Would NASA conceal evidence of advanced, extra-terrestrial civilization?

[Pepperbelly]

This was touched upon in another thread and I believe that it could bear discussion so long as it doesn't degenerate into a flame fest or pissing contest. I think rational discussion is possible. Of course, I have been wrong many times over the course of my life.

Barring any nefarious reasons for such withholding, one possible reason for the government to withhold information from the citizenry would be altruistic. Could there be a reason for withholding that is rational?

One thing is certain ... NASA is a government agency and government agencies operate in predictable ways. They generate paper by the wagonload ... policies for this, studies of that, manuals for the other ... they float on a sea of paper.

NASA came into being in 1958, succeeding the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, under the National Aeronautics and Space Act. While I am not a scientist, I have, over the years, burrowed deeply into major bureaucracies and believe that bureaucracies are all pretty much the same in many ways. It is the nature of organization. In addition, each bureaucracy also has its own personality. Some are subtle, some brash. Those personalities are the product of the organization's history, culture, legal environment, financial environment, and business procedures.

That brings to mind ... what was NASA thinking about when it was legislated into being? What was on the minds of those first NASA bureaucrats as well as the legislators who established it? Is there any way of knowing? Of course there is --studies.

They study everything to death. That's government. In this case, it was no different. NASA commissioned a study by the Brookings Institute, an organization that I expect all of the readers of this forum are very familiar, entitled, "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs." Very sexy title, no?

As it turns out, on page 215 of the study, one of the concerns Brookings identified was the disintegrating effect of socieities "certain of their place in the universe which have disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different lifeways: others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior."

On the next page, 216, Brookings mentioned the possibility of withholding the information from the public.

So ... is it possible that withholding information is part of the NASA organizational personality or are they absolutely transparent?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Absolutely.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Rosco T.]

2. Actually, one of the things in the Brookings Report 'feared'...

.. was the breakdown of... (wait for it)... RELIGION. THe conclusions of the report... don't tell, ever.

[tk2kewl]

5. is that why the history channel has those bible/ufo shows?

preparing the sheeple for the news that there are other beings out there, and giving them a ready made biblical explanation? :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

11. actually ... Brookings floated that very notion ...

on page 226 ...

"A possible but not completely satisfactory means for making the the possibility "real" for many people would be to confront them with present speculations about the I.Q. in a porpoise and to encourage them to expand upon the implications of this situation."

"Such studies would include historical reactions to hoaxes, psychic manifestations, unidentified flying objects, etc. Hadley Cantrell's study 'Invasion from Mars' (Princeton University Press, 1940 would provide a useful if limited guide in this area."

:D

[tk2kewl]

12. Yikes!

:tinfoilhat:

[sam sarrha]

22. it will not effect the current believers. but it will make Religion extint

just as it should be.. please free us .!!

[Pepperbelly]

26. Brookings addressed that as well ... however ...

Brookings also speculated that among the hardest hit would be scientists and engineers.

[sam sarrha]

37. can you elaborate on that.. what will it inhance.. gardening

:woohoo:

[Ian David]

39. Scientists and engineers would not be "hardest hit"???

They would be the ones so happy that they'd be whistling the song from E.T. out their asses and playing frisbee with DC-ROMS in the halls of academia.

The ones "hardest hit" would be the "traditional" religions who would suddenly find themselves competing for market-share with the self-castrating Heavens Gate.

The only things scientists enjoy more than being right is being surprised, even if it means they're proved wrong.

It's what separates Scientists from the Crystal-Clutchers.

Besides, it's the scientists and engineers who would suddenly find themselves on TV more than they ever dreamed.

Remember all the otherwise obscure scientists who are suddenly all over TV every time a Mars rover finds a pretty boulder? Or when they thought there might have been evidence of life on Mars in a meteorite?

None of them seemed "hard hit" by the possibility of extra-terrestrial life.

Heck, some of them were probably already writing the Nobel Prize acceptance speeches.

[Maple]

44. They could be very 'hard hit'

They are currently a 'priesthood of knowledge'...what if all that 'knowledge' turns out to be nonsense?

You're assuming they'll be 'proved right', but the universe is full of surprises.

[Ian David]

57. That is so, so wrong on so many levels

1) They publish
2) They debate
3) They admit when they're wrong
4) They seek and invite proof that they are wrong
5) You can buy books about science

I have rarely seen anything so profoundly misguided posted here on DU.

[Maple]

62. LOL and it could all be astrology

for all the relevance it has in the universe.

And I have a degree in science, so no patronizing thank you

[beam me up scottie]

94. And my cat has a degree in astrology,

how dare you insult his field of study !

[Ian David]

121. Then should I call you "Father," since you're the Scientific Priesthood?

First of all:

1) I don't believe you, but I could be wrong
2) If I'm wrong, then I despair for the future of Humanity

[Maple]

You could, but

a) I'm female

b) I don't believe in allowing a scientific priesthood to exist. Hoarding knowledge away from the common folk does strange things to the minds of priests. They start actually confusing themselves with God.

c) Knowledge is power...and everyone should have access to it.



PS...yes, you are wrong and that's a GOOD thing for humanity.

[Pepperbelly]

70. From the Brookings Study ...

"It has been speculated that of all groups scientists and engineers might be the most devestated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures since these professions ae most clearly associated with the mastery of nature rather than with the understanding and expression of man. Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all of our theories at the very least if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to earth scientists."

It is interesting that we see many of the things discussed by Brookings back in 1960 apparent in our culture.

[Maple]

74. EXACTLY

We are in a remote backwash of the universe, with brains that do about 200 transactions per second...slower than our own computers...yet we lay claim to tremendous knowledge, and still think ourselves the center of everything

[samdogmom]

3. Of course they could.

Closer to home, another government agency hid/downplayed the mad cow problem in America. How about the current government stance on Global Warming? They can tell us whatever they want us to believe and hide or rewrite facts that don't agree with their position.

[HawkerHurricane]

4. Sure.

for about 10 minutes.

Nasa types are scientists and engineers. They talk.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. that's an excellent point

Scientists don't become well-known by hiding a controversial find.

[Pepperbelly]

19. Have you ever ...

revealed classified information?

I know you were or are Navy. Me, too. With the clearances and all. I never talked about any of the stuff I knew. Would these guys be less inclined to follow the security regulations if such information were classififed?

[Ian David]

40. They would broadcast it before the Government could declare it classified

As a standard part of the scientific method, scientists always seek out other scientists to confirm observations and to replicate results.

For example:

If a SETI antenna thinks it receives a signal from E.T., suddenly hundreds of observatories around the world are notified and swing into action to either confirm or disprove the possibility of an intelligent signal.


In fact, in the post 9-11 world, there was a shake-up at Los Alamos because scientists weren't being allowed to publish their data and share with other scientists-- so many of them left.

Scientists don't play that whole secrecy game very well.

And remember, for something so big, there are two words in every scientist's mind: Nobel Prize.

[Pepperbelly]

102. another word that will occur to them ...

GITMO.

[beam me up scottie]

100. This one did, even better

he smuggled out pictures:

[Maple]

6. Yes, certainly

After the original War of the Worlds by Orson Wells aired on radio, and people leaped out of windows, there seems to have been a concerted effort to pooh-pooh everything.

And after the JFK assassination, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has come into disrepute...as in 'another grassy knoll idea.'

Lately it's 'tinfoil hats'

But in any case, officially nothing like this exists, and it's now been dropped even as a matter of ordinary conversation, because you get hit by all this.

[phaseolus]

21. this is a dangerous road to walk down

I can't dispute your examples, at all. However -- *IF* the implied conclusion is 'if we're not hearing about (insert theory here), then there must be an active coverup going on' is a logical fallacy.

Apologies in advance if that isn't what you were hinting at, but I'm one of those guys with a stubborn insistence on ... well, things like evidence, and the scientific method.

[Maple]

27. Except I'm not walking on it

I said nothing about every theory ever formulated, no matter how wild, being 'covered up'

I believe in evidence and the scientific method as well...but where I come from that involves being able to ask questions without being branded as mentally unstable.

We don't need more extremism...we need a balance.

[Pepperbelly]

29. Hear! Hear!

But not fair and balanced. We leave that up to others.

[Ian David]

43. The War of the Worlds hysteria has been greatly exaggerated

The Martian Panic Sixty Years Later
What Have We Learned?
The `War of the Worlds' panic happened sixty years ago, but its lessons are as relevant today as back then.

Robert E. Bartholomew

<snip>

Not only does the Martian panic demonstrate the enormous influence of the mass media in contemporary society, but in recent years an ironic twist has developed. There is a growing consensus among sociologists that the extent of the panic, as described by Cantril, was greatly exaggerated (Miller 1985; Bainbridge 1987; Goode 1992). The irony here is that for the better part of the past sixty years many people may have been misled by the media to believe that the panic was far more extensive and intense than it apparently was. However, regardless of the extent of the panic, there is little doubt that many Americans were genuinely frightened and some did try to flee the Martian gas raids and heat rays, especially in New Jersey and New York.

