NASA Disclosure

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by objectman

Scaling back NASA while encouraging civilian / private space flight might be the disclosure as well. They won't be able to keep the secret when its seen by civilian / private individuals. A verified sighting by civilians would be an easy way for the government to step in and investigate the encounter and announce it is what the people claimed.

True. And while the privateers go up and take happy snaps of the worrisome discs, NASA will burn all the evidence they have to cover the lie, or at least digitise the info and seal it up for the uber-rich.

Robert Bigelow has already been operating two space modules in orbit with exterior TV cameras -- why do you suppose HE would not disclose 'UFO pictures' if he had them?

You need to consider another alternate explanation -- the entire body of 'space UFO' myths is bunk, promoted by eager-believers and intentional con artists.

So are you saying that is your opinion on the matter? This 'space UFO' is a bunk bit....

I am suggesting that it be kept 'on the table' of potential explanations, is all -- and checked out, as vigorously as the wilder theories are embraced.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Actually, I believe the astronaut says, "Alien Space Craft." Search youtube for secret NASA transmission. It should be easy to find.

Actually, while I don't doubt you believe this nonsense, why does it make it credible for anyone ELSE to believe it? Who originated this story? You can't just say, 'It's out there on the Internet, so it's true."

Profound rebuttal...

The English of which is, "It's out there on the Internet, and that's GOOD ENOUGH for ME!"

It's a fair question. Please take a swing at answering it fairly.

Of course not. Anyone with a brain knows that. I never said it was true or not. I simply repeated what was said in the video. You'll just go back...quote what I said and want to debate it more. Fine. But let me ask you something...who do you believe and why? The government is as about as trustworthy as those youtube videos. Who's the authority when no one can be trusted to tell the truth? Are we to believe the MSM in all stories just because the news was delivered on a tv by a news anchor?

Believe it or not I actually love reading your posts. You present factual information in an easy to understand format. I'm not some crazed UFO believer. You're very knowledgeable. I'm interested in the science as well as the science fiction. That's all. I find myself debating and debunking my own beliefs. Because when you eliminate the subjective and qualitative facts what you're left with the truth. I'm still new at all of this. I'm a new member on ATS and don't have the advantage of a heavy science background in physics so its difficult plowing through everything. While you have been well-informed for years on this stuff, well I'm still learning. Takes time, ya know

reply to post by JimOberg

Don't you recognize this as a self-fulfilling fantasy?

I think all our beliefs are self-fulfilling. No matter what a person believes.

This proves the coverup is powerful, and that UFOs are real.

Now that's just silly Jim

-- it's just that the responses don't confirm the UFO believers' views, so the responses are spiked, thrown away, covered up, not put out on the Internet.

I'd say they are not really interested in the truth then.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Cosmic, beyond these specific debates, what really concerns me is HOW we can implement an Internet search feature that allows anyone to gather pro and con views of ANY subject that is called up.

There's no reason to object to ANY content on the 'net, but having the ability to ask, 'Who has criticized or debunked this?' could be immeasurably helpful,. But the search engines remain primitive and mostly unhelpful to users [while being very profitable for their developers].

Some higher level of AI is probably going to be needed, so sophisticated searches may take hours rather than seconds.

Perhaps there's a simpler way: anyone who writes a critique can deliberately include in the text a tag with the URL of the criticized content, with some recognizable encoding or key word, and existing search engines can search on that URL contained in OTHER sites, with that code/word.

I think developing a workable scheme of this type would be immensely helpful to all of us.

PS. thanks for the kind words, I hope you can forgive an excess of 'tough love' from time to time.

reply to post by JimOberg

having the ability to ask, 'Who has criticized or debunked this?' could be immeasurably helpful

Absolutely important. This is similar to the hallmark of evidenced-based medicine. Anything that is credible is peer-reviewed.

Tough love is still love

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Cosmic911

 

Cosmic, beyond these specific debates, what really concerns me is HOW we can implement an Internet search feature that allows anyone to gather pro and con views of ANY subject that is called up.

There's no reason to object to ANY content on the 'net, but having the ability to ask, 'Who has criticized or debunked this?' could be immeasurably helpful,. But the search engines remain primitive and mostly unhelpful to users [while being very profitable for their developers].

Some higher level of AI is probably going to be needed, so sophisticated searches may take hours rather than seconds.

Perhaps there's a simpler way: anyone who writes a critique can deliberately include in the text a tag with the URL of the criticized content, with some recognizable encoding or key word, and existing search engines can search on that URL contained in OTHER sites, with that code/word.

I think developing a workable scheme of this type would be immensely helpful to all of us.

PS. thanks for the kind words, I hope you can forgive an excess of 'tough love' from time to time.

Ideally wikipedia could help with this problem. UFO believers and skeptics could agree to edit the pros and cons on each wikipedia article. Then a lazy person like myself could go there and read both sides of the story. The problem is getting everyone to agree on one site.

