Think NASA and amateur astronomers wouldn't cover up doomsday eh?

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by Helious
 


The point of your thread was to prove that Nasa would hide/cover up doomsday, but your point is moot because the so called "covered up doomsday", was nowhere near being the end of the world.

My previous post that you seem to have overlooked:


I remember this now, the comet itself wasn't twice the size of Jupiter. It was the comet's Coma that was twice the size. That was the reason why it (the comet) had no gravitational effect on the solar system. Had the comet been that large it would have seriously disrupted the orbits of all the inner planet.

I call Bunk and BS on this one.

ALS


Meh, you just jumped in the thread late bud, I gave up on the original video, turned out to be accepted as comet Neat.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Fair enough.

I will agree with you though that if an end-of-the-world scenario were to play out, the public would/will never be informed. Atleast not till it was too late.

ALS



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by Helious
 


Fair enough.

I will agree with you though that if an end-of-the-world scenario were to play out, the public would/will never be informed. Atleast not till it was too late.

ALS


I agree totally and the point of this thread was to discuss that but I should have started off with a better video, lol, that's where I got railroaded.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
I like how you break the responses down and individually reply to them, it makes you appear smarter! Great job. What you still haven't done in any way however is contribute anything, anything at all to the content of the subject, If you agree, great, if you don't then simply disagree and move on.


If I disagree, I should move on?! That is now the least intelligent thing I have heard today. I'm leaving because you don't handle opposition well.


You don't really think I'm leaving do you?!



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Helious
I like how you break the responses down and individually reply to them, it makes you appear smarter! Great job. What you still haven't done in any way however is contribute anything, anything at all to the content of the subject, If you agree, great, if you don't then simply disagree and move on.


If I disagree, I should move on?! That is now the least intelligent thing I have heard today. I'm leaving because you don't handle opposition well.


You don't really think I'm leaving do you?!


Well, lets see....... You asked me if I had a point. Since it is clearly stated in my original post and in point of fact I even say, the point of this thread is........ You were not here to debate anything or contribute anything, you came here to post snide remarks toward me without even reading the original post.

So, which of us is being more intelligent concerning your behavior in this thread?
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



There is nothing wrong in the claim that we would not be informed of a doomsday event if it could be with held. That would be the most logical course for NASA and the government to take. It's pretty simple really. If you wan't to dispute that claim, go right ahead but I don't see what it will actually do to make a difference.


Yes there is something wrong with this claim that people would not be informed. You claim it would be "the most logical course". Is that the most logical course? Is that what you would do? This has nothing to do with logic, but rather it is your opinion, which you are unable to substantiate.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


So if the world was about to end, you think the government (etc) would tell us about it? Is that your stand point on the matter?

ALS



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Helious
 



There is nothing wrong in the claim that we would not be informed of a doomsday event if it could be with held. That would be the most logical course for NASA and the government to take. It's pretty simple really. If you wan't to dispute that claim, go right ahead but I don't see what it will actually do to make a difference.


Yes there is something wrong with this claim that people would not be informed. You claim it would be "the most logical course". Is that the most logical course? Is that what you would do? This has nothing to do with logic, but rather it is your opinion, which you are unable to substantiate.


Oh, I can substantiate it and common sense is on my side. Yes, to answer your question of it being the most logical course of action for NASA and governments around the world and this is why.....

In the event of an object large enough to cause extinction to the human race was found by NASA and collision was imminent, what exactly would be the benefit to informing the public? Those "in the know" would need all the available time and resources available to form a plan to carry on the human race and time and resources to achieve that plan.

Governments world wide would be of the same mindset. There would be so many things to consider and at the end of the day it would probably be decided that the continuation of our species is more important than the moral obligation of informing everyone on earth.

It would be incredibly hard to plan for something of this magnitude and even harder to assess a working strategy to achieve those plans and my bet is they would prefer to do this without causing the largest mass panic situation the world has ever known.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


My problem is not with you personally, it lies with your way of thinking in general. Any person who is incapable of discerning an opinion on there own without having to point to a main stream source to validate that opinion is in my very humble opinion nothing more than a puppet.

While, accepted science has it's place and is valid in many ways you must also add your own free will to a debate. You can not always blindly believe things just because someone else has said them. We have countless reasons how this leads to wars, brainwashing and stake burning.

There are times my friend, when you must challenge right or wrong things that don't always add up in your own mind. Perhaps, everything you read, see and hear provided to you by sources you trust are the sum of how you feel the world works but that does not mean that every other idea or feeling out there is wrong. You, yourself have very little to verify the sources you quote nor the resources to know for sure if there is an agenda behind that discloser.

