NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

page: 53
164
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
Go to www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/list and click on COPERNIC Copernicus crater (with center missing = just first month of data).



You gotta use
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
more comments to Bara's blog that might be censored...

Bara has been pretty good about not overdoing this, so give him a few more days to do the right thing, but here are current comments from me awaiting his 'approval'.

RE: Uncanny coincidences show NASA controlled by Egyptian muthology worshippers

Comment on darkmission.blogspot.com...

My introduction to these kinds of claims was on your website in discussing the choice of launch time for the FGB, the first ISS component, in 1998. As you recall, you triumphantly listed all the Egyptian constellational coincidences of the date and time (www.enterprisemission.com...).

Since I was in charge of the orbital design team that created the criteria for the launch time in 1996-7, and saw how they led to the choices actually made in November 1998, I was mightilly amused by the preposterous hand-waving on your website regarding 'secret intentions'.

This wasn't in the book, so we can discuss it in more detail elsewhere. But I spent a chapter in my 2002 book 'Star-Crossed Orbits' (www.jamesoberg.com...) discussing exactly this process in the real space program.


Add to darkmission.blogspot.com...

Mike: "NASA could have selected any number of spots along the Florida east coast to build their launch facility and still had the same benefit, and they (just by coincidence) selected an area that is symbolically associated with the Egyptian god Osiris."

I was waiting to see if any of Mike's other blog-readers choked on these historical or geographical inconsistencies, but nope, they all seem to have no problem swallowing them:

1. The missile range on 'Cape Canaveral' was founded in 1949. NASA wasn't organized until 1958. How could it have had any influence on a choice made a decade before it even existed?

2. NASA chose an area for its moon port (pad 39) on Merritt Island, adjacent to but not on the geographical entity known as 'Cape Canaveral'. Sure, the news media often simplistically calls it "Cape Canaveral" too (shuttles are still launched from there), but people concerned with geographical and cartographical precision ought to know better.

So -- are these facts a 'surprise' to Mike?


Comment to darkmission.blogspot.com...

To expat, Bara wrote: "When someone A) calls me a liar without any evidence, B) compares me to a Holocaust denier, or C) just generally irritates me with a nonstop series of inspid insinuations, yeah I tend to lose it. "

Maybe now that what goes around, comes around, and in the glow of the New Year (and your book's creditible commercial success), you might reconsider why your own postings about me made me feel EXACTLY the way you wrote here that YOU felt about somebody else.

With a little empathy, we can work our way towards treating initial careless bad guesses and accusations into what can be documented, and what can't be.

Please join me on this step-by-step process.


Comment on darkmission.blogspot.com...

Your point on the meaning of 'Canaveral' is reasonable -- although 'canebrake' is the classic translation of it, 'reeds' seems an acceptable variation.

Regarding Runway 33, though, you claim: "Our point, or course, is that NASA built the runway with a magnetic heading of “33” deliberately, just as the launch pad at White Sands was designated “launch pad 33” deliberately. "

Well, what other reasons might the runway have had that orientation? Checking maps of KSC (for example,
www.psu.edu...) you can see the runway parallels the pre-existing rail and road lines running NNW from the VAB area. Building the long runway with any OTHER orientation would have entailed significant disruption of the ground transportation infrastructure.

I suggest you are fishing for coincidences and have a statistically expectable level of random 'hits'.

Ditto the biblical reference:
Mike: "We simply noted that the famous verse known as “God’s phone number” is numbered 33:3. ... The point is, this is not “fact” that is in dispute. “God’s phone number” is Jeremiah 33:3, period, just as we wrote in the book."

I didn't see it clearly in ProfF's note, but we all need to remember that the chapter and verse numbering scheme cited here is a very recent literary add-on to the text, and even a few centuries ago wasn't consistent. This is about as pure a case of 'accident' as I can imagine devising.

As for other accidents, you still make an issue of your claim:
"we never said that two “Apollo landings” took place on Hitler’s birthday. On the pages he cites we clearly write that NASA landed two missions on the Moon on Hitler’s birthday, Apollo 16, and Surveyor 3 These are indisputable facts." In the book I clearly sensed the claim that this was deliberate. Can you elaborate?

In general, your concentration on these angle numbers strikes me as artificial because the numbers themselves -- the 360 degree circle -- are artificial. They're man made. The 'natural' measure of an arc is in radians, and if your numbers had made non-random patterns in radians, I might have been more impressed.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
Thank you Buddha for your wisdom. I must drop NASA a line and tell them that their multi billion dollar space telescope, designed to photograph galaxies 14 billion light years from Earth, is suffering from 'pixellated blur' on it's shot of the Earth's moon 250k miles away.


I concede that once the object is looked at with a better instrument, there is no longer pixellated blur such as
www.thelivingmoon.com...

which people with vivid imagination perceive as alien structures. And it's plainly clear that the surface of the Moon has a lot of... craters. All in magnificent Hubble resolution.


the pyramid/geometric structure visible on Hubble image of Copernicus ( whether alien, man made or natural ) can be clearly seen on the US Navy Clementine photo of Copernicus crater
...
Will you agree that the same anomaly is clearly visible on both Hubble and Clementine images ?


