Dark Mission: NASA's dirty little secret.

[Guest]

Why don't you and your girlfriends go stroke each other in the women's forum and stop acting like a plague.

 

[newbgrow]

There is no way, either you, or me, to ever know if we really landed on the moon, unless NASA were to come out and reveal it to the public, or if there are structures on the moon.

Well, ain't that the truth.

Actually there is no way we can prove alot of things, simply because we lack the firsthand experience (how are we to know the Earth is actually round? No one has ever tied a rope around it...). But even if you had, then we could enter the realm of "does your experience really exist?" You think it does, but does it really?

Do you really exist?

I could find theories out there that could blow you out of your mind. I could find graduate-level papers written by "credible" philosophy professors and professionals that could disprove your existence -- scientifically. Yet, at some point, we (most of us at least) realize there's a limit of practicality in deciding what is true or false, and you do not cross that line. Since only a few of us hold degrees in scientific fields for which we are discussing, what is the practical value of questioning these scientific "givens" that you bring up? You post these provoking theories as "evidence" and you are actually surprised by the resistance? If you wanted to actually prove something, find an astronomy or engineering forum and watch them shut all your arguments down. Fortunately, this is a forum for us normal people and we are not interested in all that. Your posting indirectly politically-charged statements and "theories" is an insult to our intelligence to those of us looking for practical conversation.

In other words, take your philosophy and fringe theories somewhere else, or don't. But don't be surprised if we don't take you very seriously.

Now, if you don't mind some mockery:
1. Prove 1+1 = 2.
2. Prove Jesus isn't black.
3. Prove the "white" skin color isn't a genetic defect from inbreeding, because it makes you more susceptible to skin cancer.
4. Prove the German concentration camps actually used Prussian Blue to gas the Jews, instead of using it to get rid of rats and disease.
5. Prove your opinions matter.

Good luck -- because common sense and empirical evidence doesn't matter in this kind of bullshit.

 

[genkisan]

Pops, for 60 yr old you act like you are 10. My children aren't as juvenille as you. Your lack of maturity at such a ripe old age is telling enough. You really don't need to say another word. Period.

Ah yes, and promoting discredited, hateful anti-semitic forgeries and the virulent rantings of lunatics as gospel truth puts you at the apex of maturity, S2D........


Usually maturity involves a bit of intellectual discretion and the ability to separate total bullshit from reality....both of which you lack 100%.

It also involve the ability to change one's opinion when faced with actual facts...a skill you also lack.

You talk of agendas....only those who have very defined and dearly cherished agendas clutch blindly to ideas the way you do, no matter the proof against them......

Wonder wot yer agenda is, Mr Stormfront???

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Well, ain't that the truth.

Actually there is no way we can prove alot of things, simply because we lack the firsthand experience (how are we to know the Earth is actually round? No one has ever tied a rope around it...). But even if you had, then we could enter the realm of "does your experience really exist?" You think it does, but does it really?

Do you really exist?

I could find theories out there that could blow you out of your mind. I could find graduate-level papers written by "credible" philosophy professors and professionals that could disprove your existence -- scientifically. Yet, at some point, we (most of us at least) realize there's a limit of practicality in deciding what is true or false, and you do not cross that line. Since only a few of us hold degrees in scientific fields for which we are discussing, what is the practical value of questioning these scientific "givens" that you bring up? You post these provoking theories as "evidence" and you are actually surprised by the resistance? If you wanted to actually prove something, find an astronomy or engineering forum and watch them shut all your arguments down. Fortunately, this is a forum for us normal people and we are not interested in all that. Your posting indirectly politically-charged statements and "theories" is an insult to our intelligence to those of us looking for practical conversation.

In other words, take your philosophy and fringe theories somewhere else, or don't. But don't be surprised if we don't take you very seriously.

Now, if you don't mind some mockery:
1. Prove 1+1 = 2.
2. Prove Jesus isn't black.
3. Prove the "white" skin color isn't a genetic defect from inbreeding, because it makes you more susceptible to skin cancer.
4. Prove the German concentration camps actually used Prussian Blue to gas the Jews, instead of using it to get rid of rats and disease.
5. Prove your opinions matter.