On the search engine approach - maybe google could track the sequence of page visits to establish associations between pages that come up in a search. Users that google considers knowledgable based on pages views would have a stronger weight in making these associations. Then future searches would tend to bundle pages that seemed related to an earlier googler.

(Basically make the search engines more like the internet shopping sites that make suggestions based on products viewed. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here and the search engines already do that. )

I love NASA comments about aliens. They make me giggle.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Trust me, if NASA had ANYTHING to expose at all they would have.. Simply to just get the funding.

Ha! Brilliant! That kind of thinking is so true. However, NASA is an agency of the USA whose monetary motherlode has just been cut off at the knee. So with discontentment high, if they did have stuff, you would think NASA secrecy would be leaking through ever pore, right?

John Glenn disclosure on Fraser program 2001.

Google Video Link

Last night RH was on C2C.

His theory is that the new Rover, Curiosity is being sent to Gale crater to "discover" alien ruins to break the ice and give us an opportunity for a safe, non threatening disclosure in a case where the aliens are long gone. Photo below shows straight line and right angle geometry that may indicate artificial structures in the crater.

In a private upcoming-stories avisory to my news media clients last Friday,
I actually predicted the latest hoagwash:

item 15. In 2001 on the TV show ‘Frasier’, Glenn took part in a spoof in which he secretly confessed to encountering terrifying space aliens. As should have been expected, UFO nuts have claimed the scripted satire is actually an authentic admission of truth: search “Glenn, UFO, Frasier”, see www.enterprisemission.com... & kauilapele.wordpress.com...

reply to post by kawika

Last night RH was on C2C. His theory is that the new Rover, Curiosity is being sent to Gale crater to "discover" alien ruins to break the ice and give us an opportunity fora safe, non threatening disclosure in a case where the aliens are long gone.

I got a bit exited when I read that , then I looked on youtube for last nights program and discovered RH stands for Richard Hoagland .... in my book that makes the story pure fantasy

reply to post by gortex


Well, fantasy, theory, pretty much the same thing until it turns out to be correct or not. Which we will know one way or the other this year.

He also mentioned that other Mars rover programs were canceled. The joint project with the Euro's. Thinking that if this big deal occurs then we should send humans and not rovers next. He said something like "if you believe in the world the way we see it on CNN, then none of this makes sense. But if you see things as something big is coming, everything is on hold waiting for that, then it makes more sense. Nasa has no mission, no destination, no goals, no timetable, why?"

He is selling a new book...ya know. Excerpt here

Have you seen the animation for the way they land the big rover? Thing is as big as a VW bug. Parachute, then retro rockt platform, then lowers it down on a cable, then they cut the wires, rover is safe on the ground, platform flys away.



It seems really complicated compared to the way they did it before.

reply to post by kawika

He is selling a new book...ya know.

That doesn't surprise me .

I believe NASA has been a tool, and it's great missions and promise was a carrot on a very short stick leading public hope in limited areas to be controlled. Not for true exploration. I have worked with NASA people and they are true and smart people, but controlled as we are.

I also believe that the reality that we are not aware of is much more potentially shocking than mere extraterrestrials, massive advanced networks of civilizations throughout billions of galaxies and technologies our science cannot yet distinguish from magic. It is WAY beyond such pedantic concepts and would potentially undermine the smartest peoples sense of well being to know the real truth.

The truth is likely so complex and and beyond our description of reality that there is no way of articulating it to a general public without undermining our general well being. The loss of any religious foundation is the least of it. It is beyond even that. Those who know, wish they did not. Their grip on the truth is tenuous and slipping bit by bit. But they will not let go until they cannot control the outcomes of such revelations as the truth would have us all facing. They (the systems that were made to pull the strings of humanity) are as scared as we will be, and have gone into a state of controlled madness. We see the signs of it in all our lives if we can gaze at it long enough.

The shock of reality might come soon, and as the cracks in our illusions and pedantic ideals start to show and widen, people will have nowhere to go in their minds, because the description of reality we base all our lives on will be decimated by the light of a billion suns of reality, burning away illusion and leaving no shadow for us to cower in as scared mice in a broken cage of lies.

All I can say is that all we see, hear, touch, love and know is less than a cartoon in comparison to where we really are and what in reality is really happening. Those who survive the madness of true knowledge will grow and stand in wonder as newborns in a new world. I pray it happens slowly, because a large sudden event will have many of us going to our own death by choice, just to stop the pain of knowing the truth.

Find the new awareness in your hearts, however your path takes you. You will survive if you let go of all your fear and your description of yourself and your world. All else will be burned away. Pure truth takes you to what many call God, but Imagine for a moment that even that idea is a dim shadow of reality. If you can imagine that, imagine it a trillion times more real than that. Now you are prepared to be a child.

Life is beyond infinitude, nothing is lost except your fear.

