X2

Nope, it was a neutral and accurate statement meant to indictae that I consider myself able to comment on "Photoshopping" questions with as much validity as you did when you made the following loaded statement presumably meant to browbeat independent thinking into quiescence:





I neither know nor care what you think of my opinions. Take em or leave em. I typed it in answer to your claim, that much is surely obvious.



Exaggeration for emphasis is a normal literary device and your comment therefore has no valid basis.



Er - no, I debunked the "dodgy ball theory. (Using Photoshop). The precise opposite to what you oddly claim.



You can be irritatingly deisingenuous. You know full well that in context the suggestion by your mate and his school of thought is that the "Monolith on Mars" must be artificail not natural, so evidence of aliens or whatever, and he then implies that there's loads of 'em. There aren't. There is known to be just that one. And he is comparing long shadows from plainly natural rock objects, to the "Monolith", trying to make people think it is not the only artificial monolith "built" on Mars. As you well know.



Ah, so you DO think there is known life on Mars, and they've found it, but they have to keep spending untold billions continuing to send missions to "look for it" just so they don't "give the game away" by stopping missions because taht woudl "look suspicious". Okaaaaaay. Hmmm. Now my trolling detector is reaching amber levels.



No, most human beings working for NASA or elsewhere do not participate in the crazier conspiracy theories about alien life, aliens on Earth, fake Moon landings, no satellites exist, flat earth, and the rest. There MAY be the odd conspiracy loon within NASA and I suppose being such a big organisation statistically there is some likelihood but no, I believe that the overwhelming majority of them are likely to be like the overwhelming majority of other people - just doing their job, and not part of some ludicrous endless and infinitely expensive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of employees all over the globe 99.9% of which would I think roll their eyes and sigh at the sort of conspiracist shoite I am talking about.



No I am not at all. Colour can only be accurately reproduced if you are able to use a light source of precisely standard "white" and of a precisely calibrated brightness and at a precisely measured distance, and starting in total darkness. Anything else and you will get a variation from doing the exact same thing in different places. Whether you call it an error of perception or an error of reproduction will depend. It could be a bit of both.



Wrong. All we CAN talk about is colour perception. Unless a human eye is seeing the image / object / and forming a judgment on it, which is perception, there is nothing to talk about, is there?



Is there an actual point in there that you want to get out, that realtes to something specific?



What, specifically, are you referring to? Do you have a link to NASA's said "excuse"?



Indeed I can, sadly many conspiracists on the planet absolutely can't. Which sad state of affairs has been going on ever since the first Moon landing "hoax" claims with their pseudo-scientific absolute bunkum about not being able to see the stars, diverging shadows, why is the dark side of teh lander illuminated and other such puerile objections, which are so asinine that to say they were "debunked" is to afford them 99% more credibility than they ever had - yet despite this, their legacy is that many people to this day ludicrously believe man never landed on the Moon.



As I said the trouble with the linked video is that the presenter reveals his conspiracist credentials as well as presenting grossly unscientific and misleading material. So I can't take anything he says seriously. I'm surprised you can.

If you asked me whether I believe that the Americans (or the Russians, Chinese or any other power capable of throwing sufficient resources at it) have in the past been and are currently spending a lot of money on top secret research into stuff like propulsion systems, advanced air/space craft etc., I would say well of bloody course they are, it would be ludicrous to think they weren't!



I would qualify my opinion with the strict caveat that we are not now nor ever have been in possession of technology from /contacted or visited by / aliens from other worlds and I consider anyone who claims to have been abducted, or seen aliens to be in need of help.

I wouldn't discount that. As i said in my earlier reply, all advanced nations try to design better/stealthier/faster etc craft to gain an advantage, and so many of the sightings of "UFOs" that are genuine are indeed very likely to be advanced secret craft. I don't even see anything debatable on this point.



Have the Americans, and the Russians, got top secret advanced craft / weapons etc that I have never seen? Of bloody course they have. What WOULD be odd is if they had made all their latest assets public.







Two points in one. I should imagine NASA has some contingency plan if it came down to it, maybe to unmothball a Space Shuttle or whatever, but no, I do NOT believe they have a secret space transit craft.



There has been a mammoth leap in space propulsion systems since WWII as any student of space an astronomy would know, and once out of Earth orbit, for example, we have ion drive, solar sails and the rest. But, to escape Earth's orbit, we have not yet perfected any means other than brute force.