Good luck -- because common sense and empirical evidence doesn't matter in this kind of bullshit.

hello,
what i placed in red is what is termed a categorical error, that is, you placed the meat in the drawer of the veggies. you cannot take an ontological issue such as existence and analyse it empirically, thus, you cannot have so-called scientific anything about an ontological issue. this is philo 101. for example, ontologically speaking, the empirical world is merely a shadow as well as obsures the existence of real things. existence is apriori to empirical experience, in other words. another example, empirically you cannot question the why of thought or imagination; how do you measure such things in sensible terms?

another thing is the proposition you make regarding people not caring; if they didn't, why post with such pesistence and react rather than act?

 

[Pops]

Hey, Genki. I am now considered a Zionist. Does that mean I have to get circumcised? With a pecker this small, I can't afford to lose even skin.

Paz, please do not post intelligent facts here . This is not the thread for it. You will confuse all us morons.Logic,reasoning and facts are not welcome here. Thank you,in advance, for your consideration.

 

[newbgrow]

hello,
what i placed in red is what is termed a categorical error, that is, you placed the meat in the drawer of the veggies. you cannot take an ontological issue such as existence and analyse it empirically, thus, you cannot have so-called scientific anything about an ontological issue. this is philo 101. for example, ontologically speaking, the empirical world is merely a shadow as well as obsures the existence of real things. existence is apriori to empirical experience, in other words. another example, empirically you cannot question the why of thought or imagination; how do you measure such things in sensible terms?

another thing is the proposition you make regarding people not caring; if they didn't, why post with such pesistence and react rather than act?

Hello Paz Verde,
What I did was draw a comparison between two questions which I deem to be outside the limit of practicality of answering in a normal forum setting. This is not a 'categorical error' as you call it -- it might be in Philosophy 101, where you are studying different categories of philosophical questions in the classroom, academically -- in the context of a casual online forum discussion. If you were so inclined to nitpick the details, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out 99% of the "evidence" posted by other forum members that isn't evidence at all and certainly isn't scientifically valid.

The larger point of my post still stands; which is that people don't like to delve into scientific jargon and half-truths just to prove someone wrong. The question is posed in such a manner that it becomes impractical to provide a real answer. People come here to engage in conversation and debate, not to post a doctorate thesis on the differences between lunar soil and Earth soil.

The reason, as you observe, why people react harshly, as opposed to ignoring such a thread, is ego, in my opinion. When someone makes a ridiculous statement to the extent of "there's a purple buffalo in the sky, but you can't see it," or "the government is run by aliens and they're lying to you", some of us have the instinctive impulse to reject that statement forcefully, even if it would be hard to actually prove wrong with a concise post. Such in the case of NASA conspiracy theories: If all the NASA and third-party scientific evidence doesn't satisfy conspiracy theorists, what recourse do they expect to find in a online forums predominantly about weed? Thus I, and evidently many others here, find that people like Stoned2Death post provacative statements and theories purely for the reason to "stir the pot" and be "controversial", instead of actually trying to making a valid point; in other words, trolling.

This is quite an insult to our intelligence, don't you agree? If we were all mature enough, the "correct" course of action in my opinion is just to ignore such a topic. Maybe you could blame evolution on the human instinct to want to be "right"... But what I posted still stands...

I find you to be slick to do a strawman on my post. I did not say people don't care, I never said that -- that would be quite an oversimplification.

Edit:
Case in point. Try answering one of my four mockery questions. Only #5 could be ontological. Try proving the other 4 wrong empirically. You probably could, but not online.

 

[Pops]

If Johnson was ordered to destroy the photos and didn't,he deserved to be fired.

If the photos showed something of that nature, they would be classified at the highest level.

If the photos were classified and he released them, he would be violating the National Security Act.

If he violated the National Security Act, the Feds would be on him like a chicken on a bug.

If our government kills as many folks to cover up shit like this as you folks think, why isn't he dead?