God's speed, humanity.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost

I also believe that the reality that we are not aware of is much more potentially shocking than mere extraterrestrials

This is the most important and significant point for me. Just knowing the answer is paramount. If aliens landed in my front lawn, yeah that be cool, but I'd still have to pay my mortgage, and my car payment. I wouldn't make anymore money. I wouldn't be in any better position than before. Its the truth. The knowledge. Knowing that all that space isn't just a "waste of space" afterall.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
I believe NASA has been a tool, and it's great missions and promise was a carrot on a very short stick leading public hope in limited areas to be controlled. Not for true exploration. I have worked with NASA people and they are true and smart people, but controlled as we are.

I also believe that the reality that we are not aware of is much more potentially shocking than mere extraterrestrials, massive advanced networks of civilizations throughout billions of galaxies and technologies our science cannot yet distinguish from magic. It is WAY beyond such pedantic concepts and would potentially undermine the smartest peoples sense of well being to know the real truth.

The truth is likely so complex and and beyond our description of reality that there is no way of articulating it to a general public without undermining our general well being. The loss of any religious foundation is the least of it. It is beyond even that. Those who know, wish they did not. Their grip on the truth is tenuous and slipping bit by bit. But they will not let go until they cannot control the outcomes of such revelations as the truth would have us all facing. They (the systems that were made to pull the strings of humanity) are as scared as we will be, and have gone into a state of controlled madness. We see the signs of it in all our lives if we can gaze at it long enough.

The shock of reality might come soon, and as the cracks in our illusions and pedantic ideals start to show and widen, people will have nowhere to go in their minds, because the description of reality we base all our lives on will be decimated by the light of a billion suns of reality, burning away illusion and leaving no shadow for us to cower in as scared mice in a broken cage of lies.

All I can say is that all we see, hear, touch, love and know is less than a cartoon in comparison to where we really are and what in reality is really happening. Those who survive the madness of true knowledge will grow and stand in wonder as newborns in a new world. I pray it happens slowly, because a large sudden event will have many of us going to our own death by choice, just to stop the pain of knowing the truth.

Find the new awareness in your hearts, however your path takes you. You will survive if you let go of all your fear and your description of yourself and your world. All else will be burned away. Pure truth takes you to what many call God, but Imagine for a moment that even that idea is a dim shadow of reality. If you can imagine that, imagine it a trillion times more real than that. Now you are prepared to be a child.

Life is beyond infinitude, nothing is lost except your fear.

God's speed, humanity.

ZG

Somehow I get the similar feeling. I guess we'll see....I'm now 37...if nothing happens within my lifetime (presumably I die of old age), than we'll know this was all load of bs

reply to post by JimOberg


"Space UFO is a bunk" should never be on a table as far as I'm concerned. Saying that in general terms implies you are denying any extraterrestrial visitations. Meaning, there are theories that say that all UFO's are of earthly origins. Am I understanding you correctly?

Since you worked for/with NASA, can you please comment on the STS-48 video (the full length link) in my previous post? I'm just curious about your opinion. I guess you probably already commented on it in some previous threads. Maybe you can post a link to it? Thanks

Originally posted by JimOberg
Cosmic, beyond these specific debates, what really concerns me is HOW we can implement an Internet search feature that allows anyone to gather pro and con views of ANY subject that is called up.

There's no reason to object to ANY content on the 'net, but having the ability to ask, 'Who has criticized or debunked this?' could be immeasurably helpful,. But the search engines remain primitive and mostly unhelpful to users [while being very profitable for their developers].

Some higher level of AI is probably going to be needed, so sophisticated searches may take hours rather than seconds.

Hi Jim,

I've spent quite a bit of time on this issue in the last few years (in relation to methods of searching both online and offline searches of UFO material). I really should get around to posting some summaries.

I started by focusing on customised online search engines, but wasn't very happy with the results of my work so I never posted anything on ATS about them. If there is any interest, I could post a quick thread about that project.

More recently, I've been focusing heavily on offline searches. I posted a bit about offline searches (see my signature line) a while ago, but that thread was written when my project on offline searches was in its infancy. I've been very pleased with my success in this project in the last few months, so will post a bit about it once a few issues are (hopefully) resolved.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JimOberg

 

"Space UFO is a bunk" should never be on a table as far as I'm concerned. Saying that in general terms implies you are denying any extraterrestrial visitations. Meaning, there are theories that say that all UFO's are of earthly origins. Am I understanding you correctly?

The statement can be understood to mean, 'reports of space UFOs are not evidence for any extraordinary phenomenon'. Is that less inflammatory?

Since you worked for/with NASA, can you please comment on the STS-48 video (the full length link) in my previous post? I'm just curious about your opinion. I guess you probably already commented on it in some previous threads. Maybe you can post a link to it? Thanks

Here are some links:

www.jamesoberg.com...
www.ufoseek.org...

reply to post by JimOberg


So much is the way we say it.


Thanks for the links. I'll check those out....