Based on various opinion polls and estimates, Cantril calculated that of about 1.7 million people who heard the drama, nearly 1.2 million "were excited" to varying degrees (58). Yet there is only scant anecdotal evidence to suggest that many listeners actually took some action after hearing the broadcast, such as packing belongings, grabbing guns, or fleeing in motor vehicles. In fact, much of Cantril's study was based on interviews with just 135 people. Bainbridge (1987) is critical of Cantril for citing just a few colorful stories from a small number of people who panicked. According to Bainbridge, on any given night, out of a pool of over a million people, at least a thousand would have been driving excessively fast or engaging in rambunctious behavior. From this perspective, the event was primarily a news media creation. Miller (1985, 100) supports this view, noting that while the day after the panic many newspapers carried accounts of suicides and heart attacks by frightened citizens, they proved to have been unfounded but have passed into American folklore. Miller also takes Cantril to task for failing to show substantial evidence of mass flight from the perceived attack (1985, 106), citing just a few examples and not warranting an estimate of over one million panic-stricken Americans. While Cantril cites American Telephone Company figures indicating that local media and law enforcement agencies were inundated with up to 40 percent more telephone calls than normal in parts of New Jersey during the broadcast, he did not determine the specific nature of these calls:

Some callers requested information, such as which units of national guard were being called up or whether casualty lists were available. Some people called to find out where they could go to donate blood. Some callers were simply angry that such a realistic show was allowed on the air, while others called CBS to congratulate Mercury Theater for the exciting Halloween program. . . . we cannot know how many of these telephone calls were between households. It seems . . . (likely) many callers just wanted to chat with their families and friends about the exciting show they had just listened to on the radio (Miller 1985, 107).

Goode (1992, 315) agrees with Miller's assessment, but also notes that to have convinced a substantial number of listeners "that a radio drama about an invasion from Mars was an actual news broadcast has to be regarded as a remarkable achievement." Either way you view it, whether tens of thousands of people became panic-stricken, or more than a million, there is no denying that the mass media have significantly influenced public perception of the event. There is also no disputing that similar broadcasts have resulted in full-fledged panics.

More:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/martian.html


Refs:

# Miller, D. 1985. Introduction to Collective Behavior. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
# Noll, R. (ed). 1992. Vampires, Werewolves, and Demons: Twentieth Century Reports in the Psychiatric Literature. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
http://www.csicop.org/q/book/0881334367

# Goode, E. 1992. Collective Behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
# Goode, E., and N. Ben-Yehuda, 1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford: Blackwell.
http://www.csicop.org/q/book/0155000330

Bainbridge, W.S. 1987. Collective Behavior and Social Movements. Pp. 544-576. In R. Stark (ed.), Sociology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

[Maple]

49. Like I said 'pooh pooh' it

60 years later.

However it is well documented, in spite of later efforts to downplay it.

[Ian David]

58. I'll pooh pooh it because it's full of pooh. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

60. C'mon, Ian !

Lighten up !

Get into the spirit !!

It's not like this is the SCIENCE forum or anything....

[Maple]

64. And I believe a rational discussion

was called for at the beginning.

Day care language is not acceptable.

[beam me up scottie]

71. I am being rational !

Hey, I really believe this stuff !
Don't you ?

Who are you to tell me my beliefs aren't rational ?
Very closed minded of you.
I'm disappointed.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Yep, dark Sumatran coffee from

beans roasted just yesterday !
I gotta tell you, alien beverage hawkers got nothing on those Sumatrans.

[Maple]

112. Tsunami damage no doubt

[beam me up scottie]

132. But the Tsunami was part of the Hyperdimensional Sumatra

Earthquake related to the Hyperdimensional Hurricanes.

Just ask Richard Hoagland, he wrote all about it on his SCIENTIFIC website.

You should know all about that, being a scientist and all.

[Pepperbelly]

108. There you go again ...

You present a counter-study. That is good. It points out that Cantril may be wrong. There are studies that support, studies that do not.

What we have is NOT KNOWING.

And yet, on that basis, you dismiss as pooh? If that is the new McScience, I think I'll have fries.

[Maple]

136. I like that word....!

McScience.

Everything is cut and dried, and served up according to the company formula. No choice, no deviation from the menu, pay at the cashiers, have a nice day...blah blah

The attitude is as unhealthy as the food.

[DanCa]

7. Funny thing is you dont hear too much about Roswell anymore.

Where are scully and mulder when you need them

[Ian David]

45. You know who will be the REALLY big losers if we discover E.T.?

Not the mainstream religions.

Not the scientists.

It will be the whacked-out crystal-clutchers who will meet with the aliens, and hear it straight from the alien's mouth (or speaking-organ) that they did not build the pyramids, did not make crop circles, did notcrash in Roswell, that they have seen Neil Armstrong's real footprints on the moon, and they have seen Cedonia and there is not a "Face on Mars" there, and most assuredly aliens did not unleash Body Thetans in a volcano.

Of course, some people will just claim, "Well, maybe there's an even more advanced alien race making crop circles that this species doesn't know about."

Or maybe the ALIENS are trying to cover-up the Crop Circle Conspiracy, too!

There will always be people willing to cut their balls off and drink the kool-aid to hitch a ride on a comet no matter what.

[beam me up scottie]

48. How DARE you question my beliefs !!!

Your mind is closed, therefore, you Sir, are NOT a scientist !!!

[Maple]

51. That's odd, the Chinese have state web- workers

whose job it is to watch all web postings, questions and readings in order to refute and ridicule them, and assure Chinese posters of the gloriousness of the Chinese state.

Hmmmmm. Would they be the only country doing that?

[beam me up scottie]

63. Do they look like this ?

[Maple]

66. No, they look like you

because you are making Herculean efforts to get the thread off-topic, and reassure everyone that the govt is always right

[beam me up scottie]

73. No, I agree with you, ufology is a serious science.

And I know all about the government conspiracy that's been hiding the truth from us !

[Pepperbelly]

75. why are you attempting to hijack the thread ...

with your histrionics?

Do you have anything to contribute or are you merely here to act childish?

[beam me up scottie]

79. I'm being totally serious.

Who are you to doubt my scientificalabilty ?

[Maple]

80. Curious isn't it?

Apparently even questions and discussion have to be made fun of now.

I gather they aren't allowed in the US anymore?

[beam me up scottie]

83. Who's making fun ? This is the Science forum, isn't it ?

I totally believe everything you say.
The government can't be trusted so they're guilty of everything.
I believe!
I BELIEVE !!!

[Maple]

86. Not with you in it, it isn't

Science is the search for knowledge. You're giving science a bad name.

[beam me up scottie]

93. This IS science !

You doubting Thomas !
Scientists should be open to any ideas!
Anything else is closed minded, don't you know?

[Maple]

104. I repeat, not with your presence

Perhaps you'd be happier in the Lounge.

[beam me up scottie]

107. I thought you were going to ignore me ?

Or were you just saying that to throw THEM off ?

Ah, got it!

[Maple]

110. I've been busy talking with

people with a brain...haven't gotten around to putting you on Ignore.

Plan to though, as you're just wasting everyones time on here

[beam me up scottie]

113. Yes, very serious-type science talk going on here.

I'm just trying to help, mam.

[Maple]

120. Go watch StarTrek

[beam me up scottie]

124. But that's fiction !

I want to learn about science, that's why I'm here.

[Maple]

129. Actually, it's SCIENCE-fiction

and you never learned anything from either topic

[beam me up scottie]

138. Oh, teach me great master!

I am not worthy.

[Pepperbelly]

85. These few posters act like misbehaving children ...

for some reason. I do not know why. It is just peculiar. And these very same like to pretend they can discuss topics of interest as adults.

[beam me up scottie]

88. Yes, the NERVE

of these people !
Can't even have a legitimate discussion about NASA's cover up of space alien civilisations.
What's DU coming to ?

[Maple]

90. Nerve indeed to forbid questions

Gosh, you'd think it was a police state.

Papers citizen?

[Pepperbelly]

92. for me ...

I have been at DU since the beginning. These certain trolls are Johnny-Come-Latelys and I don't think they are going to manage to do anything much more than destroy what little credibility they accrued in their short stay.

The Ignore Feature works well.

[Maple]

98. Good idea!

I've never used that feature, but some posters TRY to be a waste of bandwidth.

[Bill McBlueState]

150. you're a Chinese state web-worker?

Damn, all this time I just thought you had a good sense of humor.

:evilfrown:

[beam me up scottie]

159. Shhhh! You'll blow my cover!

I also work for the Illuminati and Klingons.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Roswell ?? They have proof !

Hi DanCa! Have you seen the latest photos ?
VERY confidential, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Union Thug]

8. NASA or Energy Interests?

I've never bought the coverup up because "people aren't ready to face this reality" bullshit. If they can face cancer, they can deal with another species.. Geezus.