 

[newbgrow]

Let's look at this a bit closer. Ken Johnston claims to have headed the Data and Photo Control Department at NASA. He claims to have a degree in "Meta Physics". He claims that NASA abruptly fired him without a reason and ordered him to get rid of thousands of photos - which he did not! Then when he refused to leave office, NASA removed all traces of him and his work from their website and database. NASA denies Ken Johnston ever worked for NASA.

Convenient! All traces of Ken Johnston gone from NASA. No proof whatsoever on Ken Johnston's background. At this point, it's my word against yours, Ken vs NASA. This is the basis of most conspiracy theories -- the obfuscation of the evidence and the sources. Since none of us have hired a private investigator against Ken Johnston, and none of us have an expertise in photo analysis, we could only rely on what third-party "experts" have to say.

And that could always be countered with, "They're lying, obviously all the scientists in the world are in on a conspiracy to conceal the existence of alien civilizations! Leave it to Ken Johnston and Eric Hufschmid to champion the cause of Freedom and expose the truth to those of you who accept all the 'experts' lies without question!"

How can you practically defeat this kind of reasoning with empirical evidence, since all external sources are either part of the conspiracy, or part of the conspiracy theory?

This is no difference than the religious rout in claiming all evidences are Satan's disguise and the Bible (Ken Johnston) is the only true source.

Thus, Green Peace Radical, the issue is of practicality. None of us are looking to out-bullshit the bullshitter - so this quickly degrades into a battle of wits and personal attacks - since the only way to truly "win" this argument is to come up with a theory more radical than Stoned to Death's and beat him at his own game.

 

[Pops]

A group of mutated Sasquatchs built a rocket to the moon several decades ago to escape the persecution of man. They, not aliens, built the structures on the moon. They disguised the structures to look like ruins and are now laughing their ass off. I have proof, but I left it in my other pants. the government doesn't want me to tell you this and have threatened to deport me to Australia.I am trying to escape to Fiji, but I have to get a new screen door for my submarine first.

 

[Guest]

Damn...nice to see I have such a following. Face it. Your world was crushed. Man didn't walk on the moon. Americans aren't the greatest. Russia beat us to space with a rocket, a satellite, an animal, a man, a woman, first space walk, etc etc. yet we went to the moon and NOBODY else has been able to pull off that feat since.

Actornauts practice taking pictures on slanted walls instead of practicing FLYING TO THE MOON AND BACK or testing the vehicle that's supposed to do it. Yet, with NO room for hardly any fuel, and NEVER testing the vehicle, they ride that puppy HALF A MILLION MILES there and back, and their STUPID asses do it just ONE WEEK after NASA kills a monkey who's only in orbit AND only lasted 9 of 20 scheduled days!

What's funny is how many of you believe we went there, you might as well believe in the buildings on the moon too.

 

[Pops]

The lunar modules were tested on the ground over and over. The first LM flight was on Jan. 22,1968 ,an unmanned mission launched on a Saturn B to test propulsion systems. LM-3 was used on Apollo 9 and was a manned mission to test systems. Another went up with Apollo 10 for more testing, and we finally used it to land on the moon during Apollo 11.

This tiny spacecraft(with no fuel as you say) actually carried 5187 lb. of propellant mass on the ascent stage and 18,000 lb. of propellant mass on the descent stage.

Sorry to confuse you with facts.

 

[newbgrow]

Face it. Your world was crushed.

Whether or not man went on the moon doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever.

 

[Guest]

"Damn,nice to see I have such a following".Are you folks seeing whats happening here?Don't you see the subject of self-importance over and over again in most all his responses?I'm not going to feed this guys delusions of importance any more,its really too sad.If we let a thread go to the second page without responding to the silliness,he would bump it up like a puppy with his feelings hurt.How could you ignore a moron like myself?

