What's Your Beef With NASA?

Originally posted by zorgon
So if NASA is NOT engaged in a research program involving these phenomena WHY are they the 'focal point' for public inquiries to the Whitehouse relating to UFO's?

Uh, just teasing, zorg, but how come you seem to ALWAYS misspell 'White House' as 'Whitehouse', even when the term is spelled correctly in a document you then transcribe incorrectly?

The reason I asked, there's another senior UFO buff I've known for years who misspells it exactly the same way, and the second letters of his first and last names are O-A. Coincidence?

reply to post by JimOberg


i am humbled in your presence jim. my mistake. i meant to write 'south atlantic anomaly' o sage!
space flies on me.
regards fakedirt.

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by JimOberg

 

i am humbled in your presence jim. my mistake. i meant to write 'south atlantic anomaly' o sage!
space flies on me.
regards fakedirt.

Tsk tsk, I see you have learned.

The SAA is a weird place where the Van Allen belts dip lower than usual. I remember in mission control one night shift years ago when the shuttle's computers were upgraded from ferrite core memory [yes!] to integrated circuit memory, and I dropped by my old buddies in the DPS [computer] back room to watch the cosmic ray hits on the circuitry clustering in each pass through the elevated radiation zone.

Harvesting charged particles there would be a matter of opening your hatch and whistling -- with the whistling optional. The trick would be to catch them once you had them enter.

Other than the fact they are like every other government agency and either lie or circumnavigate the truth, nothing at all.

reply to post by JimOberg


that is where the black box comes in to play. according to Truth1000 the details were compartmentalised. i suppose it could have been a pre-cursor test bed for indefinite satellite power generation rather than bulky batteries or panels.
regarding the storage of said charged exotic particles, i suppose a taurus ring magnet type system with adjustable armature, magnetised of course would assist on a shopping/harvesting expedition.
f

Originally posted by DJW001
Where do you think GoogleEarth imagery comes from?

The good stuff comes from Ikonos Geo Eye, a private company not NASA and their resolution is awesome Here is one sample from the old Geo Eye 1...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Where do you think the technology came from?

Private contractor... not from NASA

Where do you think the Internet came from?

DARPA... not from NASA

Why bother? Why not just funnel money into their own pockets and say its for black ops? That seems to be the way things work nowadays.

Fed Reserve cannot account for 9 TRILLION fiscal year 2009 alone That is about 30,000 for every man woman and child in the US and that isn't even touching the trillions the Pentagon can't account for annually or the 25% the Department of Defense can't account for in their budgets.

Black ops yes.. most certainly... lining their pockets, I would say most probably... waste on useless project? great cover stories... $1000.00 hammers? amazing they get away with such things

And the gold WHERE is all the gold? Fort Knox is empty, all that missing gold in the WTC on p/11 the list just never ends...

THAT is why the world is going broke... just where is all that gold and money going?

A Conspiracy Theory: The Leprechauns and the Missing Trillions
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But hey no worries.. if they mad scientists keep doing what they are doing, we won't have to worry about it, because we will all be DEAD

Man-Made "Super Flu" Could Kill Half Of Humanity
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WHY?

Originally posted by DJW001
They should have learned that in High School. Do you feel that people who learned nothing in High School are a reputable source of information? Of course, they may have learned that plagiarism is wrong, but don't care. What sort of person willfully commits plagiarism?

Back in the days of the Ancient Libraries people wrote to share the knowledge freely. No one even thought about copyright and in fact encouraged others to copy the works and spread the knowledge for FREE

Copyright was invented by some British lawyers over MONEY issues when the printing press was invented NOT to protect the rights of the author, but to protect the rights of the PUBLISHER making money off the books

Fortunately today some sanity is returning and we have the Gnu license and Copyleft... where you can copy works and even change them so long as you then offer the work under the same conditions

Wikipedia is one such source... copy and paste from Wiki is not plagiarism

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (libre), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.[1]

Copyleft is a form of licensing and can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works such as computer software, documents and art. In general, copyright law is used by an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, under copyleft, an author may give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute it and require that any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same licensing agreement.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is also the Gnu license and Creative Commons license, like ATS uses. Then their is the Fair Use clause that many websites use 'for educational purposes' and as long as they make no income, they usually have no issues as long as source is provided

So in this complicated world of the internet to accuse people of being stupid and deliberate plagiarism is a bit out of line IMO

The museums tried to claim copyright on photos of master works.... they LOST the case in court

Music distribution on the internet... the case to stop it over copyright issues was LOST in the supreme court.

Knowledge was meant to be shared... copyright protects the publishers income You will find many music artists agree and have said so here on ATS

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, just teasing, zorg, but how come you seem to ALWAYS misspell 'White House' as 'Whitehouse', even when the term is spelled correctly in a document you then transcribe incorrectly?

English is my third language and I still have to correct au to ua every time

But speaking of typos.. a while back we saw a bunch of your posts that were full of typos. It made a few of us wonder if it was really you doing the posting. I argued that there is no way it was the real Jim because he is a fanatic on spelling issues, being a long time writer..

Odd that. I even wrote to you about it at your website, but never got a reply... And now here you are on about typos

But yeah Whitehouse is a bad habit and I think you mean E as the second letter in that last name?

Originally posted by fakedirt
i am humbled in your presence jim. my mistake.

Now cut that out His head is already to big...

Originally posted by JimOberg
I was the guy who alerted NASA's 'Mission Control' to that opportunity,
when I forwarded the information to old friends of mine there. They jumped at
the chance to have the crew take part in the observation program.