BUT *IF* (and that's a big IF for me) people like Dr. Greer are correct and the coverup is about a threat to the petrol economy, then I would say, it would DEFINATELY be covered up. Whether you believe or a skeptic like myself, the disclosure project is certainly interesting reading!!!!

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

Edit to include this link to 'implications':

http://www.disclosureproject.org/ES-DisclosureImplications-2.htm

[Canuckistanian]

9. Perfectly understandable.

I'm wary of any government agency withholding information, especially this government, but considering the level of ignorance, violence and stupidity in the world (and in particular, one corner of it), I don't think the world is ready to absorb that level of revelation.

[electron_blue]

10. As someone who has worked with NASA on these studies, no

The scientists who work on NASA projects like the ones you describe are virtually all externally funded scientists, meaning they are university faculty, typically. Many of the remaining ones are civil servants in their jobs for only 5 yrs or less, then they are out again. On top of that, take it from me, NASA is so disorganized in their infrastructure, they are not capable of such a long-standing cover-up.

[TomPainesBones]

23. You're right! They're NOT capable of such a cover-up.

Gordon Cooper already spilled the beans (That blabbermouth!)


***********************
Statements by Astronaut Gordon Cooper Regarding UFOs

Colonel L. Gordon Cooper, Mercury-9, Gemini-5 Astronaut, Addressing a United Nations Panel Discussion on UFOs and ETs in New York in 1985. The panel was chaired by then Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim.

"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets which obviously are a little more technically advanced than we are here on Earth. I feel that we need to have a top level, coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the earth concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best to interface with these visitors in a friendly fashion. We may first have to show them that we have learned to resolve our problems by peaceful means, rather than warfare, before we are accepted as fully qualified universal team members. This acceptance would have tremendous possibilities of advancing our world in all areas. Certainly then it would seem that the UN has a vested interest in handling this subject properly and expeditiously.

For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists and astronauts. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us.

And there are thousands of witness reports and a quantity of documents to prove this, but nobody wants to make them public.

Why? Because the authorities are afraid that people may think of some kind of horrible invaders. So the password still is: We have to avoid panic by all means."


*****************************


In another interview he said:

"As far as I am concerned, there have been too many unexplained examples of UFO sightings around this Earth for us to rule out the possibilities that some form of life exists out there beyond our own world."

And in an exclusive interview with the National Enquirer on 14 January 1997, Cooper speaks openly about alien spacecraft. He says there's been a massive government cover-up of UFOs for nearly 50 years and insists the American public has a right to know the truth.

"I know other astronauts share my feelings," declared Cooper, 69, who went into space aboard a Mercury craft in 1963 and on a Gemini craft two years later.

"And we know the government is sitting on hard evidence of UFOs!"

Cooper said he first encountered UFOs as a military pilot in Germany in the early 1950s, when unidentified craft were spotted over an air base.

"We thought they could have been Russian. We regularly had MiG-15s overflying our base. We scrambled ourSabre jets to intercept and got to our ceiling of 45,000 feet . . . and they were still way above us traveling faster than we were.

"These vehicles were in formation like a fighter group, but they were metallic silver and saucer-shaped. Believe me, they weren't like any MiGs I'd seen before! They had to be UFOs."


http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc502.htm

************************

[Pepperbelly]

34. Gordo had a mouth on him ...

I always loved the guy but not in a gay way (not that there's anything wrong with that.) :D

And then there is STS 48.

[Ian David]

47. I hear that being bombarded with cosmic rays can affect one's brain

I'm just throwing that out there for no particular reason.

[Maple]

52. I think you heard wrong

but it's interesting you felt compelled to throw the misinfo in here anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Misinfo ?

In this thread ?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Say it ain't so!
:rofl:

[Ian David]

61. I see you didn't even bother to check. How very scientific of you

I suppose space radiation can't be bad for you because it is "natural" and anything "natural" is healthy, nutritious, great to put in shampoo and pills, and should be free of government regulation.

There is this thing called "Google" that someone just invented.

You should learn how to use it.

Channeling the Spirit of Xenu to Reveal All that is Hidden is slightly less effective.

My guess is the "Scientific Priesthood" is trying to conceal the existence of this top-secret "Google Device," which is why you haven't heard of it...


Two hundred investigators, students, and interested professionals from the United States, Sweden, Russia, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom participated in the 3rd International Workshop on Space Radiation Research and 15th Annual NASA Space Radiation Health Investigators' Workshop held May 16-20, 2004 at Danfords on the Sound in Port Jefferson, New York. Sessions on Radiation Carcinogenesis and Genomic Instability; Non-Cancer Risks; Neurological Damage from Space Radiation; Molecular and Cellular Responses; Radiation Quality and Biological Studies of Shielding; Dosimetry, Physics, and Shielding; Biomarkers, Sensitivity, and Prevention; and Space Exploration Radiation Risk Assessment Roadmap attracted the researchers to the Workshop. Special sessions included an evening poster session and reception and a special session at the Brookhaven National Laboratory that included a tour of the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory.

More:
http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/Volume4-1/IssueText.htm


Human Biological Effects of Long-Term Space Radiation Tyman Stephens
http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5506/stephens.pdf

Space Radiation Health Newsletter, Volume 5, Issue 1
http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/Volume5-1/index.cfm

[Maple]

65. And there was nothing about

Cooper being affected by it, sorry.

That's a classic 'guilt by association' tactic

[ngant17]

32. NASA as a political institution

I've done some research on NASA and its involvement in the politics prior to and after the JFK years, and there's no question in my mind that NASA was very much a rightwing institution and they came very close to being abolished in late 1963 (recall that JFK toured Cape Canaveral immediately before he went to the ill-fated parade in Dealy Plaza the following week, 22 Nov. 1963).

I do not think that NASA is so rightwing now, but I haven't really looked into this beauracracy since I did the previous research.

I can not understand why the President can talk about privatizing Soc. Security, but no one in the gov. can even bring up the idea of privatizing NASA. NASA has never and will never turn a profit, you can't make money in space and no one in the forseeable future will, at least until an anti-gravity device can be invented to reduce some of the costs.

I don't understand why the world has a European space agency, a Russian space agency, a Chinese space agency, ect. when there is no theoretical reason why everyone couldn't pool their resources so that no one nation and its population bears the burden of space exploration. Pres. Kennedy's original idea, BTW. This kind of cooperative thinking will never happen under people like Bush, to be sure.

Also, NASA is prohibited by federal law from cooperating in manned space missions with communist countries such as China or Vietnam. Strange law, but it's called the Pelly Admendment and this is a relic of the Cold War-era which has yet to be abolished. By the same token, if ETs were from an alien society which existed in some kind of advanced communist society, NASA would legally be prohibited by federal law from having anything to do with them.

Secondly, NASA would have everything to gain and nothing to lose by publicizing evidence of the existence of ET, so it's obvious that there are no ETs to expose, let alone to cover up from the public eye.

[Maple]

227. LOL is that really still in effect??

The Pelly amendment I mean??

Russia is currently supplying the food to the space station in the absence of the shuttle...heck of a time for that amendment to kick in I would think! Ssssshhhhh!

I find it hilarious that if there WERE communist aliens, the US couldn't talk to them. :rofl:

GET OFF MY LAWN YOU COMMIES. BACK TO YOUR OWN PLANET.

ZOT! TAKE THAT EARTHLING!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. not to mention the danger to many american religious organizations

We have too many stars, planets, galaxies for life NOT to exist, it is only our limited senses and ego-centric view of the world that prevent us from truly seeing the universe for what it is.

I once read someplace that humanity created god in its image, then turned around and claimed that god then created humanity in his image. Aliens are not likely to have two eyes, arms, nostrils, legs, testicles, ovaries, big toes, ears or knees.

a hard shell offers more protection than our silly skin. radiation, temps, perhaps even a touch of vaccuum could be dealt with. A successful species would likely be more kindred to a crab or a lobster, than an ape.

optics - our eyes are pretty limited. Why don't we have 360 degree vision? Why can't we concentrate on extremely small items, and why to eagles and dogs see great distances far better than we? Forget about the visual spectrum. a truly mature optical system, in an advanced civilization would see far, far more than we do. Infrared, ultraviolet, maybe even x-rays. An alien's visual system would be very strange indeed. It would be a very rare coincidence if their visual spectrum was even close to ours. (our libraries would be safe - they would never be able to read our books)

Life outside earth? sure it exists. Our problem is that we, as a species, are too small minded to understand the ramifications and are too concerned about the movement of little pieces of green paper to deal with it.

Would the government keep it secret if they had evidence? hell, yes. The riots in the South east - Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia (I'd like to add Kansas for creationist reasons) would create great instability for this country. I suspect most of the rest of the world would fare far better than the fundie parts of our country.

[Ian David]

50. More planets means more chances to expand markets and evangelism

I would think the Mormons in particular would be anxious to start sending missionaries to Tau Ceti if the opportunity presented itself.

Also, aliens might not yet be aware that nobody actually eats fruitcake and they certainly don't have Rubix Cubes, Playstations or "Personal Watercraft" yet.

