NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

When James speaks of a budget, my take is he is being conservative, on a personal scale. This is easy to understand in an economy run on scarcity.

Originally posted by JimO

Originally posted by rhw007
You see the Brutal Truth Reality of Mr. Oberg's ORGINAL "Mission" as wellas I do...it was to get Ken Johnston's affiliation with NASA distanced from Dark Mission book itself...he succeeded with that one biased email.

Would somebody please explain to me what Robert thinks this passage is supposed to convey?

Jim,

What Bob is saying is that he accuses you of trying to change the subject from "Johnston's claims" to "Johnston's credentials". (And, apparantly, to do this in order to genuflect before your all-powerful Underworld OverLords. :puz

Now, we all know that the weight of Johnston's claims rest squarely on his alleged credentials. That's why he's there. Without those "credentials", why would we ever notice him?

And without a "credentialed" Ken Johnston, Hoagland and Bara have no new book to sell.

I think that even Zorgon might agree: It seems that some people just don't know when to stop looking silly.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I love a good joke, now and then...but I don't think this subject is the time or place for jokes. Just my humble opinion.

It is obvious to me that you missed the point of those NASA slides... I think THAT is the joke... while we hunt anomalies and try to figure out what they are up to... (THEY post images at a symposium pf scientists DELIBERATELY showing a false image of a trilobite SUPPOSEDLY on a rock on Mars... with no picture ID...

Fortunately we found it and can show its false... The other clip showing the ARTIFACT we have not been so lucky, there are thousands of images to go through and that rock is not so easy to recognize...

The point is that NASA is doing EXACTLY what we all are doing ... showing pictures of anomalies... However when you question them about it, the purpose, or whether it is real or a 'joke'... and if a 'joke' what is the purpose?) you are met with SILENCE...

Then James comes in knocking Hoagland's lack of showing clear links to the images but skirts the issue when I ask why he doesn't chide NASA for doing the SAME THING.

Also the cartoon at the front of the presentation tells me what NASA thinks of the public... and that "Rover" sitting in the Nevada desert if you will notice has a NASA ID on the photo... so the only 'joke' on that was that we potted it behind John's mine...

Trust you to ignore the important point of the post.... At least you are consistent

And the English teacher quip? Well you reminded me of my old English teacher always correcting everyones spelling, whether or not they are on topic, or how they show present their material...



BTW I won the battle with mine

Now perhaps you can stay focussed long enough to address why NASA is showing fossils and artifacts in Mars images and not telling us image number and denying comment?

"Thanks for your post"
:shk:



[edit on 20-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by JimO

Boyle has responded that he was only speaking to Robert about MSNBC.com, and Robert in turn apparently has now filed a complaint against me and boyle with the FCC. (snip) for shortness sake,,,the emails are a few pages back and do not dispute what I wrote)

Are you going to share what Mr. Boyle wrote to you as 'implied' by your response to tezzajw on page 47?

Bob...

Since this thread has degenerated into an analysis of Mr. Oberg's intentions and others I took the liberty and suggestion of starting a new thread about whether or not Mr. Oberg's INITIAL email to Ms. Ferrari as a NBC News Space Consultant...which Mr. Oberg claims here again but again refuses to say by who and from where in NBC, nor even what Mr. Boyle has written to him...to let's take THAT argument to another thread:

to wit:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All the best and Happy Holidays

Bob...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
And without a "credentialed" Ken Johnston, Hoagland and Bara have no new book to sell.

Its not working... I understand from looking at Amazon books are selling...

I think that even Zorgon might agree: It seems that some people just don't know when to stop looking silly.

Zorgon 'might' think that EM hired James... I mean this battle is certainly keeping the interest going and drawing attention to that book... I bet you a buck that many buy the book because JimO is against it...

But I 'could' be completely wrong here

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks, Zorgon, for clearing up some things.

I'm not good at English, I use SpellCheck...

Back to disclosure...what, if anything, is about to be disclosed? Page after page, back and forth, sometimes ad hominem attacks...but point is...WHEN is this 'fired NASA Scientist' going to disclose? Or, should I ask, not only 'when', but 'where' as well?

Give us the goods....or, alternatively, tell this 'fired NASA Scientist' to give us the goods.

Please. my friend...I'm not trying to be confrontational...I really want to know!

Best, TJ

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon, I have no trouble at all with encouraging sales of the book.

First, it's an effective tax on the stupid.

Second, if its authors persist in malicious libel of me (Bara just can't seem to resist), I (and my lawyer) could wind up with most of the money anyway.

[Just joking... mostly...]

"Since this thread has degenerated into an analysis of Mr. Oberg's intentions and others I took the liberty and suggestion of starting a new thread about whether or not Mr. Oberg's INITIAL email to Ms. Ferrari as a NBC News Space Consultant...which Mr. Oberg claims here again but again refuses to say by who and from where in NBC, nor even what Mr. Boyle has written to him...to let's take THAT argument to another thread:

to wit: www.abovetopsecret.com... "

Can anybody else get that link to work?

Can anybody parse Robert's fragmented sentence?

I think to him the word 'degenerate' means 'I'm-supposed-to-provide-rational-answers', so it's time for the first stage outta Dodge.

ADDED: Oh, I was able to track it down...

Classic ravings -- Robert is so upset with a concept he calls the 'MEANSTREAM" media that.. gosh, he can't even spell a word he himself invented. Look at his thread title:

"How MEAMSTREAM MEDIA gets its slimy name"



[edit on 21-12-2007 by JimO]

The correct link for the thread mentioned above is this one.

How MEAMSTREAM MEDIA gets its slimy name

Originally posted by JimO
Zorgon, I have no trouble at all with encouraging sales of the book.

First, it's an effective tax on the stupid.

