What's Your Beef With NASA?

Originally posted by DJW001
Yes. It's a conference. Look the word up.

No, it's not a conference, it's not a UFO conference either. NASA symposium is a forum for theoreticians and practitioners.

The fact that you cannot even name a place or time, never mind actually proving that it happened, suggests that it is made up; hence, fantasy.

So you can't prove it's fantasy. So you base your claim on your own speculation/opinion, with nothing to back it up. And no, you don't know wether it's made up or not.

reply to post by Anunaki10

Yes. It's a conference. Look the word up.

No, it's not a conference, it's not a UFO conference either. NASA symposium is a forum for theoreticians and practitioners.

sym·po·si·um   [sim-poh-zee-uhm]
noun, plural -si·ums, -si·a  [-zee-uh]
1.
a meeting or conference for the discussion of some subject, especially a meeting at which several speakers talk on or discuss a topic before an audience.

dictionary.reference.com...

The fact that you cannot even name a place or time, never mind actually proving that it happened, suggests that it is made up; hence, fantasy.

So you can't prove it's fantasy. So you base your claim on your own speculation/opinion, with nothing to back it up. And no, you don't know wether it's made up or not.

You're the one making the affirmative statement, therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

Originally posted by DJW001
dictionary.reference.com...

You misunderstood something here, NASA Symposium is not an ordinary conference, it's not a UFO conference either, like i said. NASA Symposium is a forum for theoreticians and practitioners.
I knew that symposium usually is refered to as meetings and conference, but not in this case.

You're the one making the affirmative statement, therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

You're the one who claim it's fantasy, but you have shown that you can't prove it's fantasy, so that means you base your claim on your own speculation/opinion, with nothing to back it up. And once again, you don't know wether it's made up or not.

reply to post by Anunaki10

You're the one who claim it's fantasy, but you have shown that you can't prove it's fantasy, so that means you base your claim on your own speculation/opinion, with nothing to back it up. And once again, you don't know wether it's made up or not.

Where did you hear this story? Or did you just make it up. I repeat, if you can't even provide a source, I have no reason to believe that it is anything but your own imagination. And please, re-read the definition of symposium.

Originally posted by Anunaki10
You're the one who claim it's fantasy, but you have shown that you can't prove it's fantasy, so that means you base your claim on your own speculation/opinion, with nothing to back it up. And once again, you don't know wether it's made up or not.

It's not up to a skeptic to prove it's a fantasy. If the claim is one of extraordinariness -- an unavoidably unusual and non-explainable new phenomenon -- the burden of proof is on the claimer of no-earthly-explanation. Sorry you don't seem to get it.

Here is my problem and a fine example. www.msnbc.msn.com...
We are flat broke and in extreme debt, yet it's just fine for NASA to blow 2.5 billion to send some robots that might not work to a dead planet. Meanwhile, here on earth, people are starving to death. Perhaps NASA should use their brain power to improve the living conditions here within our atmosphere. People will continue to starve, while we learn nothing useful.

In one word: Waste
In three words: Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

reply to post by assspeaker

Perhaps NASA should use their brain power to improve the living conditions here within our atmosphere. People will continue to starve, while we learn nothing useful.

You might want to start reading here:

landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's not up to a skeptic to prove it's a fantasy. If the claim is one of extraordinariness -- an unavoidably unusual and non-explainable new phenomenon -- the burden of proof is on the claimer of no-earthly-explanation. Sorry you don't seem to get it.

inquiries in regards to anomalous observations should always be free from inductive bias i.e. to say that the common 'prosaic' proposals should equally be subjected to the burden of proof criteria and that the absence of rebuttals regarding said 'unestablished' claims does not automatically render them as factual...

Originally posted by DJW001
Where did you hear this story?

Here are some sources: www.ufo-blogger.com... www.syti.net... www.ufocasebook.com... were it states "A certain professor, who wished to remain ANONYMOUS, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium". Do you know what the word 'anonymous' means? You're welcome to ask what that word means in case you don't know.

Or did you just make it up?

No, i didn't made up that alleged conversation between anonymous profefssor and Neil Armstrong.