Do i think we will ever create an "anti-gravity" device? Why not? Once we understand what gravity actually is, and how it works, then I don't see any reason in principle why we wouldn't find some smart way to alter its effects. And a warp drive seems eminently doable in theory, even if not, I think, in current practice.



I would be very surprised if the anti-gravity propulsion system had yet been invented but as I am sure that one day it will be, then the only question is whether that day has yet come. My guess would be within 50 years.

Edgar Fouche's 1998 presentation on the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc1IrnEkH0gTR-3B[/url

Jesus H. Christ! Watch the bloody video. I'm sure as hell not going to spoon-feed it for you.



And what THE **** are you doing splitting off a conversation which is explicitly concerned with explaining OBSERVABLE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA and then setting up a completely new thread with a blatantly loaded addendum?



Do you seriously think that's acceptable behavior from a moderator? In this short debate who of the two of us launched the first personal attack? When other members entered the debate with single-statement personal attacks which of the two of us took action? Who the **** do you think you are?



I really don't know what you are attempting to discuss in the existing thread ("the NASA appreciation society", "there is no truth but explicitly authorized state-sanctioned truth" maybe) but it certainly isn't doing what it says on the tin. Maybe you should remind people at the start of the thread not to mention Vladimir Putin or the Russian Space Industry given that Putin has openly questioned whether the US ever went to the moon. And I guess you'd better throw in the names of just about every astronaut in the US space program (including Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell etc. etc.) who have openly talked about unidentified flying objects. I guess they are "conspiracy loons", too. Oh, and don't forget Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Good lord - what an incredibly MONOTONOUS thread it must now be.



And you do realise that people such as Galileo, Copernicus & Isaac Newton would undoubtedly take umbrage with what YOU consider (and now [udefine[/u as) "astronomy". Although, maybe not. I can't say that I've ever considered you intellectually noteworthy so I guess you aren't capable of this level of thinking.



Mental Note: [iDon't waste your time on morons. [/i

Well, this escalated quickly.

The Night Sky thread is nothing to do with conspiracy theories. He Sin Bin is almost dead but almost all of it is occupied with discussions about conspiracies. Those who want to discuss conspiracies should allow other threads to exist without dumping more of the same in them. It is 100% correct to split the new conspiracy stuff off a sit is NOTHING to do with the night sky thread. But tell you what, if you don't like it then merge the fscking thing back and I'll close the door on my way out. That will leave you as basically the lone poster in the entire Sin Bin which seems to be what you're aiming for.

OK, since I'm no longer tied to masturbating over photographs which may or may not be real/edited and derived from a laughably archaic interplanetary propulsion system let's throw the discussion open to the issue of extra-terrestrial life and specifically the ubiquitous UFO.



Up to at least my teens I firmly believed in their presence within earth's atmosphere and likely extraterrestrial origin. Back then there really was a burgeoning SF literature and film industry as well as any number of popular paranormal publications such as "The Unexplained" (which IIRC was pushed by Arthur C. Clarke), the Erich von Dannekin series etc. etc. Now, I can't really comment on the value of the latter (I only browsed a few episodes of The Unexplained and I never read Von Dannekin) - but my point is that back then the idea that earth was being visited by strange craft piloted by extra-terrestrial beings didn't seem particularly far-fetched.



At some point during the eighties the axe seem to drop. Yes, there were still books and films. But whereas previously even the mainstream media was prepared to at least countenance the possibility of ET suddenly the whole topic seemed to be one big joke in the press. It was around then that I began to drift away from the idea and I've maintained the same position until only very recently.



Which really makes no sense when you think about it because despite what counter-intelligence would have us believe human beings are very good witnesses. Sure, folk tell lies, embellish stories and such. But if eye-witness testimony were of no value it would never have been used as one of the fundamental pillars of trial law.



Many, many thousands of highly-credible witnesses have reported encounters with what they believed to be extra-terrestrial visitors. And there have been perhaps ten times that number who have talked about seeing craft in the skies whose behavior doesn't match known human technologies and is suggestive of an origin outside of our solar system.