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Hello Paz Verde,
What I did was draw a comparison between two questions which I deem to be outside the limit of practicality of answering in a normal forum setting. This is not a 'categorical error' as you call it -- it might be in Philosophy 101, where you are studying different categories of philosophical questions in the classroom, academically -- in the context of a casual online forum discussion. If you were so inclined to nitpick the details, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out 99% of the "evidence" posted by other forum members that isn't evidence at all and certainly isn't scientifically valid.

The larger point of my post still stands; which is that people don't like to delve into scientific jargon and half-truths just to prove someone wrong. The question is posed in such a manner that it becomes impractical to provide a real answer. People come here to engage in conversation and debate, not to post a doctorate thesis on the differences between lunar soil and Earth soil.

The reason, as you observe, why people react harshly, as opposed to ignoring such a thread, is ego, in my opinion. When someone makes a ridiculous statement to the extent of "there's a purple buffalo in the sky, but you can't see it," or "the government is run by aliens and they're lying to you", some of us have the instinctive impulse to reject that statement forcefully, even if it would be hard to actually prove wrong with a concise post. Such in the case of NASA conspiracy theories: If all the NASA and third-party scientific evidence doesn't satisfy conspiracy theorists, what recourse do they expect to find in a online forums predominantly about weed? Thus I, and evidently many others here, find that people like Stoned2Death post provacative statements and theories purely for the reason to "stir the pot" and be "controversial", instead of actually trying to making a valid point; in other words, trolling.

This is quite an insult to our intelligence, don't you agree? If we were all mature enough, the "correct" course of action in my opinion is just to ignore such a topic. Maybe you could blame evolution on the human instinct to want to be "right"... But what I posted still stands...

I find you to be slick to do a strawman on my post. I did not say people don't care, I never said that -- that would be quite an oversimplification.

Edit:
Case in point. Try answering one of my four mockery questions. Only #5 could be ontological. Try proving the other 4 wrong empirically. You probably could, but not online.

newbgrow, greetings
let me explain again, this is a practical difference, not merely an intellectual excercise in semantics. as you sit right there in front of the computer, reading this very words, your existence, the fact that you are able to perceive not only with your physical senses but as well as the mind, is the function that needs to be before any empirically measurable event may be detected. in other words, if we did not exist then we would not be able to measure things empirically; on the other hand, we exist completely independent of whether or not we rule our reason exclusively with empirical "facts". the word ontology simply relates to the existence of this self or being that exists before any empirical phenomena. this is why you don't see any scientists trying to answer empirically in a lab why imagination exists. nor are they trying to synthetize imagination a la lsd empiricism/science is just for things you can touch with your hands and see under a microscope, and study how it works and try to reproduce it as best as you can, and perhaps gain other useful insights in the observation of how things work. note there is a difference between how and why btw...

so this claim you make: "I could find theories out there that could blow you out of your mind. I could find graduate-level papers written by "credible" philosophy professors and professionals that could disprove your existence -- scientifically." is not possible scientifically speaking, you simply cannot disprove the observer who exists. the lastest some scientist do say is that the observer always affects very directly whatever is observed, go figure...

but we have gone way off-topic.

as regards the rest of you post, i rather end it here. have a good day.

peace.

 

[Passenger]

What S2D believes is up to him, I hardly see how you can bash him for it. I question a lot of what the government does myself. Why not just ignore it? Man landing on the moon? Well if we didn't have pointless wars we could of been to mars and back 3 times... I think some things out there are actually believed yet they're so retarded as Dave Chappelle Said(Not the biggest fan of his but he's ok) "Do you honestly think aids came from man ****ing monkey's, They would rip that shit off" Not the exact words but close enough. Aids from monkey's makes about as much sense as Adam and Eve.

 

[Nubie Biatch]

Aids makes as much sense as Mad Cow Disease and every other scientific fact. We don't need another ridiculous theory muddying the already dark waters of scientific reasoning in this thread. (I'm referring to S2D and crew)

The American government is like every other government out there. It's only purpose is to serve itself. They murder, steal, cheat, and so on. Nothing new there. I neither like nor trust our government. Still, that doesn't give rise to outlandish theories involving government conspiracies.