I still have a lot to learn when it comes to writing... That's a modern day Shakespeare!

Originally posted by JimO

"Since this thread has degenerated into an analysis of Mr. Oberg's intentions and others I took the liberty and suggestion of starting a new thread about whether or not Mr. Oberg's INITIAL email to Ms. Ferrari as a NBC News Space Consultant...which Mr. Oberg claims here again but again refuses to say by who and from where in NBC, nor even what Mr. Boyle has written to him...to let's take THAT argument to another thread:

to wit: www.abovetopsecret.com... "

Can anybody else get that link to work?

[edit on 21-12-2007 by JimO]


Jim, with all due respect, if you are going to be here much longer you need to figure out to to properly format your posts.

You need to enclose the post you are quoting and you need to credit that post. If you are quoting a source you need to enclose that quote and post the source. Now come on Jim. It's not that difficult.

Many of us are getting tired of trying to figure out where the quoted posts stop and start and who made them.

Pull your socks up, mate! And thanks.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by JimO
reply to post by johnlear

 

"Jim, with all due respect, if you are going to be here much longer you need to figure out to to properly format your posts."

John, when will you learn not to lie in the thread title?

"NASA Scientist Fired, Promises disclosure...."

Is there any word in this title that is NOT a lie?

"NASA" -- nope
"scientist" -- nope
"fired" - nope
"Promises" -- nope
"Disclosure" -- nope.

This is an amazing record and sets a standard nobody can hope to beat.

A five word title, and every single word is a lie.

My hat's off to you!

It is Zorgon who is the OP of this thread. I also assume he came up with the title. You should direct your questions to him.

Originally posted by JimO

John, when will you learn not to lie in the thread title?

"NASA Scientist Fired, Promises disclosure...."

Is there any word in this title that is NOT a lie?

"NASA" -- nope
"scientist" -- nope
"fired" - nope
"Promises" -- nope
"Disclosure" -- nope.

This is an amazing record and sets a standard nobody can hope to beat.

A five word title, and every single word is a lie.

My hat's off to you!

Jim, what on earth are you talking about? This is Zorgon's thread.

In fact, I was up at the mine reading 'Dark Mission' when he posted the thread.

In any case, as I have mentioned before, here at ATS we don't not call each other liar's just because they have a different opinion.

Thanks for the post and Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays whichever you prefer.

You mean that you and Zorgon are not the same person? I was going to start a conspiracy thread about that.....lol.

So far, I have you pegged as being John Lear, Zorgon, Sleeper, Gridkeeper, and that bigfatfurrytexan dude.

Merry Christmas, or happy Venusian holiday, whichever you prefer.

Originally posted by johnlear
In any case, as I have mentioned before, here at ATS we don't not call each other liar's just because they have a different opinion.

Indeed! Opinions are opinions. Facts, however, are facts, and as Jim said, none of the premises that went directly into the title of this thread are facts. Whether to call it a lie is a matter of opinion, of course.

IMHO Jim owes you an apology for his mistake in assuming that it was you, not Zorgon, who published what is considered by many to be a lie.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Indeed! Opinions are opinions. Facts, however, are facts, and as Jim said, none of the premises that went directly into the title of this thread are facts. Whether to call it a lie is a matter of opinion, of course.

Thanks for the post BS. I haven't followed the thread that closely so I don't know whether or not they are lies.

But in any case the thread was not started as a lie.

I would like to remind you that you post a lot of mainstream science that is absolutely and totally a lie but its accepted because its mainstream science, much of which is supported only by questionable facts and questionable data.

So actually one man's mainstream science is another man's outright lie So can we continue to debate without calling each other liar's?

Thanks for your post and Merry Christmas.

Originally posted by johnlear
I haven't followed the thread that closely so I don't know whether or not they are lies.

But in any case the thread was not started as a lie.

There are many things stated by Zorgon that are innuendo at best. Like he's saying that his favorite picure of Venus is one with clear skies, whereas referring to a radar image (because there are not clear skies on Venus). Or that "NASA admits dust clouds on the Moon", which really is trying to invoke an air of secrecy regarging the non-existent lunar atmosphere. Or, a commonplace launch of a military application satellite is billed as an evidence that the Shuttle docks with the alleged secret space platform. If you read enough of this, you may start developing a dislike for such disingenuity. Whether to call it a lie is, again a matter of opinion, and I'm slightly inclined to qualify it as such.

I would like to remind you that you post a lot of mainstream science that is absolutely and totally a lie but its accepted because its mainstream science, much of which is supported only by questionable facts and questionable data.

Since you have no facts and/or data yourself, and act/post based on hearsay and basless assumptions, it's pretty rich for you to call science a lie.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

If you read enough of this, you may start developing a dislike for such disingenuity. Whether to call it a lie is, again a matter of opinion, and I'm slightly inclined to qualify it as such.

That's merely an opinion. If the truth were known it would be you who would be found out as (although maybe totally unwittingly) disingenuous.

Since you have no facts and/or data yourself, and act/post based on hearsay and baseless assumptions, it's pretty rich for you to call science a lie.

Much of mainstream science is a lie. It just hasn't been found out by mainstream scientists yet. For instance mainstream science thinks the gravity on the moon is one sixth that of Earth's. Even Newton said the Lunar/Earth mass ratio was 1:40 (Principia Book III Prop. 37. Cor. IV) which would mean the Lunar density would be 1-5 times that of Earth. But 'mainstream science' says its 1:81. Know why? Because 1:81 is the only mass ratio that fits the one sixth gravity myth.

The one sixth gravity myth is necessary to that people won't know there is an atmosphere and that there is a civilization living up there that we are to be kept ignorant of.

But thanks for the post and Merry Christmas.