I repeat, if you can't even provide a source, I have no reason to believe that it is anything but your own imagination.

I did provide sources (see above). And no, i didn't made up that alleged conversation between anonymous professor and Neil Armstrong.

And please, re-read the definition of symposium.

I don't have to re-read that definition, as i said, i knew already that symposium usually means conference, but again you misunderstood something here, and let me explain it to you again: NASA Symposium is not a conference as you understand it, it's NOT a UFO conference. The correct term for NASA Symposium is a forum for theoreticians and practitioners.

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's not up to a skeptic to prove it's a fantasy.

It was that ATS member as you call 'skeptic' who claim it's fantasy, and then it's up that 'skeptic' (as you said) to prove that, but so far so good that member can't prove it, so that means that that member as you call 'skeptic' base his or her claim on his or her own speculation/opinion only, with nothing to back it up...

reply to post by nv4711

i suppose the only beef would be interlacing with the dod and concealing good kit that has been lofted with potential humanitarian benefits.
f

reply to post by Anunaki10

I did provide sources (see above). And no, i didn't made up that alleged conversation between anonymous professor and Neil Armstrong.

You posted links to exactly the same story on three different UFO blogs. None of them gave any references or specifics. In fact, all of them simply cut and pasted the exact same story from the same source. That's not citation, that's plagiarism. I don't think you made the story up, you just swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Originally posted by DJW001
You posted links to exactly the same story on three different UFO blogs.

Do you know why i gave you these links? You asked for it, and if you go some posts back, then you will probably see your own writing that says "Where did you hear this story?"
So that's why i answered "Here are some sources: www.ufo-blogger.com... www.syti.net... www.ufocasebook.com... were it states "A certain professor, who wished to remain ANONYMOUS, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium". Do you know what the word 'anonymous' means? You're welcome to ask what that word means in case you don't know."

'DJW001', do you forget what you post? Did you forget that you wrote "Where did you hear this story?" In case you forget what you post, then don't you think it's waste of time to engage yourself in these debates?
Are there other persons than you who use your member name to post? In case there are other persons than you who use the same member name, then there is a very good chance it would make you look confused.

None of them gave any references or specifics.

Oh yes, they give some references, it gives reference to a certain professor that wished to remain anonymous. Then i asked you, do you know what the word 'anonymous' means? And you're welcome to ask what that word means in case you don't know. You're also welcome to ask why some prefer to be anonymous, and i will show you some example, in case you want to know why some prefer to be anonymous.

In fact, all of them simply cut and pasted the exact same story from the same source. That's not citation, that's plagiarism.

In case you're not satisfied with these sources that use the same text as the original source, then you can always contact them and explain to them that if they cut and paste text from another Web for a report, they must put quotes around the text and create a citation for it.

Originally posted by fakedirt
i suppose the only beef would be interlacing with the dod and concealing good kit that has been lofted with potential humanitarian benefits.

Oh yeah... Here is one... from the DoD Homeland Defense

dod.gov/pubs/foi/homeland_defense/UFOs/nasa_u1.pdf

NASA is the focal point for answering public inquiries to the Whitehouse relating to UFO's. NASA is not engaged in a research program involving these phenomena, nor is any other government agency

DoD Release February 1, 1978

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?



And here is the Whitehouse statement

Searching for ET, But No Evidence Yet
By Phil Larson
White House Office of Science & Technology Policy
11-4-11

Thank you for signing the petition asking the Obama Administration to acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence here on Earth.

The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye.

So there you have it NO UFO's Its official... so we can shut down ATS and all go get a real life

reply to post by zorgon


high 5 for the reply zorgon.

reading through the document, i get the feeling of creating distance from the topic in question. if by some unusual occurence i were to find myself with a top of the range foo glider with keys then it would be safe to say nasa would not be prepared to comment or send a rep for a spin. i will rub them off the list if thats the case.

just to expand on the beef. when communicating with Truth1000 way back, we were discussing the South African Anomaly and an interesting box NASA was using whilst the shuttle transitioned through this area. the exotic particle levels as i understand were significant and potentially lucrative in the sense that if collection systems were designed and lofted, an abundance of positrons for example could be harvested for the benefit of humanity (i can and still dream!) other particles and their dirac type behaviour are also of interest.
regards fakedirt



btw just spotted the rest of your post. better get dave to turn the off the lights on the way out!

reply to post by Anunaki10

In case you're not satisfied with these sources that use the same text as the original source, then you can always contact them and explain to them that if they cut and paste text from another Web for a report, they must put quotes around the text and create a citation for it.