No, I looked hard and I can't still point to anything that does not look like various details of a lunar crater. No spaceports, satellite dishes and/or giant spacecraft. If you say there is a mound of some sort, well yes, Moon has hills. Sorry but nothing exciting.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

No, I looked hard and I can't still point to anything that does not look like various details of a lunar crater. No spaceports, satellite dishes and/or giant spacecraft. If you say there is a mound of some sort, well yes, Moon has hills. Sorry but nothing exciting.



Thanks for looking Buddhasystem. However I never mentioned anything about spaceports,satellite dishes, and/or giant spacecraft. Just a very large pyramid/geometric shaped anomaly as viewed from above.

Mind you, if you look VERY carefully, you may see a smokestack/vent inside the rim at the 12 o'clock position on the Clementine image. It is at the 11 o'clock position on the Hubble image.

Regards.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
Mind you, if you look VERY carefully, you may see a smokestack/vent inside the rim at the 12 o'clock position on the Clementine image.


Greetings pippadee,

I went through the trouble of opening the COPERNIC page again and looking for bespoke smoke stack. Honest to God, I don't see one. There is a shadow but nothing that would be drastically different from other geological features of the crater.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I went through the trouble of opening the COPERNIC page again and looking for bespoke smoke stack. Honest to God, I don't see one. There is a shadow


Thanks again Buddhasystem for taking time to look again. Trouble is , you need to study it for more than a few minutes. It took me a while as I was drawn to the SHADOW that you can also see. Now ask yourself...what is creating that shadow ???

IMO it is smoke or gas or steam that is being emitted from the top of the smokestack/vent. The ''smoke'' leaves the vent and travels from SE to NW creating a shadow on the the crater wall. Now if you can pinpoint where it is coming from you will see a tubular structure that is mounted on a circular base with 4 horizontal strengthening struts.

Regards



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
In Bara's latest thread on the Dark_Mission blog, some censorship of awkward answers?

darkmission.blogspot.com...

January 6, 2008 8:05 AM // JimO said...
Mike: "NASA could have selected any number of spots along the Florida east coast to build their launch facility and still had the same benefit, and they (just by coincidence) selected an area [Cape Canaveral] that is symbolically associated with the Egyptian god Osiris."

JimO: I was waiting to see if any of Mike's other blog-readers choked on these historical or geographical inconsistencies, but nope, they all seem to have no problem swallowing them:

1. The missile range on 'Cape Canaveral' was founded in 1949. NASA wasn't organized until 1958. How could it have had any influence on a choice made a decade before it even existed?

2. NASA chose an area for its moon port (pad 39) on Merritt Island, adjacent to but not on the geographical entity known as 'Cape Canaveral'. Sure, the news media often simplistically calls it "Cape Canaveral" too (shuttles are still launched from there), but people concerned with geographical and cartographical precision ought to know better.

So -- are these facts a 'surprise' to Mike?




January 7, 2008 9:24 AM // Mike Bara said...

Ok, Jim,

"1. The missile range on 'Cape Canaveral' was founded in 1949. NASA wasn't organized until 1958. How could it have had any influence on a choice made a decade before it even existed?

So Jim, who ran the missile range on the cape from 1949-57?


"2. NASA chose an area for its moon port (pad 39) on Merritt Island, adjacent to but not on the geographical entity known as 'Cape Canaveral'. Sure, the news media often simplistically calls it "Cape Canaveral" too (shuttles are still launched from there), but people concerned with geographical and cartographical precision ought to know better."

EVERYBODY calls the area Cape Canaveral. Please.



JimO's reply -- submitted twice in past two days, but not yet posted:

Mike: "EVERYBODY calls the area Cape Canaveral. Please."



Old 'Honest Abe' story, from during the Illinois debates:



Abe: "If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"



His opponent: "Why five, of course."



Abe: "Wrong, he has four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."



Calling 'Merritt Island' by the name 'Cape Canaveral' doesn't MAKE it 'Cape Canaveral', or why not go toss out the board of geographic names, or keep calling it 'Cape Kennedy', or the Seminole name "Wa-ha-to Se'eras", or anything you like.



Frankly, Mike, I don't think you know enough about the space profession or culture to even KNOW what 'everybody' calls it -- just what 'everybody' in your house calls it. I'd hardly call that an informed sampling.



The serious point -- here's a documented fact that counters a claim you were trying to make, and what's your reaction? Adjust your view or your claim?



Nope. Try to change the fact. Try to insist that being inaccurate is still 'right'. Just bully reality into looking like what you WANT it to, because 'everybody' thinks that way.



Thanks for the VERY illuminating demonstration.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by pippadee
 


As I said once, if you stare at tiles in your bathroom for a long period of time, you will start picking shapes of alien inscriptions and starship blueprints. The pattern recognition in your brain will start latching on information noise and constructing a perceived image.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

As I said once, if you stare at tiles in your bathroom for a long period of time, you will start picking shapes of alien inscriptions and starship blueprints. The pattern recognition in your brain will start latching on information noise and constructing a perceived image.