Think of all the useless shit we can sell them!

Mary Kay... Amway... Avon... Halliburton... all will be clamoring for a ride to the stars.

And porn!

They've never seen Earth Porn!

[Ian David]

46. Maybe not enough people will pay attention to make a difference?

There are actually Americans who don't know we landed on the moon.

I'm not talking about the people who think it was a hoax.

I'm talking about the people who just DON'T KNOW!

I think the people most likely to react adversely to it simply won't pay enough attention to be a concern.

Especially if Fox "News" doesn't cover it. Maybe it will be in the ticker-tape below the story about the "Missing Pretty White Girl of the Week."

[megatherium]

13. I recall there is a protocol for disclosure of this kind of discovery.

The scientists involved send their information through channels to military or civilian leadership, which then makes the decision as to if, when and how to make the disclosure. I believe this protocol has actually been begun once or twice -- although each time, the apparent discovery turned out not to be extraterrestrial.

I'm not confident that civilian scientists would talk, either. They would understand the gravity of the situation, and they would be in a circumstance where unauthorized disclosure would be dealt with harshly (I believe there are laws in place for this sort of thing).

[Maple]

17. Isn't NASA run by the military?

And on any government project aren't there strict security precautions?

As to the idea that people would 'talk' and you could never keep that many people quiet...we are still discovering things about WWII over half a century after it ended, because people were sworn to secrecy.

Anyone that did talk could easily be branded as a kook, or ill or on medication, or holding a grudge.

[Pepperbelly]

25. This is how it is governed by law ...

The National Aeronautics and Space Council consists of the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Administrator of NASA, the Chairman of the AEC, one other bureaucrat from within the Federal government appointed by the President and 3 other "distinguished" citizens (from science, engineering, technology, education, administration or public affairs).

:D

[Maple]

28. I believe that changed

some time ago

[Pepperbelly]

35. so who are you saying runs it? nt

[Maple]

41. NASA and military always hand in glove

http://www.space.com/news/military_space_010829-1.html

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17437

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/50191/nasa_military_to_work_closely_on_space_effort/

Military Space/Missiles Fact Sheets, Consolidated
AF Space Command Fact Sheets
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Fact Sheets

The Heritage of Military Space Operations (Cape Canaveral and Patrick AFB), incl history of 45th Space Wing
Missile and Space Launches thru 1970, incl pics of systems
Military Space Ops, 1971-1992, incl pics of systems
Air Force Museum
Space Flight Gallery, Air Force Museum

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-fact.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/agency/afspc.htm

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/D/archnas1570.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_8Z7KNENZ0sJ:www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/Global%2520network%2520broc.pdf+military+takes+over+NASA&hl=en



NRO, Space Command, NASA Tout Common Language
Of "Space Supremacy" at Conference

http://www.stopthenato.org/m/zit/id_ses/2337520f9/id_p/10/opt/read_e/id_s/358.html

[Pepperbelly]

59. I still bet that the same cast of characters set atop the structure ...

The Prez ... SecDef ... SecState ... NASA ...AEC (or DOE) ...

[Maple]

67. The president is ultimately

in charge of everything...and given the current president, that's not reassuring

[beam me up scottie]

68. Yes and this is what they really look like:

[Maple]

72. You and a few of your friends I take it?

Now if you want to discuss astrology you're in the wrong section.

You are miles off topic on some toot (probably literally) of your own

[beam me up scottie]

77. GASP! How DARE YOU dis astrology !!!

That is another serious science that apparently you dismiss with your usual closed mindedness.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

[Maple]

82. YOU sir, are 'overly refreshed'

Have a nice evening...elsewhere

[beam me up scottie]

87. Are you telling me I have to leave ?

You must be a Terribly Important Person.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

111. MADAM!

I resemble that remark !

I never imbibe of spirits.

Why that would leave my mind unable to fend off the mind control rays.

I'm not a novice, you know.

[Maple]

115. What's your screen name on here again?

Gosh, wouldn't that be from a fictional character?

A TV show at that?

Tsk.

[beam me up scottie]

122. But some people know the difference!

To others, there is none !
Just like us in the ufology field !

[Maple]

131. Then post when you figure it out

because at the moment you're very confused.

Perhaps when your 'coffee' wears off...?

[beam me up scottie]

144. Trying to tell me what to do again ?

Oh, that's right.
You're a Very Important Person.

[arwalden]

151. Maple... those are cheap shots

... saying things like that are attacks on the messenger and not the message.

[Pepperbelly]

155. give me a break ...

Pot, meet kettle.

That individual that is hectoring this thread with nonsense ... much like a child in a tantrum running through the house screaming and wiping pooh on his/her clothes, does nothing but bait.

Regardless of which side you happen to be on, whining about cheap shots against that person is like claiming that the people shooting anti-aircraft guns at marauding bombers are killers.

[beam me up scottie]

161. Spoken like the true Skeptic Group disrupter you are.

Talk about pots and kettles...
:rofl:

[Desertrose]

179. Well, its clear you don't know the difference between discussion and

disruption, going by your posts in this thread.

[arwalden]

162. Rules Are Rules...

... and the admins have stated on more than one occasion that (for example) even if someone IS a freeper, that you can't CALL THEM a freeper.

<< That individual that is hectoring this thread with nonsense ... much like a child in a tantrum running through the house screaming and wiping pooh on his/her clothes, does nothing but bait. >>

:rofl: :spray:

If anyone thinks that someone is a disruptor, then they should hit alert.

<< Regardless of which side you happen to be on, whining about cheap shots against that person is like claiming that the people shooting anti-aircraft guns at marauding bombers are killers. >>

Oh brother! :eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

168. I guess emoticons pass for ...

discourse in some sectors. Oh well ... go figure.

[arwalden]

176. Emoticons Too Distracting For You? Give Me A Fucking Break!

You say:

<< That individual that is hectoring this thread with nonsense ... much like a child in a tantrum running through the house screaming and wiping pooh on his/her clothes, does nothing but bait. >>

... and you chide me for laughing at it with an emoticon? You're actually expecting "discourse" in response to that absurd image and personal comparison?

On what level would you like to discuss that bit of wisdom that you shared with us? Please... lead the way. :eyes:

<< Regardless of which side you happen to be on, whining about cheap shots against that person is like claiming that the people shooting anti-aircraft guns at marauding bombers are killers. >>

Again... over-the-top hyperbole like this deserves little more than rolling-eyes. Clearly, the high opinion you have of your own posts, wit, and wisdom is MUCH higher than mine.

[beam me up scottie]

169. He's calling ME a disruptor ?

Been to the Skeptic group lately ?
If I were a disruptor, I'd be ten times better than he is.

[TreasonousBastard]

226. I know a little about the rules, and...

I can assure you all that some things have been noticed.

[arwalden]

236. Out-

-standing :thumbsup:

[Maple]

171. There WAS no 'message'

Just disruptors to a quiet and interesting conversation.

They are now the first two people on my 'ignore' list

[arwalden]

195. You Should Know, Maple... It's Against The Rules

... to publicly announce your intentions to put someone on ignore.

[Maple]

199. Very sorry. I apologize

Goodbye.

[arwalden]

205. Apology Accepted.

[Taxloss]

196. And you're named after a tree.

Your point being?

[Maple]

198. Actually it's a syrup from a tree

and shows my nationality.

As to my point, I'm sure you know what it is.

And now folks...a return to the actual thread topic....

[Taxloss]

201. I know what it is. It's against the rules, that's what it is.

You know what else comes from trees? Sap.

[Maple]

203. Also baseball bats

Do YOU have a point here, germane to the topic, or are you joining the disruptors?

[Taxloss]

208. Not nice, is it? How germane to the topic were you posts picking on BMUS?

And nice veiled threat of violence by the way, I enjoyed that one.

[Maple]

213. I think you're talking

to the wrong poster.

Perhaps you meant to remonstrate with BMUS, since I wasn't 'picking on' anyone. Actually I was trying to talk to other people.

That's okay...I forgive you. :D

[arwalden]

215. I Think You're Pretending To Be Confused...

... so that you don't have to take responsibility for your own words and actions. I also think that you're rather use your "confusion" to be evasive instead of actually addressing the points being made.

[arwalden]

204. Oh!

:spray: :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

209. .

:spray:
:rofl:

[arwalden]

152. That's A Cheap Shot, Maple...

... even though attacking the messenger is far easier than refuting the actual message, anti-social behavior like that is not allowed.

And... who died and left you in charge of this forum? On whose authority do you get to decide who stays and who goes "elsewhere"?

[arwalden]

156. Wow, Maple... You're Awfully Clever

... at figuring out ways to circumvent DU rules that prohibit making personal attacks. What purpose does it serve to insinuate that someone is under the influence (of cocaine) while posting a message?

[Maple]

178. Yes, that's true

:D

However, I'm not trying to 'circumvent' any rules...I'm just trying to have a quiet conversation on a topic that interests me...without the peanut gallery disrupting and highjacking every remark.