Are all these cases true? Of course not. I'm sure most can attributed to any number of mundane explanations. I also believe that so-called "dark" projects such as the highly-classified aerospace program as well as MKULTRA have a lot to answer for in this department. However, I think it's safe to say there exists a core group of cases which really do stretch one's abilities to find an "ordinary" explanation. So even whilst I largely gave up on the idea of UFOs cases such as these have always lurked somewhere at the back of my mind.



Why the sudden volte-face on this question?



I guess the first chink in the armour came with reading the UK government's official 400+ page report into what took place at RAF Bedford on the 26th of December 1980 (also known as the Rendelsham Forest Incident). The history of this report is very interesting. When the UK government made a big fuss out of transferring all of its UFO-related files to the United States archives a few years ago there was uproar over the omission of Rendelsham. I vaguely recall hearing something about this fuss but I didn't pay it any attention. What almost NOBODY knew at the time was that they'd ALREADY slipped the report out on the quiet - completely declassified - in 2006. When researchers finally cottoned on and sourced a copy they were astounded by what they found. I STRONGLY recommend that everyone read this report very carefully. Yes, it gets a bit dry and technical at times but to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence it's patently obvious that not only did they take this incident very seriously at the time - they even went so far as to analyse in forensic detail many of the strange phenomena which took place over the three consecutive evenings. But it was whilst reading one subsection in which government scientists start talking about weird rays which induce all manner of not just physical but MENTAL phenomena that my jaw literally hit the floor.



However the real deal-breaker for me was watching Linda Moulton Howe's 1981(ish) Emmy Award-Winning documentary [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpcKrPaOJx0"Strange Harvest"[/url. Now, I had heard stories about curious incidences of cattle mutilation before. Many times. But I never really looked into it. I put it down to a few cranks and weirdos with the odd greedy farmer embellishing his story for compensation.



I can't recall exactly why I watched that film but when I did the debate was effectively over. For those who don't know - since AT LEAST 1952 there have been reports throughout the world of cattle and wild animals being discovered in a horrifically "mutilated" condition. I've used inverted commas because these injuries really don't conform to any kind of explicable behaviour. Major organs both internal and external are excised in ways which not only defy explanation but also current technological capabilities. Typically these organs are removed through impossibly small orifices which invariably show the telltale signs of cauterisation - as if made by some kind of high-energy beam.



Now, the usual response people offer involves animal predation, "satanists" or secret government or corporate bio-research projects. Experienced human and animal pathologists completely rule out the first explanation. Predators such as wolves or foxes kill in a recognisable fashion with the corpse typically showing signs of tear and/or bite wounds. There are no such wounds inflicted on these animals. But more importantly - there is almost always no sign whatsoever of blood and the same certainly cannot be said about the scene of a predatory kill.



Satanists? Well, I completely agree that such people exist - but the important point to remember here is that no Satanists to my knowledge have ever been arrested or even suspected of carrying out these killings. But even if they did - they must be awfully busy and have an extremely long reach because it is the sheer MAGNITUDE of these killings which is astounding. Recorded cases now number in the many thousands, spread all across the globe. If we are to believe that satanists are afoot (presumably driving around in Winnebagoes packing state-of-the-art surgical tools) on this kind of scale without ever being caught or arrested then we really do have a problem on our hands.



I don't believe this - which means the only other explanation is some kind of government/corporate (very) "dark" research project. Now, don't get me wrong - I wouldn't put it past the likes of the major biotech companies or such to get involved in this kind of stuff. Indeed, I wouldn't expect anything less. But if we are to believe this then there are some obvious questions which need to be addressed. For instance, why return the bodies? Why risk exposure? Why not buy the cattle and conduct said research within the privacy of their own facilities? It doesn't make any sense.



But it's the GOVERNMENT reaction to the animal mutilation question which I think gives the game away. Farmers up and down Britain have universally complained that not only does the British government provide almost no help in protecting and/or investigating these crimes - they have even gone so far as to SUBVERT further investigation. Time and time again there have been stories of farmers seeing unidentified government suits turning up and snatching the carcases with a "My way or the highway" attitude. Then they suddenly discover all manner of special-forces types tramping across their land completely uninvited and unannounced.



Then there are the even more concerning stories of human bodies turning up with exactly the same wounds. Now, I have to be careful talking about this because the evidence is nowhere near as concrete. For years there were rumours about people being found with similar injuries but from what I can discover they are largely that - rumour. However, there was at least ONE confirmed case in Brazil which was comprehensively examined by experienced pathologists in an extensive report. That report makes very interesting reading.