The old adage that knowledge is power, is alive and well and could not be more true today than the day it was coined. If knowledge is power, why would those who have it, freely hand it over? Is there a hand out line at Fort Knox? No, there is not. You make the occasional argument but your blind belief in information that others have told you that you have not witnessed nor bothered to consider yourself is your downfall.

Take what you know as "fact" with a grain of salt. Learn to weigh the evidence with the balance of your own mind instead of citing sources that only YOU believe to be credible, in doing this, you will find, some things don't add up in your own head.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


I believe that the word would get out. The ability to squelch such news would be impossible.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



Oh, I can substantiate it and common sense is on my side.

No. What you deem to be common sense is nothing more than your opinion.


In the event of an object large enough to cause extinction to the human race was found by NASA and collision was imminent, what exactly would be the benefit to informing the public? Those "in the know" would need all the available time and resources available to form a plan to carry on the human race and time and resources to achieve that plan.

You are contradicting yourself. You claim extinction and survival in the same paragraph. So which is it?

What would be the benefit? Why does there have to be an apparent benefit? OK, what about a religious benefit?


Governments world wide would be of the same mindset. There would be so many things to consider and at the end of the day it would probably be decided that the continuation of our species is more important than the moral obligation of informing everyone on earth.

First, not all governments of the world have the same mindset. Compare North Korea with Costa Rica. These places places have the same mindset? Are you kidding?

Again, here you are simply repeating your opinion. Do you have anything to substantiate this opinion?


It would be incredibly hard to plan for something of this magnitude and even harder to assess a working strategy to achieve those plans and my bet is they would prefer to do this without causing the largest mass panic situation the world has ever known.

Wouldn't it be easier if you told everyone and then the government could skip town. Otherwise, they have to give the false appearance of daily actions suggesting everything is normal. How can the government give the impression of normalcy and do this job you are suggesting is "incredibly hard to plan for something of this magnitude."
edit on 17-5-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


That's a lot of whining from someone who openly lied in this thread. You posted a video. You were wrong. You even lied after I showed that the information was disseminated in time for amateurs to assist the "government" n tracking the space rock.

I am not surprised to levels you stoop to stick to your failed argument.

Open your mind. Think of the situation. Here is the scenario:

A rock or something else is going to toast the Earth. There is a slim chance that the government has a bunker that can save a few uppity-ups. The bunker needs to be stocked and people need to get there. You claim that this requires a huge effort.

So how can the government act that it is business as usual if their time is being consumed with what you describe as a huge undertaking?


If knowledge is power, why would those who have it, freely hand it over? Is there a hand out line at Fort Knox? No, there is not. You make the occasional argument but your blind belief in information that others have told you that you have not witnessed nor bothered to consider yourself is your downfall.

You seem to have this wacko idea that this information could be kept secret. How? People keep secrets that either have no effect on them or give them an advantage. What is going to keep the whistle blowers quiet when the outcome is certain death?

At least I am not a blatant liar. You appear to be so certain of your stance that even when shown wrong you cling to position using obvious lies.


Take what you know as "fact" with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, your facts are stained with lies.

Learn to weigh the evidence with the balance of your own mind instead of citing sources that only YOU believe to be credible, in doing this, you will find, some things don't add up in your own head.

You really need to learn balance and not let your paranoid delusions take over. You need to think problems through and see how it would be difficult for a government to exhibit an appearance of normalcy in such a situation. How could they keep a large effort secret while maintaining their normal schedules of meetings and photo ops and press conferences and meetings with citizens and lobbyists and courting other politicians, ...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'm a little confused here...

First, you say "I believe that the word would get out. The ability to squelch such news would be impossible.''

Then, you go on to say in your following post to Helious that "What you deem to be common sense is nothing more than your opinion.''

Here's where I'm confused: If you're going to tell other people that they're giving ''nothing more than their opinion'', then why are you giving your own opinions as if they should be held in high regard and not to be questioned? To say that ''I believe the word would get out and the ability to squelch such news would be impossible'' is actually also nothing more than your opinion.

You seem to have a very firm stance on the scenario that if there was a hypothetical event of an impending global catastrophe that could kill billions of people, the moment it was initially discovered, this information would be freely given to the general public as a ''warning'' of what is to come at whatever estimated date of arrival. Are you kidding? Have you thought over how much extreme panic, chaos, crime, senseless violence, etc there would be literally everywhere around the world once this announcement was made? There's no denying that this would be the outcome - a ''hell on earth'' scenario before the ''hell'' actually came to wipe everything out. I'm sure that this would be the primary reason why this would be kept ''hidden''.

That's MY opinion, and I have every right to freely express it, thanks.

Cheers.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
 



... the moment it was initially discovered, this information would be freely given to the general public as a ''warning'' of what is to come at whatever estimated date of arrival.


