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

reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777

but I can tell you that riots/public looting has been well documented throughout history,

But so have times of peace. I know riots happen. I know looting happens. In fact these are not rare events. Riots happen lots of times as does looting.

and that's but a small demonstration of what would essentially happen world-wide if a global catastrophe was announced.

I don't see the reason for this. Why would there be riots everywhere if it was announced that the end was near?

So if the end is near and there are riots - so what?

but I tend to think there's more ''bad'' people out there than ''good'', if you know what I mean.

I disagree on that point, but would suggest that it does not take many people to form a riot. A relatively low proportion of people ever get involved in riots.

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?

There are likely to be riots. There is more likely to be mass prayer sessions. There will be looters, but few would be involved. There would be suicides, but more people are likely to try and tough it out.

Unfortunately, this is how the world is,

Sorry, I completely disagree. Most people will be scrambling to save themselves trying to get out of urban areas to the rural areas and too busy trying to stock up on religious messages and food and comfort to do what you suggest.

People tend to cling to hope in the face of insurmountable odds.

reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777

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?

I have provided an example as to what my reasoning is: the threat of nuclear annihilation which was widespread in the US. You have not provided anything at all other than opinion. Certainly you must see the error of your ways.

Maybe if you didn't come across as a complete ''know it all''

I'm sorry you feel cowed by the facts and evidence I have placed into this forum.

I just pointed out that you're making it look as though your opinions matter

I gave a reason for my opinion. So far you've only admitted that you have no reason for your opinion except for a less than admirable appreciation for your fellow humans.

That's wrong, not to mention pretty disrespectful.

Please no more whining. Go think why you have this rather low respect for other people and give us some facts about why you think people are so low.

You did say this, didn't you?

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?

Talk about disrespecting your fellow humans. You do indeed have a low opinion of others.

reply to post by stereologist


Stereologist, we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, first of all. Second of all, we're exchanging nothing more than our own personal opinions on this hypothetical scenario. So please spare me the whole ''you should be ashamed of yourself for having such a low opinion of your fellow man'', okay?

Clearly, we have two entirely different opinions on what would happen in this scenario. Agree to disagree, I guess.

In terms of the scenario we're discussing, I think that people would be in such an extreme state of panic and duress due to knowing they're about to die that this would alter their behavior drastically. "Survival mode'' isn't exactly a state of mind that everybody is 100% prepared for on this planet.

"A relatively low proportion of people ever get involved in riots."

That's highly irrelevant to the severity of the global scenario we're talking about here. There would be mass riots all over the place, and they wouldn't just be limited to tiny, isolated groups of people.

"There are likely to be riots. There is more likely to be mass prayer sessions. There will be looters, but few would be involved. There would be suicides, but more people are likely to try and tough it out."

Well then, I'm glad we can at least agree on that. I'm not suggesting that EVERYBODY on the face of the planet is going to engage in barbaric riots, in case that wasn't clear. Sure, there are going to be tons of religious people praying, but, there will also be other people going ''crazy''.

"Sorry, I completely disagree. Most people will be scrambling to save themselves trying to get out of urban areas to the rural areas and too busy trying to stock up on religious messages and food and comfort to do what you suggest."

I never said that people wouldn't be scrambling to save themselves and going to rural areas. Of course that's what most people would be doing, myself included!

"I have provided an example as to what my reasoning is: the threat of nuclear annihilation which was widespread in the US. You have not provided anything at all other than opinion. Certainly you must see the error of your ways."

Actually, my example was the ''global catastrophe'' scenario we have been discussing this entire time. My point was that you usually grill other people for ''having nothing but an opinion'', when at the same time, you give an assortment of your own opinions all the time in your own posts, as if your opinions are seemingly more important than others

"I'm sorry you feel cowed by the facts and evidence I have placed into this forum."

You can give facts and evidence in this forum without coming across as a know-it-all who thinks everybody else is wrong, and you're right. Or maybe you just don't have any respect for anybody's views and beliefs but your own, who knows.

"Please no more whining. Go think why you have this rather low respect for other people and give us some facts about why you think people are so low."

I think people are so low because of what I see every time I watch the news on TV. I think people are so low because of what I observe personally in my day to day life. I think people are so low because of how much injustice there is in this world. You get the picture. You're making it look like I'm suggesting that I think humanity as a whole is ''low''. Just goes to show that you jump to some pretty quick conclusions, or maybe you're just trying to make me look ''low'' because that's how you normally operate here.

"Talk about disrespecting your fellow humans. You do indeed have a low opinion of others."