IMO, based on the number of cases, the diversity, the bizarre wounds which if current technology is capable of inflicting today - [uthe technology of 1952 certainly was not[/u, the curtain of silence and a host of other factors I really don't have time to mention I can arrive at only one conclusion.



I mean, if someone can come up with a better one I'm all ears. But whether the answer is terrestrial or not - we have a problem here. A big one. A problem which no one seems to want to talk about. Questions to MPs are either completely ignored or the senders are given the runaround. And let's not forget - farmers up and down Britain really are hopping mad about this. No farmer can tolerate 17 sheep snatched, butchered and killed in one evening without some kind of explanation.



Did governments across the globe and the mainstream media drop the UFO question because they don't believe they are capable of protecting the people?



What we do know is that up until at least the mid-sixties the US government took the question of UFOS [uVERY SERIOUSLY[/u. There are countless official reports of nuclear installations being "buzzed" by such craft. The Russians have even claimed that not only was one of their silos visited by a craft of unknown origin - it even went so far as to initiate LAUNCH PROCEDURES. Nations as paranoid as the US & the USSR can only consider such encounters to constitute a grave threat to national security and so it is reasonable to suggest that they may want to suppress further knowledge.



We are told that the US government just gave up on the question of UFOs. I don't think that's true. Indeed, I strongly suspect it has been the cornerstone of the United States' seemingly inexplicable spending on national defence. That said, I also believe that we are now seeing the first steps taken toward some kind of disclosure. I think the Rendalsham Forest report forms at least part of this process. How much disclosure we'll get I'm not sure. But I think it's likely some kind of limited announcement will be made within ten years. Maybe sooner.

I forgot to include one other possible alternative - and that this forms part of a counter-intelligence strategy to make people BELIEVE alien life forms exist in order to justify increased defence spending. This possibility has been put forward before and it is incredibly tempting. I think it's problematic on two counts which I will try to go into later on if I get chance.



Either way - plenty to talk about.

[iThe Night Sky thread or Astronomy preferential treatment thread i'm afraid does have a massive linkage with conspiracy in fact its Astronomically littered with conspiracies. Pardon the pun. Unfortunately you fail to recognise the Yin and Yang version to any topic of conversation. You also fail to recognise forums are about debating both sides of a certain topic not just one sided closed minded blinkered thinking. Well if you're thinking of merging the two its a fair shout why should you get preferential treatment or if The Astronomy thread stays as it is and you refrain from posting on the NASA Bull thread. That way we laugh at you and you laugh at us meaning both parties win. If not Do one mard don't shut the door Slam it quick behind you.[/i

This is my last statement on this issue because I really am limited in terms of time these days.



I openly hold my hands up to having the odd laugh at other folk's expense, putting my points across forcefully and unloading with both barrels into people. But I think anyone who looks carefully at the way I behave will notice that it is almost always retaliatory.



I set up the (loosely) moderated conspiracy thread precisely because I was sick to the back teeth of seeing anyone with any kind of opinion which doesn't conform to mainstream opinion repeatedly attacked with some pretty personal stuff.



Now, I really don't care what other people think of me. But it bothers me when I see people or groups of people (and it's ALWAYS THE SAME SUSPECTS) skip straight to the personal stuff whenever folk want to discuss non-conformist stuff. It's as though all semblance of etiquette in debate goes straight out the window - the matter supposedly up for debate fades completely and the attacks begin.



I copped a ton of flak for setting up the supposed "conspiracy thread" - but had I not intervened the same people would have made any debate on what I believe are very interesting topics completely impossible.



I mean, who precisely is supporting freedom of thought and expression here? I don't demand that people conform to MY interpretation of events such as 9/11 or the Kennedy case.



Far too many people have fallen into the trap of thinking Truth is defined by authority or majority rules. Yet science (with the field of astronomy being right at the forefront) is inherently anti-authoritarian.



The LAST thing we want is for government agencies such as NASA to define what is and what is not Truth. Why? Because it only needs for such organisations to be penetrated by individuals who are not what they seem for the whole system to be corrupted.



Part of the problem we face today is so many of these policy-making groups have been penetrated. It's basic counter-intelligence 1-2-3. The oldest trick in the book.