You need to understand how NEO's (Near Earth Objects) are discovered and reported before you form an opinion. When first observed, any new comet or asteroid's position is reported to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which then issues an MPCE alerting other observers to confirm the object's location. (These MPCEs are e-mails, although sometimes you will hear them called "Astronomical Telegrams!") Once other astronomers have confirmed the object's presence, it is entered into the Minor Planet Center Database. It generally takes several nights observing to determine the object's motions, which in turn allows its orbit to be calculated. It is only then that it is possible to determine whether an object is on a collision course with Earth. The IAU is a non-governmental international agency, and its data is open to the public; indeed, the MPCE's are vital to its function. Anyone who desires can receive MPCEs, although there is a subscription cost. Anyone can access the MPDC database ephemeris and do their own calculations. The entire process takes place in the open. Even if an Earth grazing body were discovered to be on a collision course with the Earth, there is no point in the process where the information could be cut off completely; every observatory on Earth would already have the orbital parameters and could work it out for themselves. Sooner or later, someone would break any "gag order" that a government tried to impose.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thank-you for this information, DJW001. I wasn't aware of this. I appreciate that instead of ridiculing me for having an alternative opinion, you provide me with information that is of use to not only myself, but others as well.

Cheers.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthbringsfreedom777
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thank-you for this information, DJW001. I wasn't aware of this. I appreciate that instead of ridiculing me for having an alternative opinion, you provide me with information that is of use to not only myself, but others as well.

Cheers.


If you want to be protected from ridicule you need to make threads asking questions (not rhetorical questions). You made this thread declaring (implying) that there was some mass coverup, and the evidence you provided was weak.

Hence the ridicule.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
 



Here's where I'm confused: If you're going to tell other people that they're giving ''nothing more than their opinion'', then why are you giving your own opinions as if they should be held in high regard and not to be questioned? To say that ''I believe the word would get out and the ability to squelch such news would be impossible'' is actually also nothing more than your opinion.

You are not confused at all. You have stated the situation clearly and correctly.


the moment it was initially discovered, this information would be freely given to the general public as a ''warning'' of what is to come at whatever estimated date of arrival.

That is not my claim at all. The moment something is discovered? No. If something looks bad don't you think that it becomes necessary to "get a second opinion?" Wouldn't it be a good idea to double check the work first? I am not suggesting that the information would be "freely" given tot he public. The information would be given to the public.


Are you kidding?

No. Did any of those things happen when everyone thought that the naval blockade of Cuba was about to result in an atomic war? No. Many people were certain that it was going to be nuclear annihilation and people did not do what you are suggesting.


There's no denying that this would be the outcome - a ''hell on earth'' scenario before the ''hell'' actually came to wipe everything out.

There are incidents in which people killed themselves. There are incidents where people waited peacefully for the end of the world. Can you give us any examples in which people though the end was near and they did what you suggest?

I thank you for your opinion, but you attempt to substantiate this opinion with an example in which this happened?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


"If you want to be protected from ridicule you need to make threads asking questions (not rhetorical questions). You made this thread declaring (implying) that there was some mass coverup, and the evidence you provided was weak.

Hence the ridicule."

I don't want to be ''protected'' from ridicule as you put it, and by the way, I didn't make this thread. I contributed to it.

Cheers



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"Can you give us any examples in which people though the end was near and they did what you suggest?

I thank you for your opinion, but you attempt to substantiate this opinion with an example in which this happened?"

No, I can't give you any specific examples in terms of people going crazy thinking the ''end is near'', but I can tell you that riots/public looting has been well documented throughout history, and that's but a small demonstration of what would essentially happen world-wide if a global catastrophe was announced. I'm not saying that everybody would be flooding the streets with torches, destroying everything in their paths in sheer panic, but I tend to think there's more ''bad'' people out there than ''good'', if you know what I mean.

Wouldn't you agree with this? Or do you think that most of the world's population would just sit back, grab a drink and carry on with their lives as if nothing happened? I'm sorry, but I just don't think that would happen. The world would be in shambles, total chaos everywhere. I sure have a lot of faith in humanity, eh? Unfortunately, this is how the world is, and this is what would happen if the hypothetical ''global catastrophe'' happened.

Thanks for the reply Stereo.

Cheers.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"You are not confused at all. You have stated the situation clearly and correctly."

OK, so you're fully acknowledging that you hold your own personal opinions in a higher regard as opposed to other people's opinions? You don't see the error of your ways here, or do I have to point it out to you more clearly?

Maybe if you didn't come across as a complete ''know it all'' towards almost everybody here that has a different perspective on 2012-related topics than you do, then people would maybe be more receptive and open to what you have to say, as well as your own contributed opinions. I just pointed out that you're making it look as though your opinions matter, and others are just ''nothing more than an opinion''. That's wrong, not to mention pretty disrespectful.

That's another one of my opinions!


Cheers.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join