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?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by assspeaker

 

Perhaps NASA should use their brain power to improve the living conditions here within our atmosphere. People will continue to starve, while we learn nothing useful.

You might want to start reading here:

landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I'm going to try to be polite, but it is hard for me at this point.
YOU, might want to read my post. I'm talking billions...right now? come on. Wake up. We broke.
It is the waste above the atmosphere and the sheer amount of my money they blow on probes going away from earth. I am all for this kind of research when we can afford it. Right now we can't..get it?

Just between you and me, I'm not at all impressed by NASA's ability to take a picture from a satellite. With Google earth technology and a current image, I can see a fifth grader doing the job. NASA=big money drain.

Heck, they "could" funnel billions into some black program, and claim they spent it on another mars probe, while to cover the lie, they just shoot up a rocket for show.

reply to post by assspeaker

I'm going to try to be polite, but it is hard for me at this point.
YOU, might want to read my post. I'm talking billions...right now? come on. Wake up. We broke.
It is the waste above the atmosphere and the sheer amount of my money they blow on probes going away from earth. I am all for this kind of research when we can afford it. Right now we can't..get it?

The world economy is starting to gum up because Americans lost all financial self control for ten years. Consumers borrowed money to buy luxury items and over-sized homes that they could not afford. The government spent money on weapons systems that will never work and wars of choice that can never be won. Suddenly, everyone freaked out and stopped spending. Naturally, the economy contracted, companies downsized, unemployment rose and a vicious downward spiral took hold. We're not broke, we're panicking. After squandering our money foolishly, we're too afraid to make rational decisions. The government can keep the economy going if it spends the money it has been borrowing wisely. It needs to make investments that will leave it in a better place when the crisis is over. Education, infrastructure and research and development are precisely the areas that will provide the highest yield for the investment. We can't afford not to support these areas.

Just between you and me, I'm not at all impressed by NASA's ability to take a picture from a satellite. With Google earth technology and a current image, I can see a fifth grader doing the job. NASA=big money drain

Where do you think GoogleEarth imagery comes from? Where do you think the technology came from? Where do you think the Internet came from? Because Eisenhower understood the importance of infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, he invested heavily in both public works projects and R&D. Thanks to those tax dollars, DARPA developed what would eventually become the internet. In order to help the Navy find their way around the seas, the military developed the GPS system that permeates every aspect of the economy. Did I mention the communications satellites that make it possible for you to talk to nearly everyone on the planet on the mobile phone in your pocket... the little phone crammed with miniaturized electronics made possible by research subsidized by tax dollars?

From its very inception, the United States has had a distinctly flexible economic model. The government floats bonds to build a canal. This employs workmen who spread the money around. The private sector invests in barges, which provide the service of carrying goods on the public canal. Some people conveniently forget that's how it has always worked.

Heck, they "could" funnel billions into some black program, and claim they spent it on another mars probe, while to cover the lie, they just shoot up a rocket for show.

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.

Originally posted by DJW001
They should have learned that in High School.

It depends on what the different kind of students learn(ed), and the quality of each high school, and what the teachers teach the students.
Not all students learn everything, but like some students say >>I can't wait for you to start teaching me Mr. Norman. I hunger for knowledge

Originally posted by fakedirt
just to expand on the beef. when communicating with Truth1000 way back, we were discussing the South African Anomaly and an interesting box NASA was using whilst the shuttle transitioned through this area. the exotic particle levels as i understand were significant and potentially lucrative in the sense that if collection systems were designed and lofted, an abundance of positrons for example could be harvested for the benefit of humanity (i can and still dream!) other particles and their dirac type behaviour are also of interest.
regards fakedirt

The "South African Anomaly"?

Are you SURE that's what you think you're talking about?

Doesn't EVERY satellite pass through that same area?