Well thank you Buddhasystem for that enlightening reply. I have stared at tiles in my bathroom many times. And do you know what I see?....wait for it....TILES! What do you see? a bunch of spinning atoms?

But thanks for looking and sorry to have bothered you.

Best regards



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mlmijyd Do you think that these people could or would accept a NASA disclosure?


There are some amongst 'those people' that feel there should be more disclosure... but under the current 'climate' coming forward would not be good. Just look at the threads here... ( and this is one of the best forums) The viciousness of the attacks against anyone trying to share whats going on is more than enough to keep them away.

The skeptics here claim they really want to believe... I doubt it seems they have nothing to do in life but post page after page of the same rebuttal in an effective method to bury any tidbits that come along.... In another thread I posted conclusive documents that the shuttle had a secret mission... that single post was buried in 5 PAGES of rhetoric

Your right true disclosure will NEVER happen... there are too many with vested interest that it doesn't happen... and some profit from debunking just like others like Hoagland profit from empty promises.

The only ones who will get close to the truth are those that take the time to study and make the phone calls...

Now I return you to the latest Lemming game of 'Ostrich'




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
In another thread I posted conclusive documents that the shuttle had a secret mission... that single post was buried in 5 PAGES of rhetoric


Don't exaggerate. You posted a relatively well known fact that at some point in time, the Shuttle carried into the orbit a military-purpose satellite. It's easily found on the Web, so please don't make it look like you did some outstanding research. It would look like they didn't try to hide too hard, that fact. And as such, it's a far cry from an ominous declaration that there is a host of supersecret military outposts orbiting in space with one important detail -- the Shuttle program is meant to resupply those with fresh fruit and toilet paper.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The skeptics here claim they really want to believe...
I am a sceptic (just with a different spelling) and I do not claim that I want to believe.

In fact, I think that the biggest problem lies in the beliefs and the way they intrude themselves in subjects that should be belief-free (not completely, people have to believe that it is possible to solve or circumvent a problem before trying it).

In the present case, people may believe that there are some strange, giant, glass like structures on the Moon, but they should not allow their belief in that block their minds to the possibility that they are wrong (I find it amusing that some people say that they may be victims of bad information but they do not consider the possibility of being wrong) and that those things they see on the photos have a different, common, explanation.

In the same way, people who believe that there is nothing like those structures on the Moon, and that the Moon is just a desert celestial body without any artificial objects (besides those sent in the second half of the 20th century by human beings from Earth) should not allow that belief block the possibility that (because nobody knows the whole Moon and because there isn't any way of ensuring that we have access to all the information available) there are really are unearthly artificial objects on the Moon.

Me, I keep looking and waiting, I am not in a hurry.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Me, I keep looking and waiting, I am not in a hurry.


Looking for what?


And you are one of the few who get to use the 'c'



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Looking for what?
For nothing in particular, just looking.

That is what I have done all my life, just looking (and if that is the case, earing, smelling, tasting and touching) to gather the biggest amount of information about something that I do not fully know.

What I will do with that information I don't know, yet, but this "system" has worked all my life (it was the system I used to learn how to understand, read and write English).

Only after having enough information can I turn it into knowledge, but knowledge without information is not possible.

Also, I think that if I was looking for something in particular I could find it, even if it wasn't there.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Did I miss the disclsure on this one?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The skeptics here claim they really want to believe...


I haven't seen that. What I do see is a want to know, without arriving at conclusions based on pure conjecture and hope. And since they, and I, visit these forums relatively often, we really can't be lumped in with "skeptics"....if I were purely a skeptic, I would ignore these topics completely. But I visit, hoping to find a solid, verifiable fact within the noise. And not facts that are readily available to a reasonably informed person, such as "secret" missions by the shuttle that were *gasp*, already known. Unfortunately, the assumptions, unfounded conclusions, miserable grasp of logic and science, complete lack of real discussion, and "high-n-mighty" attitudes, causes so much static, it becomes a case of "tilting at windmills".......

Finally, you discover that actually raising questions and doubts about the content is A) ignored completely, or B) derided as the rants of a "skeptic", as if being such a thing is obscene.

Thank you for your contribution.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by smans
Did I miss the disclsure on this one?



Yes you did. There were solid, undeniable facts presented that, beyond a shadow of doubt proved the extensive nature of alien presence on our planet. And that, by definition, is "disclosure". You just have to go back and read each page carefully to find it.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Well now, we know that a solar system can be built in about a million years, and most solar systems have organic molecules, and the Oort clouds can swap goo, and the majority of solar systems have average lifespans exceedingly longer than our own, so why not?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that life may be far more prolific than we originally thought?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that life may be far more prolific than we originally thought?


You really lost me here. Where did I say that I refuse to consider the possibility of life in the Universe at large?

PS. As an aside comment - the only difficult thing I know is real science, the rest doesn't compare by a long shot.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
there are no UFO´s.
its a big disinfo strategy since roswell.the global elite uses this myth since decades.
(an UFO phenomenon per se exists, of course.)



[edit on 13-1-2008 by anti72]





top topics
 
164
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join