No, I have a low opinion on how humanity will react to this scenario in general. You must think I'm a ''bad person'' for having this opinion. That's fine by me!

reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777

o please spare me the whole ''you should be ashamed of yourself for having such a low opinion of your fellow man'', okay?

It certainly is a low opinion you have of your fellow man. You openly claim that when disaster warnings are given they will turn to violence. So no, I won't spare you on that count.

I think that people would be in such an extreme state of panic and duress due to knowing they're about to die that this would alter their behavior drastically.

I agree with that. I do not agree that people in general will turn to violence.

That's highly irrelevant to the severity of the global scenario we're talking about here. There would be mass riots all over the place, and they wouldn't just be limited to tiny, isolated groups of people.

No its not irrelevant. Few people turn to violence although a small number can do a great deal of damage.

Actually, my example was the ''global catastrophe'' scenario we have been discussing this entire time.

That's not an example. That has not happened. Do you have an actual instance of this, i.e. an example. I gave an example.

you give an assortment of your own opinions all the time in your own posts, as if your opinions are seemingly more important than others

I do give opinions. I provide factual data. Can you provide any facts to substantiate your claim?

You can give facts and evidence in this forum without coming across as a know-it-all who thinks everybody else is wrong, and you're right. Or maybe you just don't have any respect for anybody's views and beliefs but your own, who knows.

It's tough if you can't handle the facts and evidence presented.

I think people are so low because of what I see every time I watch the news on TV. I think people are so low because of what I observe personally in my day to day life. I think people are so low because of how much injustice there is in this world. You get the picture. You're making it look like I'm suggesting that I think humanity as a whole is ''low''. Just goes to show that you jump to some pretty quick conclusions, or maybe you're just trying to make me look ''low'' because that's how you normally operate here.

Why didn't you moderate your position with any of the good you see? All you say is why you have a low opinion of other people. All along you talk about how there will be global violence if people thought that the end was near.

No, I have a low opinion on how humanity will react to this scenario in general. You must think I'm a ''bad person'' for having this opinion. That's fine by me!

I do think it is a bad attitude to expect people in general to resort to violence in the face of calamity.

Originally posted by boncho

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.

You bring up a good point, the thread title was poorly thought out for the direction I was looking to go, I have learned from that simple mistake, believe me.

Originally posted by stereologist
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)

No, common sense is what the majority of people who contemplate a situation would deem rational. Just because it happens to agree with my opinion on this occasion is coincidental.

The perceived and possible event of human extinction will not prevent those who are able to try and stop it from doing so as they perceive is the most logical course of action and human self preservation will play a role in that. While there are people who are truly selfless, it's the exception, not the rule.

What would be the benefit? Really? Self preservation is the benefit, that is quite enough to motivate, wouldn't you say? Would you not do ANYTHING within your power to survive?

Yes my friend, all world governments are the same in a few choice things and those things are predominantly the same when you consider an extinction level event. Remain in power, preserve your life and have the ability to rebuild should you survive. All resources would be allocated to achieve those three goals, across the globe.

And no, it wouldn't be easier to just inform the masses and go about your business, that statement is just absurd. Faced with imminent death, the citizens that grossly outnumber government would rise up out of self preservation, panic and fear and make any possible attempt by government to prepare itself, chaotic at best. Inform the masses and go about there business indeed.................

reply to post by Helious


Actually, as an exercise in ethical and moral speculation, the question I think you wanted to ask is good one: if you knew that the world was going to be destroyed and there was nothing anyone could do about it, would you warn everyone? Would people take it calmly and make their peace with life and/or the deity of their choice, or would they run amok in their final hours? Which would you anticipate? Does merciless devotion to the truth outweigh the comfort of a peaceful ending? Et cetera. The little "Twilight Zone" sketch I proposed was a stab in that direction. (I'm seriously considering turning it into a 20 minute "closed door" period drama and letting a student film maker shoot it. It would be a tongue in cheek parody on the one hand, but, like the show it parodies, a thought provoking Morality Play!) Anyway, if you want to start another thread in, say, "Philosophy and Metaphysics" with a more neutrally proposed question, I'd be delighted to participate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

Actually, as an exercise in ethical and moral speculation, the question I think you wanted to ask is good one: if you knew that the world was going to be destroyed and there was nothing anyone could do about it, would you warn everyone? Would people take it calmly and make their peace with life and/or the deity of their choice, or would they run amok in their final hours? Which would you anticipate? Does merciless devotion to the truth outweigh the comfort of a peaceful ending? Et cetera. The little "Twilight Zone" sketch I proposed was a stab in that direction. (I'm seriously considering turning it into a 20 minute "closed door" period drama and letting a student film maker shoot it. It would be a tongue in cheek parody on the one hand, but, like the show it parodies, a thought provoking Morality Play!) Anyway, if you want to start another thread in, say, "Philosophy and Metaphysics" with a more neutrally proposed question, I'd be delighted to participate!