PS...'off on a toot' is a very old phrase, with no connection to cocaine.

[arwalden]

182. Sure It Is...

... that's why you had to parenthetically add the word "literally" so that the double-meaning wouldn't be missed. :eyes:

I'm no fool. And I do not believe your plausible denial.

[Pepperbelly]

89. it certainly is not and ...

he has a real penchant for secrecy.

[autorank]

14. They do. They've denied my claim to be Maximum Leader,

an affront to me and my people. My patience is wearing thin and DU no longer holds me in it's trance.


Wake up, your time is limited!

[Pepperbelly]

15. You got a whole look going on with those eyebrows and such ...

but perhaps DU can yet again hypnotize you.

[autorank]

24. DU holds the secrets of the universe...don't tell anybody...they'll come

here and screw it up for the rest of you.

Through my superior intelligence and pre-post cognitive ability, I know what DU knows:

--2000 Florida was stolen; Gore should be President
--2004 USA was stolen; Kerry should be president
--The * WH is on a mission to create eco-catastrophes by ignoring Global Warming
--The * WH is on a mission to bankrupt the US Treasury thus turning us into a nation of cheap labor tech and agribusiness workers
--The * WH could care less about education
--Condi Rice is an idiot
--The leadership of your party, the Democrats, are part of an M-K-ULTRA mind control experiment that removes any traces of aggression or fighting spirit
--Dreyfuss was innocent and OJ was guilty!

--A special galactic task force is on its way to this planet to install me, Ming the Merciless, as your Maximum leader.


Wake up, your time is limited!

[Glorfindel]

18. Quarantine Patrol?

If knowledge existed of advanced civilizations who are watching us very closely because of our barbarism and propensity to murder each other, and these creatures have no intention of allowing us to spread beyond this solar system, maybe NASA would consider it in the best interest of all concerned to conceal such knowledge. Damn'd if I can figure it out.... :shrug:

But I hope there are advanced extraterrestrial civilizations! (Who mean us no harm, of course.)

:D

[Celebration]

30. As for Me

I'm looking for the ETs to save us from ourselves. You know how people say they hang around nuclear facilities and military bases. If they are advanced enough maybe they can apply some sort of "force" to keep our nukes from working right. Maybe that could save Iran. Cheney has all those underground tunnels at his house. He might be a little concerned about the ETs getting to him. The thing is Halliburton is very margninalized in the face of advanced ET technology. We would have a lot less incentive to spend massive amounts on weapons systems that the ETs could dismantle. Same for the whole rest of the military industrial complex.

:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:

[Trillo]

31. Transparent government?

:wow:


The only government I can conceive of that's transparent is no government at all, governments only want the serfs to be transparent. It is a major WAR being conducted WITHIN and against the citizens in the U.S., and has been for a quite some time. Now, the serfs data is in the hands of private contractors, and this isn't legislatively deliberate?

Ultimately, any executive branch department is answerable to the administration currently at the White House, as I understand it. I'm quite certain there are many honorable people working at NASA, just as there are everywhere, but those who rise up the ranks, pull the critical strings, and run the show? Got any dice?

Changes in Values? $$$ Follow the money.... If there's one penny to be squeezed, Uncle Sam will auction that off to the highest private bidder. All the rest of us, as serfs, lose by paying the new owners their price, day in and day out, year after year, for our entire lives, from birth till death.

Aliens? I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not.
Altruism? Not for one fraction of a second. Altruism and giving is one of the serfs' duties.

God, I wish I was being sarcastic.

[jody]

33. No way! n/t

[Igel]

36. Nope.

Poster #10 hit much of it on the head.

But, the devil's advocate would say, isn't it possible that they could still release research in a way that nobody would notice.

Not bloody likely, at least not for long.

Medvedev managed to deduce that a significant explosion occurred that spread nuclear waste over a rather wide area and led to the evacuation of the population in the area. It was a deeply classified, high-level classified, event. And he used completely non-classified sources to figure out where the area was and when the explosion occurred, and another completely non-classified source to confirm his conclusions.

To wit: biology articles, all of which had passed through numerous hands to be vetted and censored, which looked at the effects of radiation on various species in situ. He looked how the species geographically overlapped, and concluded there was only one place that fit the bill. He proposed that something happened there to release radiation. Then he compared old and new maps, and found--surprise--that precisely where the species overlapped, some little bergs had vanished. It was near, it seems, a classified area that was known in the region to hold radioactive waste. The depository went **boom!!!** But there was an unprecedented research opportunity that biologists immediately latched on to.

US Scientists would need either large salaries in permanent jobs (and a lobotomy upon retiring), or they would publish. They may publish around the event they're describing, but the event's outlines would become very clear very quickly.

[applegrove]

38. Read Bryson's book on geology & physics. It is an interesting read

even for non scientists. Shows you just how unbelievably amazing it is that humans or mammals exist at all.

[Maple]

42. I find it fascinating

that hundreds of threads are started here every day detailing Government lies and cover-ups, and unsurprisingly most of them turn out to be quite true.

Yes somehow there is a romantic notion afoot that space is sacred, and any idea of a coverup there is tinfoil hat territory.

[Ian David]

55. No, only the stupid theories are tinfoil-hat

I'd be willing to concede that some non-stupid theories concerning space and aliens and the government might be real conspiracies.

For example, I believe it's possible that there are satellites in orbit right now doing things that we don't know about.

Perhaps these satellites may be doing things that we believe won't be possible for another ten or even twenty years.

In fact, it's possible that some satellites may be doing "military stuff" while being disguised as civilian equipment.

[Maple]

69. All the ones you disagree with

are tinfoil hat apparently.

PERHAPS those things are happening???

Perhaps you've missed the news the rest of the world has been aware of for years.

[Ian David]

117. Of course they're happening. Secret satellites are a conspiracy

And it involves space.

And it's not a crazy thing to believe.

That's my point.

And there are plenty of conspiracy theories I don't believe in, yet don't think are crazy / tinfoil hat.

For example, I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by a CIA plot. But I don't think it's crazy to believe it was. Why? Because it doesn't involve magic like crop circles, ESP, etc.

I think it is extremely unlikely that the plane over Pennsylvania was actually shot-down by US fighter planes, yet I do not dismiss it out of hand. I give it a 10% chance of being true.

The only things I call stupid is stupid things.

[Maple]

127. No, they're not

The entire planet knows about military satellites...the US has even announced them on TV.

I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA either...but Oswald wasn't a lone kook.

Crop circles, ESP...? Apparently you're unaware of your own govts research.

And kindly remember...'any technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishible from magic'

There are a LOT of stupid things in the galaxy...war, famine, ignorance...and closed minds.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I find it fascinating that

ufology is being discussed in the Science forum.

No, not really fascinating, more like depressing and predictable.

[Maple]

84. I guess you think

like the Pope that condemned Galileo, that you are still the center of the universe.

Noooop sorry.

[arwalden]

97. Why Would You Say That, Maple?

[Maple]

103. There is no chance

we are alone in the universe...and that the billions of stars and planets out there are merely barren twinkly lights.

If there is one thing we know about Life, it's that it's abundant, determined, able to survive anything, and prospers in unlikely places.

[arwalden]

114. You'll Get No Argument From Me On Those Observations... But

... but your previous posts appears to be slamming another DUer as thinking that she--personally--is the center of the universe. Way harsh, man.

Besides, not believing that extraterrestrial travelers are visiting Earth is NOT the same as believing that we are the only life forms in the universe.

[beam me up scottie]

126. This thread originated

from this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=8399&mesg_id=8399

[arwalden]

130. Oh Dear...

:rofl:

[Maple]

137. No , it's a separate question

I never even saw the other thread...I think this is a worthwhile question all it's own. In spite of the kibitzers who are always present.

We are not alone in the universe, nor are we the center of it...and I have no patience with the arrogance that thinks we are.

It's this kind of brick-wall stuff that holds us back.

A prerequisite in science is an open mind.

[beam me up scottie]

145. I always consider the source.

And the op is very predictable.
It must be because of that ufo incident...

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

157. The LANGUAGE !

Not exactly ladylike, is it ?

[arwalden]

167. And not exactly permitted by DU rules either...

:eyes:

[arwalden]

165. Maple... those are cheap shots

<< 148. So do I -- which is why I'll now make time to put you on ignore. You sir, are an ass. Ciao >>

and personal attacks on the messenger and NOT the message.

[Maple]

181. Sigh...well I could give you an expensive one

but you'd like that even less.

Do you think you could stick to the topic here?

You know...as in 'follow the rules?'

[arwalden]

188. I'm Unware Of Any Rule Like That... Can You Cite It For Me?

I can, however, cite the rule to you that prohibits personal attacks. I can cite the rule that prohibits making public announcements of your intent to put someone on ignore. That also goes for name-calling, telling someone that they are not welcome to participate in a public forum, accusing them of being drunk, and other clever anti-social behavior.

