never a straight answer' for nothing! As for skepticism, it's almost becoming a religion.

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2]
The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.[4]
In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster)

en.wikipedia.org...

While skeptics can be very intelligent indeed, there seems to be a total lack of any and all spiritual forms of wisdom. I value a skeptics opinion, especially on matters of space. However, you can see how similar they are to agnostics, always 'on the fence'. Science itself is a religion, and is not always ironclad. As we have seen in the past, and present day, the universe is still baffling scientists.(flame shield engage)

reply to post by Centurionx


It's funny you know, I've seem more lies from so called truthers like Bart Sibrel and Richard Hoagland who try to expose NASA's supposed lies than I see from NASA.

Totally hypocritical if you ask me...

reply to post by Chadwickus


Yeah, you certainly have a point there. Makes it very hard to believe anyone.
In this day and age it is important to keep your wits about you, for truth and sanity are in short supply.

Originally posted by Larryman
I just hope that some civilian corporation is building true anti-gravity technology for mass-production spacecraft. That would make NASA irrelevant in an instant.

Come back in a few HUNDRED YEARS and you may have a point until then keep watching the syfy channel!

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
I said look up that space rocks are now classified...for what?...the NEAT comet which we didn't hear about though they could see it clearly, near misses that we never hear about until an independent astrologer finds it and the media has to report so, what evidence? man don't insult my intelligence...That's what you skeptics do, cry and howl all day about how your smarter than anyone else... I really don't care but please don't tell me that I have no evidence because I have evidence to make that statement look foolish

[edit on 28-4-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Love the quote ASTROLOGER if you cant even get that basic fact right, ITS ASTRONOMER unless you want to see your horoscope thats when you use an ASTROLOGER you guys talk about NASA from this example you talk plenty of BS

You spout evidence you never seem to want to link to it or show it, is that on advice from your ASTROLOGER

[edit on 21-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
That is technology that has been hidden longer than stealth...This explains most UFO sightings...Just one of the many things...I can't confirm it but I believe NASA constructed this "plane" that can travel 20 TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND I don't care what anyone says this is exotic and I don't believe this technology was conceivable to the human mind.

20 TIME THE SPEED OF SOUND THATS AROUND 15,360MPH

So the technology to travel that fast is not conceivable to the human mind

Lets go back to 1967

The rocket-powered X-15 was the fastest powered, manned aircraft, reaching a top speed of 7,274 km/h (4,510 mph) on October 3, 1967.

So we managed that 43 years ago

The crew of Apollo 8, Frank Borman, James Lovell and William Anders travelled @ 24,000mph.....

Better let Frank , James and William know what you think



[edit on 21-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.msnbc.msn.com...


www.space.com...


here you go mr ASTROLOGER/SMART ****

reply to post by gaurdian2012


You show some classic images THAT have been debunked on here if you bother to look.

I mean the you tube link to the supposed Apollo 20 spaceship on the Moon do you really think thats a spaceship

reply to post by wmd_2008
And instead of the insults maybe you should look at the evidence then you would close that ***** mouth of yours...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL

The DOD (and not the dreaded NASA) did not stop providing meteor data. Some scientists panicked over a March 16, 2009 memo from Brigadier General Rego. However the memo actually called for a policy to make data about meteors more freely available, not to restrict it. Because of a certain amount of vagueness in policy, there had been cases of data not being released in a timely manner. A policy change is in the works, but it is for better access. And in the mean time data continues to flow.

Rego says

"What we've found as we dug into this is that there was quite a bit of gapping that had occurred, even before the routine review that we did back in March," Rego said. "So notwithstanding the routine policy review, what we're doing in the next few weeks here...is circling the wagons so that we can remove some of the Ad Hoc nature."

Rego also spotlighted his concern that there's no real mechanism in place to ensure that the bolide data is sent to science researchers in a timely manner.

So by tightening the organizational ship, can the useful bolide data for scientific purposes be made available more quickly?

"Sooner and more consistently," Rego said. "We can probably do this better."

"The data is out there. It's not impacting military operations to gather the data that's important to the scientific community," Rego added. "Let's take a look at how we can do that in a timely and collegiate manner."

www.space.com...


[edit on 5/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage
That sounds pretty disingenuous to me...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL

What do you mean disingenuous? Spacewatch is getting the data they want.
BTW, you understand that the data is about meteors inside the atmosphere right? The DOD satellites are pointed at Earth, not space.