Should NASA always tell the public the complete truth?

a reply to: LABTECH767

The Truth Shall Set You Free. Keeping people ignorant is all about control and nothing else.

I agree with you LABTECH767. It seems to me that there is something wrong with people that think its okay to keep the general populace ignorant. It does boil down to control.

Where does it say (the constitution, bill of rights) that anyone in government or any other office has the right to determine what the general populace gets to know about? How can we as a people grow intellectually, if we are kept ignorant about a given topic, or many topics? I do completely understand that the military must keep many things classified concerning national security/military hardware etc., but we seem to be talking about scientific discoveries.

The fact is that controlling the information (keeping the general populace ignorant) allows those that control the information to control (steer) public opinion to some extent, which in turn makes the population form bad opinions, based on incorrect or incomplete information.

I say tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. BUT, those that control the information now, are fearful that would cause a backlash of people wanting justice and/or more information (the why's and wherefore's) about why it wasn't released sooner.

originally posted by: repairguyt
I do completely understand that the military must keep many things classified concerning national security/military hardware etc., but we seem to be talking about scientific discoveries.

Pure science generally is open lit with NASA.

It's the military overlap that you don't get any info on. For example, at least 11 STS missions had SOME classified content. You could infer from the ones that didn't supposedly have any, if you look at the activity logs, the ones with not a lot going on also had stuff that wasn't disclosed, it was just a bit tighter.

I know directly about two of the projects. And one was pure military with no civilian overlap. The other was the sort of thing it's hard to categorize. I'D say it was pure science, the people whose opinions actually matter say it's purely military. But then, there are a LOT of research projects that the military sponsors that appear to be semi-pointless theoretical physics on the surface.

a reply to: Bedlam

Hi Bedlam, I know that the military are involved in the missions (not all), and I just wish they would share all the scientific stuff with us. It just seems to me that the military classifies stuff that doesn't necessarily need to be classified sometimes. Maybe sometime in the future, someone in the scientific community could create an oversight committee with authorization of the Congress that could review the stuff that the military want to classify and make a determination about whether the citizens should be allowed access to the info or not.

originally posted by: repairguyt
a reply to: Bedlam

Hi Bedlam, I know that the military are involved in the missions (not all), and I just wish they would share all the scientific stuff with us.

The few that I actually know what they were about at a detailed level, most of them were SO obviously military or (other) that it's tough to quibble. OTOH, there were two at least that I'm sure you could have written some really nicely received papers in Geophysical Letters about. Yet, I understand that the immediate usefulness of that data was for very classified military projects that had immediate application. And it's obvious how.

It just seems to me that the military classifies stuff that doesn't necessarily need to be classified sometimes.

I agree. The security side of things sees it as being safer, as you can't get people like me taking the few little bits you DO publish, putting the names of the researchers with it, what they do, and for whom, and the locale, and back-engineering what it's for and how it works, and dumping it on Fark, where you'll have to take down whole threads and chase down everyone who actually got what was being posted. It's more work for them. Much easier to just classify everything that impinges on a SAP or USAP. Then you get classified screwdrivers, but the security guys don't have to worry they missed something.

a reply to: LookingAtMars
The most important thing that NASA is covering up is the alien presence on Mars.
They cannot give out that info without revealing the alien presence on Earth.
That would lead to MASSIVE PROBLEMS.
Not the least of what would be multiple deaths and a huge increase in our prison population.


I mean on day one the military would immediately murder those in NASA who let the information out.

On day two the public would want all of the members of the government and military who broke the law to be imprisoned.

This is a whole thread discussion in itself, but what would the people of the United States actually do if NASA announced that aliens were living on Mars?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: LookingAtMars
The most important thing that NASA is covering up is the alien presence on Mars.

The only alien presence on Mars is a guy named Chavez.

a reply to: Bedlam
Wrong

And who exactly decides whether NASA is telling the complete truth or not?

That would be that small group of people in the shadows who actually run the military government.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: FlatBastard

Not quite.

People worked out the world was round a long time before NASA.

In fact people knew the Earth was round because the gods told them it was. The first civilizations knew it was round, it was only later, after the gods were long gone, that human knowledge regressed and people started believing in a flat earth. This is no different then ancient humans knowing that aliens were on Earth, and telling us so, to where we are today, that people have regressed in this knowledge and refuse to believe it, just because they can no longer see it first hand.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah, expediency, that about sums it up.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
This is a question I have thought about at length. I believe the answer is no. I would like to see what others think about this?

A few facts first:

1. NASA is funded by tax paying citizens of the United States of America.

2. NASA is owned by the people of the United States of America.

3. NASA is the only space agency that has gained the expertise to consistently and safely place landers and rovers onto the surface of Mars.

4. Space is the greatest resource humans have other than our Earth.

5. Mars is one of the greatest accessible resources in space at this time. Mars has as much land as Earth and it is virgin land, full of untouched minerals.

6. The USA has spent great deals of money and time to gain the expertise to land on Mars and discover what is there.

7. The military keeps secrets, most of the time for good reason.


Here are a few questions:

1. If there is easily accessible water and a thicker atmosphere than is generally accepted should NASA tell the world?

2. If there is life on Mars that could be used for medicine or bioweapons should NASA tell the world?

3. If the light-toned fracture-fill material Curi is seeing is really gold and not calcium sulfate veins should NASA tell the world?

4. Should NASA keep secrets for good reason?

If one of the hypothetical questions above were true and NASA let the world know, it would start a space race / land grab / gold rush like never before in history. Should the US let China, Russia, etc. know what the US has spent trillions of dollars and decades of work to uncover, before the US is poised to exploit what it has spent time and treasure to discover?

I am interested to see if ATS thinks NASA should keep secrets if it has a good reason.

I personally think NASA should tell the truth about their findings. Secrets are no good.