<< "Sigh...well I could give you an expensive one" but you'd like that even less. >>

Whether cheap or "expensive", the quality of your personal attacks is of little interest to me. It's doubtful that I'd feel either one way or the other about it. But if you think you can get away with it, and if it makes you feel good, then by all means... knock yourself out.

[Maple]

193. I'm trying to have a quiet conversation

on an interesting topic.

I'm sorry that disturbs you

I hadn't planned to have an argument, break any rules, or have to deal with kibitzers.

Perhaps you could have a word with the disruptors rather than me.

This isn't the first thread they've tried to ruin.

And I doubt it will be the last.

Credit where credit is due after all.

[arwalden]

202. Here's What "Disturbs" Me

- Pseudo-science THREADS in the science forum.
- People who think they "own" specific threads and that they can dictate who can participate in them.
- People who think that they can make personal attacks against the messenger (rather than refuting the message).
- People who think that the rules don't apply to them.

<< "I'm trying to have a quiet conversation" on an interesting topic. >>

And you don't want anyone questioning your posts, your words, or your beliefs? I understand.

<< I'm sorry that disturbs you >>

That's not true (see above).

<< I hadn't planned to have an argument, break any rules, or have to deal with kibitzers. >>

Life is full of surprises. Many of my posts don't end up they way I had expected either.

<< Perhaps you could have a word with the disruptors rather than me. >>

Doesn't bother me. Not my problem. Learn to cope.

<< This isn't the first thread they've tried to ruin. >>

By "ruin" you mean, what? --- having a DIFFERENT opinion? refuting "facts"?

<< And I doubt it will be the last. >>

Learn to cope.

<< Credit where credit is due after all. >>

I don't understand what you're referring to with that statement. But judging from all the things you've said before, it must be an awfully clever remark at SOMEONE's expense.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Of course !!! And I have proof !

[Rosco T.]

78. Here;s a PDF of the full Brookings Report

http://www.gaiaguys.net/brookings.pdf

it's not an original scan, but a cleaned up copy.. I did spot check it against an 'original' copy and it seems in every way to be a faithful reporduction.

[Pepperbelly]

81. That original is TOUGH to find ,,,

Rare as hen's teeth.

[Rosco T.]

135. there are PDF scans out there ... I found one a LONG time ago..

.. thats what I checked it against.

[Maple]

207. Thank you

for the pdf file...I have tucked it away for future use. :D

[Trillo]

237. I don't know how the copy was cleaned up,

but the contents (not the PDF pageindex) doesn't match the pages. "implications for the general public" is stated by Contents to be on page 178, but in fact that section appears to begin on 212. hmm, 12+22=34 pages appear to have been "added".

Looks suspicious to me, the document has clearly been altered versus the contents page. Could it just be a renumbering?

according to contents, there's a "S" section that starts on page 1S and ends on page 39S. That's 39 pages.

"introduction, goals and methods" is stated to begin on page 1 in Contents, which should be right after 39S according to Contents. That section is found on pdf page 51 of 219 and the page number at the bottom of this page indicates 51.

Summary should begin on page 1S, but in fact begins on page 8.

Where did the extra pages come from? Or is that fewer pages?

If 51 is subtracted from 212 (the page the last section actually begins on) to adjust for the two different page numbering systems listed in "Contents", {1S-39S and 1-178(the beginning of last section)} then "implications for the general public" should be stated in the Contents to begin on page 161, not 178. This is not a difference of "8", so the page audit balance doesn't seem to match AT ALL.

Just a quick guess, but I'd say quite a bit of "stuff" has been added (or is it subtracted) to this document versus what ever original may or may never have existed. Quick Auditing of page numbers PROVES that the document has been SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED.

But I'm sure the LIARS will think up a quick one to RATIONALIZE the disparity. Perhaps they already have a BIG FAT LIE preplanned and ready to go, just in case anyone notices.

the point is this document, on its face lies in the page numbering system. Why shouldn't everything else in it be more LIES?

[Taxloss]

95. Given the likelihood of alien life, the age of the universe, its size,

and the limits of relativistic physics, we can be fairly sure of three things:

1. It is likely we are not alone.

2. We will never, ever make contact with anything that we can communicate with or understand.

3. If we look into the sky long enough, we see a highly advanced spaceship. It will be one of ours.

[Maple]

99. I agree with # 1

but not with 2...and 3 is iffy considering our behavior...well demonstrated on this thread alone.

[Taxloss]

119. Humankind has existed in vaguely civilised form for only 30,000 years

Probably less.

That is a split second in the life of the Universe. The idea that our tny span could coincide with that of another intelligence in our galactic neighbourhood ... I just don't buy it. If we can hang on for another 20,000 or 50,000 years, and we somehow jump outside our system - maybe then. Not now.

[Maple]

141. Coincide??

At any given time there are likely to be life forms that are comparable to our cave days, life forms that are comparable to our middle ages, life forms that are the same level as we are, life forms that are slightly ahead of us, and life forms that are far in advance of us.

Why did you assume there was only one other life form, and that we'd have to run parallel in development to it?

[Taxloss]

153. That's precisely what I'm not assuming.

What I meant was that in order to make contact with us and be vaguely understanable by us, it would have to be of a similar stage of technological development, or rather ahead, or slightly behind. And in fact statistically the gap is meant to be far, far greater - as Arthur C Clarke said, if we do encounter aliens they will be "either apes or angels" - either too savage or too advanced for us to understand. That's if they're analogous to us at all, and frankly the odds are against it.

But listen to me, I'm speculating like it's a likelihood. Even if we could travel at the speed of light, there isn't a possibly lifebearing planet within a human lifetime of here. We will meet no aliens. Full stop. There will be no tentacle-shakes on the White House lawn.

[Pepperbelly]

158. that is your belief ...

that is not a fact.

[beam me up scottie]

164. So are beliefs to be considered scientific

even though there is no evidence to support them ?
There are other forums to discuss beliefs, this is supposed to be the Science forum and most of us come here to learn, not read about Richard Hoagland's theories.


edited extra word

[Taxloss]

172. My belief is based on science.

The number of planets, the likelihood of water, and speed of light. Put these factors above hope and you get a clearer picture.

[Pepperbelly]

177. How so?

Guesswork at best.

[Taxloss]

184. Mass spectrometry and relativistic physics is "guesswork"?

Whereas watching the X-files is Science, I suppose.

We can tell where the planets and water are. And you know what? Our galactic neighbourhood isn't that crowded. Suburban, even.

[Pepperbelly]

186. nope ... not x files ...

just plain science.

Until you can get some life coaxed from a primordial soup in the lab somewhere, you have nothing that can be replicated and nothing for which the likelihoods of anything can be calculated.

Is life unique to the earth?

I doubt it. But I couldn't begin to figure the odds because we do not know the liklihood of it generating spontaneously. Does it generate everytime primordial soup is present? If not, how often?

Or has it happened just one? Truly, that's the only case we know of.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

200. Well, let's not jump the gun here.

I'm personally not ready to call a verdict on the likelihood of terrestrial planets in our local space just yet, since we haven't been able to do a proper search. We've found a metric shitload of jovians nearby, but that has more to do with the resolution of our telescopes and the methods of search than the probablity of terrestrial planets in those solar systems.

[Maple]

185. Ahhh now I understand

And I'm very fond of Arthur C Clarke...but there is no basis for that remark of his.

Nor are the odds against it.

We'll probably eventually find other lifeforms at every level we know...including 2 days, 2 months, 2 years, 2 centuries, or 2 millennia ahead of us.

We don't know that the speed of light is any barrier...we've already found ways to slow it down, and speed it up.

I agree there will be no tentacle-shakes on the White House lawn, but not for lack of alien life.

If you had told someone in the Victorian era what you have done today alone...they'd laugh and think you were crazy.

Send you to Bedlam no doubt. Chain you to a wall there.

And yet...here you are...and what you've done today is commonplace in our era, no matter how farfetched it would have been to the Victorian mind.

[Pepperbelly]

101. How can we be so sure of any of those things?

I don't know that a case has actually been made for any of those. :shrug:

[Taxloss]

125. Have you heard of the Drake Equation?

[Pepperbelly]

134. Of course ...

Unfortunately, I think it's ludicrous. It is an attempt to quantify something when quantities are unknown, the assumptions have no basis in scientific method, and the primary basis of it is unproven.

But some like it and approve and I don't intend to piss on their heads, even the embittered Sagan as he drew closer to his own death. Bottom line ... Drake cannot assign a likelihood of an event that cannot be predicted or repeated, specifically spontaneous generation of life on planet earth.

When they are able to replicate that at least once, we might have a yardstick to truly devise an equation that might tell us how many. Not when, of course, but how many.

[Taxloss]

140. Maybe we'll have a clearer idea once we know more about comets.

I personally am of the opinion that life appears wherever it can appear. We look at our own planet, into the frozen oceans of the arctic, the volcanic vents of the atlantic floor - we find life. Not intelligent or even sophisticated life, but life.

However, I think the idea of contacting intelligent life is out of the question. I would love to be proved wrong, but ... I won't be.