Hey Jim maybe you could get these friend's to get us those STS 75 clips

reply to post by zorgon

So in this complicated world of the internet to accuse people of being stupid and deliberate plagiarism is a bit out of line IMO

My objection is not to the possibility of copyright infringement; people shouldn't be making money off of lies in the first place. As one of the most dedicated researchers on ATS, you must realize that failure to cite one's sources appropriately is a barrier to proper research. Even ancient writers would attribute their sources properly. There is no way of determining where the story in question arose. The scantiness of specifics about time and place are at odds with the minutely recorded dialog. It reeks of pious forgery, and the lack of proper documentation makes it impossible to determine how trustworthy the source is.

reply to post by zorgon

Where do you think GoogleEarth imagery comes from?

The good stuff comes from Ikonos Geo Eye, a private company not NASA and their resolution is awesome Here is one sample from the old Geo Eye 1...

Where do you think the technology came from?

Private contractor... not from NASA

GeoEye may have used a private contractor to build their satellite, but that contractor used a knowledge base it acquired from NASA. NASA's job is to do the pure research that does not pay off quickly enough for the private sector to consider cost effective. The Mars missions would never be undertaken by a private corporation, but you can bet that in fifty years' time there will be businesses that would have been impossible without them. Spending a billion now might yield 100 billion later.

Where do you think the Internet came from?

DARPA... not from NASA

As you know I mentioned in my post. It is the perfect example of how "wasting Money" on a government project can have enormous benefits later on down the line.

Originally posted by zorgon
Odd that. I even wrote to you about it at your website, but never got a reply... And now here you are on about typos

Did you spell my email address correctly? Actually, a lot of folks leave out the middle initial 'E'.

My problem with NASA is that they suffer the ignorants that don't know anything and try to dumb things down so that the majority can understand it instead of using the actual language from their respective fields of study to explain our universe. NASA Spokespeople like to use metaphor to discuss big ideas, and that creates an aura of distrust when the truth is different (if even slightly caused by the dumbing down of the information) from actuality.

Originally posted by Furbs
My problem with NASA is that they suffer the ignorants that don't know anything and try to dumb things down so that the majority can understand it instead of using the actual language from their respective fields of study to explain our universe. NASA Spokespeople like to use metaphor to discuss big ideas, and that creates an aura of distrust when the truth is different (if even slightly caused by the dumbing down of the information) from actuality.

Sounds about right. There really is an aura of "we're the smartest guys in the room", but while this is often true with the line workers, the public affairs folks --and the actors in their pitiable 'kids space' shows on NASA TV -- are defnitiely NOT the brightest bulbs on the marquee.

The attitude that they don't have anything to learn from anybody else's space program was also a drag, and contributed to a ghettoized culture that was resistent to outside advice -- and helped set up the management misjudgments that killed several space crews. Things have recently significantly improved but how permanent the change-of-heart will be, remains in doubt.

Originally posted by Furbs
NASA Spokespeople like to use metaphor to discuss big ideas,

Oh you mean like THIS NASA team of smart scientists that had a problem with a spacecraft and couldn't figure it out?



"Houston we have a problem..." Yeah I can see that

reply to post by zorgon


What the hell are you even talking about?

Even in the out of context quote I said "NASA SPOKESPEOPLE".

Are you implying that the rank and file administrators of NASA are scientists responsible for keeping shuttles in the air?

Regardless.. of that.. what the hell are you even talking about?

So wait..

A team of guys smart enough to create a vehicle capable of leaving our orbit is rendered incompetent when they can't remotely figure out what is wrong with their incredibly intricate machine? Logical fallacy much?

Actually.. I have a hard time understanding much of anything you post..

reply to post by nv4711


I don't have much against NASA, in fact I was sad when the current administration did their best to dismantle it. I guess my biggest problem with NASA was the fact that they never focused on a few things they should have; a new shuttle, a moon base. Now it may be too late, now NASA is working on building a cheap Russian-style rocket to get to our station. I guess they could raise money with that rocket by selling seats to rich tourists, but I remember seeing concept art for the 'new' shuttle design when I was a kid in the 80's, that concept art obviously never went anywhere and now we've been downgraded due to the budget to be forced to pay Russia as a taxi service.

Originally posted by Furbs
A team of guys smart enough to create a vehicle capable of leaving our orbit is rendered incompetent when they can't remotely figure out what is wrong with their incredibly intricate machine? Logical fallacy much?

There's a reason we have an expression "it's not rocket science", because rocket science is notoriously hard.

There may be a million things that can go wrong and we only planned for 999,999 of them. That's still pretty good planning if you ask me, as it's really hard to predict everything that might occur.

Of course there have been some embarrassing slip-ups too, such as the case where we mixed up units between the US and metric systems and lost the Mars climate orbiter.

Then there was a lot of confusion about whether the Mars Polar Lander (MPL) crashed or not, I seem to recall something about Jim Oberg saying NASA knew it would crash, but NASA denied that and as far as I know they never found it. Is that what happened when that photo was taken? I don't recognize that photo but the name of it says something about Mars lander so I'm wondering if it was the lost Mars polar Lander team?

Here's the last I've seen about a search for the MPL, from the University of Arizona in 2008:

Looking For Mars Polar Lander

Did they ever find it? Or did it crash and the only thing to find is a crater where it crashed?

These folks thought they might have found it in 2005 but I don't recall seeing that was ever confirmed, and the 2008 U of A link I posted suggests it wasn't.

Mars Polar Lander Found at Last?

Originally posted by nv4711

I don't have much against NASA either. They may have good reasons for covering up UFOs and the true nature of the U-2 spyplane program in coorperation with CIA and/or other agencies, but that doesn't necessarily mean i'm against NASA, which i'm not.

Originally posted by DJW001
My objection is not to the possibility of copyright infringement; people shouldn't be making money off of lies in the first place.

Like i previously said, you don't know if it's made up or not...