Just because some rappers say the government gave us AIDS doesn't give it credibility. They also say the honkies gotta die, kill the police, etc. I generally try to get theories from those who respect and adhere to the scientific method.

Not trying to bust your balls, just saying that this nonsense is an insult to reason itself.

 

[DrHydro]

Just because some rappers say the government gave us AIDS doesn't give it credibility. They also say the honkies gotta die, kill the police, etc.

Some people are so fvckin stupid.. That didnt start from "rappers"...

I generally try to get theories from those who respect and adhere to the scientific method.

Its funny how you try to come off like you know something..

 

[Babombeez]

Beez, you are an extremely young man and apparently a fairly gullible one,at that. I am three times your age and far better educated, scientifically,as well. In my 60+ years, I have seen many far out theories, hoaxs, exposes, etc. come and go. Most are based on little or no scientific evidence, only someones theory. The vast majority are brought up by someone who is looking for fame or money. They come up with some outlandish theory that appeals to unintelligent people, and they then write a book or make a movie to exploit it and make money.

I don't know if you post these stupid threads to make yourself look good, to bolster your self esteem or because you are stupid. It really doesn't matter. You want to promote outlandish theories that are an insult to the intelligence of most of us here, excluding brain-dead folks like S2D. You don't want anyone to criticize them and tell us to keep to hell out of your threads if we don't like them. This tells me that you are just a punk little smart-ass who shouldn't even be posting. If your dumb-ass theories or you can't stand a little criticism , then get off the internet or take your theories to another site, preferably www.IamaRetard.com.Grow up!

You say that we are unkind. Damn right. Welcome to the real world. This isn't your religious studies class where the other retards will applaud your whacky theories. If you can't handle the real world where there is dissent and criticism, then there is always suicide or moving back home with mommy where you can suck your thumb and whine.

A little criticism? haha... how about all out personal attacks...

Climb off your high horse, Pops. You once admitted to me that you were too old and stuck in your ways. Ain't that the truth.

Find some kindness, perhaps it would get you farther in life... Old man with little heart.

Beez

 

[Babombeez]

"The governmental institution known as NASA is a department of the Executive Branch, ultimately answerable solely to the President of the United States, an Agency created through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. NASA ostensibly is a "civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States....

But contrary to common public and media perception that NASA is an open, strictly civiliian scientific institution, is hte legal fact that the space agency was quietly founded as a direct adjunct to theh Department of Defense, tasked with specifically assisting the national security of the United States in the midst of a deepening Cold War with its major geopolitical adversary, the Soviet Union. It says so right in the original NASA charter:

'Sec. 305...(i) The [National Aeronautics and Space] Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the United States code...'

Clearly , from this and other security provisions incorporated in the Act, what the Congress, the press and the American taxpayers get to see of NASA's ultimate activities-- including untouched images and data regarding what's REALLY on the moon, on Mars, or anywhere else across the solar system-- is totally dependent on whether the President of the United States (and/or his legal surrogates in the Department of Defense and the 'intelligence' community) has already secretly classified thaht data. This is directly contrary to everything we have been led to believe regarding NASA for over 50 years now"

Hoagland, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA.


Beez

 

[Pops]

As I stated earlier, if there were photographs of the nature you and Johnson suggest, they would be so highly classified that Johnson would be arrested immediately after it was discovered that he had stolen government documents. The article mentioned low quality,grainy photographs which are the easiest to forge or doctor. Great evidence. I spent 4 years in military intelligence with a Top Secret Crypto clearance. Long enough to discover that the government does not take kindly to people stealing classified documents. I don't believe a word of his story and I don't even have to see his phony pictures. You seem to be willing to believe anything. You have now posted 5 controversial threads( NASA's Dirty Secrets,The End of the World,Origin of religion, 9/11-The truth and X-files-UFOs,Aliens,anti-gravity.) Either you are one of the most gullible people I have seen or you have a mad desire to stir up shit. You invite discussion, but only want folks to agree with you.

Just because I am old and set in my ways doesn't mean that I turned stupid when I turned 30.