[Maple]

143. You will be

and you can bet money on it.

[Pepperbelly]

149. how do you know?

I mean seriously ... all you have is a belief. It is no more valid than any other.

[Taxloss]

206. Well, it is a fair amount more valid than the belief that NASA

is concealing alien civilisations, because the entire "OMFG it's a cover-up" scenaio suffers from the twin andicaps of being a. unlikely and b. impossible.

Let's start with unlikely - why? It's the first question in journalism. Why would they do this? And why would the aliens be complicit?

Then let's start to examine the difficulties inherent in building an FTL craft. And there are a lot of them. So I've got firm foundations for this belief. What's the basis for yours?

[Pepperbelly]

210. what makes ...

you say so?

And, if I may be so bold, it was you who told me what you believed. I asked you why you believed that and rather than explaining why, you became snarky. I suspect that you aren't this bold in your day to day encounters so you really shouldn't be online. It is always a pose and a revealing one at that.

Now, on point, you said that you believed that life appears wherever it can and I asked you why you believe that and this is what I got?

So why do you believe that? Can you elucidate? Can you share?

[Taxloss]

216. It was a supposition based on the prevalence of life on this planet.

We'll find more, too, inside the Solar System and on comets. It's everywhere.

Also, sorry to disappoint, but I am like this in real life. My work requires it. You'd like me for it.

[Pepperbelly]

219. From the example of earth ...

you draw that conclusion universally?

[Taxloss]

221. Conclusion? I drew no conclusion. I supposed.

Based on similar damp, atmospheric planets in similar orbits at similar distances around similar stars in similar systems, then it's not unreasonable to suppose that there is life elsewhere. Bear in mind I just said "life" not intelligent life - it could be lichen clinging to the underside of a rock. We'll never see it, though.

[Pepperbelly]

222. the thread was about very intelligent life but that is ...

currently beside the point.

Why would you make such an assumption?

Are you saying that anytime primoridal soup is available life will genereate?

[Taxloss]

223. Life - crude life - certainly seems to appear wherever the opportunity

arises. We see it on earth. Whenever we draw up some exclusionary principles for life, we find life that defes those principles. It's stranger and more hardy than we can imagine.

[Pepperbelly]

229. life exists here ...

we know that.

Can we extrapolate that across the universe?

It has not been observed anywhere but earth. Life has not been generated by scientists from chemicals and water, no matter how hard they tweak it. So what we have is a phenomenom that cannot be replicated in a laboratory or at least has not yet been replicated in a laboratory. The jury is still out on whether it happened anywhere but here.

[Maple]

211. I don't recall anyone saying 'belief'

They asked a question and opened a topic for discussion.

None of us can guarantee there is or isn't any 'coverup'...but it's neither 'unlikely' nor 'impossible'

What makes you think 'aliens' give a rat's patoot about us? They don't need to be 'complicit'...just indifferent..or even unknowing.

If you watched an anthill, would you know what the ants are saying about you?

You see difficulties in building an FTL craft? Well we once saw difficulties in having anything better than a sword...or in flying at all...or in invisible waves carrying sound and pictures.

But we have them all the same.

[Taxloss]

214. Pepperbelly said "belief". Skip back two posts, you'll see it.

If there are aliens, they're a hundred thousand light years away and we will never speak to them or meet them.

And it would be great to build an FTL craft. But I don;t see it happening in my lifetime, since we're cutting back on what manned space flight we are able to do - we are actually going backwards. If it gets built, it will be by private enterprise. Or the Chinese.

[Maple]

217. The thread topic isn't about belief

it presents a question.

I assume people put their beliefs, disbeliefs, facts and opinions in the main body of the thread...in answer.

Aliens could be ten feet from where you are this minute and you'd never know it.

My grandmother was born in the horse and buggy era...she certainly didn't expect cars, planes or moonlandings...yet they all happened in her lifetime.

Many countries are now involved in space, and yes indeed perhaps they will do it where NASA won't.

[Taxloss]

218. I wasn't the one who brought up belief!

Pepperbelly did! I just answered a question.

I have no doubt that I will see wonders in my lifetime, but I doubt they will involve FTL travel. I fully expect to see effective imortality in my lifetime, but FTL ... I can't see it. I may be wrong, but I just cannot see it. we can't even get close to lightspeed.

[Maple]

224. Well I meant the one

in # 206...Pepperbelly didn't believe or disbelieve that NASA was covering something up...it was a question asked.

We can't just 'believe' something...I agree. But we can certainly discuss it and toss around opinions and ideas.

Otoh...you expect immortality, but not FTL?

Jeepers, FTL is the easier of the two!

[arwalden]

105. Yes. Yes. and YES!!

But regarding #3... will it be one of our spaceships that we've just developed? Or will it be a HUMAN time-traveler who has come back in time?

[Taxloss]

109. We launched a solar sail this year.

They were science fiction five years ago.

Personally, I think extraluminary speed is more likely than time travel, and EL Speed is as close to impossible as you can get.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Now that is a topic worthy of a thread in this forum.

Would you be willing to post one ?
I remember reading about it but would like to learn more.

[Desertrose]

118. Interesting thread Pepperbelly...

thanks.

I'm not sure of a deliberate conspiracy as much as everything being so compartmentalized that any information and the evidence to support it is scattered too much. Of course anytime the topic is brought up the ridicule amps up.



Also not overly surprising is the shenanagans from our usual "DU *science* police" . How unfortunate that such open minded scientific types seem unable to join in a real discussion ...start certain topics and you instantly hear the clang of minds slamming shut and the snark beginning.

Oh well, must have nothing better to add.

[Pepperbelly]

123. The more troublesome of them are no longer much trouble.

:D

[Desertrose]

133. Yes, I agree with you there.

:)

[beam me up scottie]

142. Maybe if the thread was about science, it would be worth discussing.

Or perhaps you also consider Richard Hoagland to be legitimate.

[Desertrose]

154. well if you feel its not worth discussing, then why are you here?

So its not about science???OK

Why would you care about what I think about Richard Hoagland? and what does that have to do with THIS discussion??

[Pepperbelly]

160. isn't it odd how frantically some here try to STOP discussions.

It really makes me wonder. How about you?

[Desertrose]

187. I'd say the agenda is clear.

Stop all discussion that they do not approve of...sounds familiar, doesn't it?

and look at this thread..they've pretty much accomplished their goal...but its all pointless really. Not enough of them to stop free discussion completely......

typos akkk!

[Pepperbelly]

189. like brownshirts ...

hiding behind computer screens disrupting serious discussions. Very odd. And so obvious an attempt to stifle the free exchange of ideas. Interestingly enough, there seems to be a pattern to it as well, the sorts of things that get their panties in a wad.

[beam me up scottie]

192. Hmmm, like ufo sightings ?

[Celebration]

228. fundamentalism

Cuts across all human endeavors.

Today's sci fi is tomorrow's sci. They need to take a look at some DaVinci drawings in their spare time.

Or read 1984 for some real futuristic scenarios.

[beam me up scottie]

170. That's the thread that he is retaliating against by posting this one.

"So its not about science???OK"

Um, this IS the SCIENCE forum, is it not ?

[Desertrose]

183. Actually that should have been read as...OOOOH-KAAAY

but I guess you took that as an agreement.

Retaliating?? I thought it was an interesting post that really had no connection to another thread.

So a person cannot post something here unless it passes the approval of the science police?

amusing.

[beam me up scottie]

191. No, it's wrong to continue threads

because someone was miffed.
Should one be allowed to post interviews with Sylvia Browne in the Science forum ?
I don't know, that's up to the mods.
I do know that you wanted your own group to get away from skeptics so I can't imagine why you would think it pleasant for visitors to the Science forum to have to wade through pseudo-scientific articles.
Perhaps it depends who it is.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

128. What about SETI@home?

Something that you and Brookings apparently missed the bus on is that the SETI program as it stands today is not run by NASA. SETI@home is run mostly off the government books, the major funding coming from the Planetary Society, the University of California-Berkeley and Sun Microsystems. In fact, here's the Sponsors listing for SETI@home:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sponsors.php

Note the distinct lack of NASA.

Now, putting aside claims of UFOs, crop circles, cattle mutilations, abductions, contactee cults, etc., the most likely first indications of extraterrestrial contact we'll get are going to be astronomical; radio signals, laser pulses, drive emissions, the light from planetary cities. Of these, the one we're spending the most time on are radio signals. Unless there's a freak discovery, that's where we're most likely going to find evidence of intelligent life elsewhere because that's where we're looking.

So, we've got the radio SETI already underway and not under the direct or indirect control of NASA. If SETI@home finds something like the WOW signal, only repeating and obviously not of local origin, it would be next to impossible to cover it up. The person or team that discovered the block would tell the world, or at least Slashdot, who would then tell the world for them. The SETI@home people would make a statement, the guys at Ariceibo would make a statement... the djinn would be well out of the bottle before anybody in THE GOVERNMENT (*dramatic chord*) could react properly.

[Celebration]

139. SETI?

Not cutting edge enough. JMHO. Just because we communicate with radio signals doesn't mean that THEY do. Surely THEY are way past that.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

146. No way of telling.

THEY - whoever THEY are - could be using tighbeam X-band or laser communications systems, which means we'll never find them unless we're lucky enough to drift into line of sight.

Or THEY could just be starting out (minus transmission time of course), sending out messages and looking for replies using their own version of SETI.

I think an important thing to remember is that ETI doesn't have to equal "much more advanced than us." We right now are capable of conducting a conversation with another intelligent species - a slow conversation, but conversation nonetheless - right now, and we don't have starships or colonies on other worlds or much in the way of viable crewed spaceflight or even a unified government. But we don't need them to talk.

[Pepperbelly]

147. Several points ...

SETI would probably be the most likely avenue of discovery IF there is alien intelligence somewhere. But it is not the only game in town. When the Brookings study was commissioned, SETI wasn't the concern. The concern was the physical exploration of the moon and perhaps even farther. And in that sort of exploration, it could be closed off more firmly than Ft. Knox.

Same for the info coming from JPL. JPL decides what to release. Do they release everything relevant? I have no way of knowing. But I suspect that if the National Areonautics Council told JPL personnel to stfu, I expect that it could be arranged.

On edit ... since I have several of the more irritating members of the Skeptic community ignored, that is probably why I missed any references to cattle mutilations, etc. Odd, isn't it?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

166. Reply to points

1) It should be noted that the Brookings study is 45 years old. The context of the subject has changed dramatically in the intervening time. Many of the implications it suggests have either already happened or are no longer valid. This should be kept in mind while reading.

1.5) WRT to closing off exploration of the moon & elsewhere, the djinn is well and truly out of the bottle here as well. Other national entities have already done it, and private groups are gaining the capability of launching their own missions (see the COSMOS-1 flight earlier this year). Again, the Brookings whitepaper is 45 years old. Things have changed.

2) There is no such thing as the National Aeronautics Council. There is a National Aeronautics and Space Council, but according to the law (the Space Act of 1958) its sole duty is to advise the President on all space-related matters.

3) WRT cattle mutilations, I put that in to try and get as many of the "aliens are already here" concepts in one package, so we didn't have to wander over that territory. Again.

[Celebration]

173. Cattle Mutilations

Probably deserves its own thread. Sorry clueless.

[Pepperbelly]

175. Perhaps your arguments are good but ...

my kung fu is strong.

It's not about how old the Brookings Paper is. It's about the organizational culture that was instilled in the Agency from the beginning. That was the point I very clearly and succinctly made in the OP. It is not about whether the conclusions drawn in '61 are valid. Who could possibly say?

What it IS about is if the bureaucracy, which had the Brooking template stamped over it at its inception, could be operating in that fashion. That template is as old as the Agency. Has the Agency shucked it?

I don't know. I do know that everything is filtered from NASA. Every scrap of data runs through JPL. I do not know the procedures or the protocols for releasing of the data gleaned in space nor do I know how we could possibly know if all of it was released or not.

This is, however, an extremely fitting topic for the science forum at DU.

[Maple]

190. I found the report interesting

however outdated by more recent events...it anticipated a great many things, and even came up with 'solutions' I have seen used many times

Yes, it created a mind-set...and that mind-set doesn't appear to have budged an inch, no matter what else has happened in the field.

Thank you for the topic. I enjoyed it.

And I learned how to use the 'ignore' function too, after all this time! :rofl:

[Emperor_Norton_II]

194. Your kung-fu still has a ways to go

Because you missed my original point, right here:

I do know that everything is filtered from NASA. Every scrap of data runs through JPL.

The point of bringing up SETI@home was to note that everything is not filtered from NASA, and every scrap of data does not run through JPL. The points you make above and in the OP are therefore rendered moot.

The Brookings whitepaper comes with a set of societal assumptions that are no longer valid. THE GOVERNMENT cannot block everything, because not all of it flows through THE GOVERNMENT. Universities, private foundations, foreign nationals... like I said above, the djinn is well and truly out of the bottle.

[Pepperbelly]

220. Not at all ...

the thread was about NASA who still is the only game in town in the physical exploration of space. Privately, you might put a bird up if you could pay for it but the rest is NASA's. Or the European Union. Or China. Or Japan. Or Russia.

Not everything can be blocked but data that flows through NASA can. I personally know much secret data that has never come out. Mundane stuff I assure you but nonetheless still secret.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

230. Yes, I'm sure you do.

:eyes:

Meanwhile back on the original topic, involving NASA covering up evidence of extraterrestrial life and not the physical exploration of space...

[Pepperbelly]

232. well duh ...

they control what they control. No one is suggesting that NASA controls everything.

Roll your own eyes because your point is silly. They control what they control. However, NASA IS the most likely venue for such a discovery IMO. I could be wrong. So could you.

[beam me up scottie]

180. YOUR post should be at the top of this thread to

stop people from thinking this is today's reality.

[Celebration]

163. Aw heck I am NOMINATING

This thread has thirty times the number of responses of most other threads in the science forum.

[beam me up scottie]

174. Oh goody! Me too !

That way anybody who thinks about visiting the Science forum can have a look at the things that are discussed, like NASA conspiracy theories.

[Maple]

197. LOL is that all it takes?

Just the number of responses?

I don't respond to many of the threads in the Science forum, because most of them seem to get disrupted and off on silly tangents.

Talking in here is kinda like tiptoeing through a minefield, so I usually don't bother.

Yet it often has the most interesting topics...at least to me.

[arwalden]

212. Literally "Most" Of Them? Or Just The Ones You Respond To?

[TreasonousBastard]

225. We're all aware that there are some people...

who see it as their duty to protect us from ourselves, so I don't doubt there is a group that is trying to keep such information from us, if it should exist.

The practical question is-- just how could they do it? Unlike Area 51 or the JFK assasination, there are just too many people involved who are not under anyone's control.

A worldwide conspiracy whereby an asronomer gets no computer or telescope time without signing an ironclad confidentiality agreement? And what with all those amateur astronomers out there. The ones who are measuring double stars and finding comets as the professional astronomers' auxiliary?

I tell ya, I wish "Men in Black" was a true story, but unless the aliens are the ones running the mind control gadgets, there's no way something wouldn't break. The illuminati type stuff, with a dozen aliens on a mountaintop directing the course of the planet would be easier to get away with if that one were true.

It makes sense that there would be some sort of consensus in NASA and the European Space Agency that real evidence of intelligent life will be kept under wraps. I could easily see a Martian lander sending back pictures of a Ferengi mining camp causing a LOT of conversation and taking a while to sort out just what to do with it. It's not the sort of thing you just drop on the public in a quick news conference. Hence the premiss of "Men in Black" and a vast treasury of science-fiction lore.

About who gains and loses-- it's fun to speculate, but in the past few hundred years we have found out that we are not the center of a universe revolving around us, and we seem to have done just fine. Most religions have managed to deal with it, and they can deal with the Klingons just as well. Scientists and engineers will most likely drool at the thought of the new knowledge we could get.

What would happen, aside from the popular hysteria which could go in any direction, would be the reaction to the direct threat to power from some in every group. And that attempt to inspire fear to protect their own turfs could be the death of us all.

[Pepperbelly]

231. it bears scrutiny ...

as does the mindset of the agency.

I don't believe I have ever seen a government agency completely transcend its beginnings.

[Maple]

233. The only reasons I could see

for keeping it from people would be more general I guess.

a) 'We have no freaking idea who or what they are, and we can't even catch up to them much less protect you from them.' Something I assume no govt would want to admit.

b) People have seen ufo's...and I mean in the literal sense, unidentified,...for years, but Earth has not been attacked, and anyone who can fly at those speeds probably wouldn't have any difficulty taking the entire planet out....so govts can safely assume we are not in any danger, and can just ignore whatever-it-is.

c) Vested interests would be another guess. Lots of people involved in NASA, and in science and things are humming along nicely. Why ruin that with the possibility of aliens saying 'no no, you're doing it all wrong' and giving us, planetwide, a book of formulas? No money to be made in that...or titles gained...or fame and a place in the history book. All you'd be left to do is say 'gosh, thanks'

d) NASA isn't ignoring aliens...aliens are ignoring NASA. Hard to tell people that you know 'they' are out there....but they refuse to talk to you. You've actually been put on ...er... 'hold' :D

[Celebration]

234. the answer may be simpler

Ignore all evidence of anything that doesn't fit into the current paradigm. It just creates too much cognitive dissonance. So close the book and look the other way. If you do that, there is no need for any of us to invent conspiracy theories. The next best thing to do is "follow the money." That can work too.

[Maple]

235. Gasp! You don't mean the classic

holding your hands over your ears and yelling la-la-la, do you?

:D Yeah, it could be that too.

And it could always be money I guess...that seems to be at the bottom of most things.

[Moderator]

238. Locking

for degeneration of discussion into flaming, PAs, etc.