I think that would be an excellent idea. The question itself is a very curious one probing the very nature of human spirit and resolve. It is a wonderful and fantastical journey inside the human mind. The key to it being so interesting is that there are so many possible scenarios, those scenarios are going to be most likely voiced in different ways by the nature of the person who is answering.

reply to post by Helious

No, common sense is what the majority of people who contemplate a situation would deem rational. Just because it happens to agree with my opinion on this occasion is coincidental.

Common sense is not in agreement with your position. Common sense is based on practical experience. Practical experience clearly shows that people are alerted to danger. The evidence is clear. You are wrong and no amount of lying on your part changes that fact.

Self preservation is the benefit, that is quite enough to motivate, wouldn't you say? Would you not do ANYTHING within your power to survive?

How is self preservation increased by hiding information about doom?

Yes my friend, all world governments are the same in a few choice things and those things are predominantly the same when you consider an extinction level event. Remain in power, preserve your life and have the ability to rebuild should you survive. All resources would be allocated to achieve those three goals, across the globe.

Clearly you have very little knowledge of the world. Governments range from secretive to open, able to control and unable to control, rich and poor, law abiding and bandits, etc.

And no, it wouldn't be easier to just inform the masses and go about your business, that statement is just absurd. Faced with imminent death, the citizens that grossly outnumber government would rise up out of self preservation, panic and fear and make any possible attempt by government to prepare itself, chaotic at best. Inform the masses and go about there business indeed.................

Your claims are simply ludicrous and downright delusional. To think that with little time that the citizens could suddenly form into an organization that could challenge the government in any meaningful manner is so silly it is just laughable. You really have no idea what you are talking about - no idea at all.

reply to post by stereologist


Bro.... Why are you still posting? Yours, is simply a failed argument that can not be shown to have the least amount of merit. You assume, for some unknown reason that mankind, despite all of it's flaws and everything that we see happening now on an every day basis, would somehow be inclined to "band together" in the event that something on the ELE scale would potentially have the power to wipe mankind of the map.

Thank God we have moved from fact and into the arena of common sense about hypothetical situations because it would appear that you don't have a good grasp of reality when it comes to human nature, pyramid based power societies and structures and the basic outline for morality when it comes from the top down and deals in absolutes.

Your love and trust in the society in which you live has left you wide open to the exact type of manipulation and control that would have you in a basement with your radio on, waiting for any news from the very people that would be feverishly constructing bases underground while trying to keep you docile while they did it.

Thank God for people like you because in all reality and at the end of the day, one less person I have to kill to keep from getting into my house should something like this actually happen. Your faith in structured society and the rule of government is misplaced, not only in my estimation but by the climate of the entire world in the state we are now all in.

I am not an all out knock em dead crazed guy who sees conspiracy in everything but I am smart enough to know that in the ultimate poker game when those in power have to be all in, they have the poker face to pull of the ultimate bluff while winning the hand. Wake up Stereo, in that scenario, we are not in Kansas anymore and your supposed morality and science means absolutely nothing as human nature breaks down into what it always has been since the dawn of mankind.

reply to post by Helious

You bring up a good point, the thread title was poorly thought out for the direction I was looking to go, I have learned from that simple mistake, believe me.

I look forward to seeing your future threads.

reply to post by Helious

Bro.... Why are you still posting? Yours, is simply a failed argument that can not be shown to have the least amount of merit. You assume, for some unknown reason that mankind, despite all of it's flaws and everything that we see happening now on an every day basis, would somehow be inclined to "band together" in the event that something on the ELE scale would potentially have the power to wipe mankind of the map.

That's not my claim, nor has it been my claim. Then again you are well exposed a liar and as a liar this is your method of dealing with an utterly failed claim.

Your demonstration of a complete lack of common sense in this issue is astounding.

In at least one example when people in the US were expecting atomic war and nuclear annihilation they did not resort to violence.

So far you have not shown a single example in which people turned to violence in the face of overwhelming destruction.

Thank God for people like you because in all reality and at the end of the day, one less person I have to kill to keep from getting into my house should something like this actually happen.

All you are doing is projecting you own opinion on this subject. You suggest that I would attempt to enter your house. Why? Because you actually think that you have something worthwhile? I would guess from your posts that you have very little and would never be a potential source for resources.

Your faith in structured society and the rule of government is misplaced, not only in my estimation but by the climate of the entire world in the state we are now all in.

Again, only a liar like you would claim that I made any such claims.

Wake up Stereo, in that scenario, we are not in Kansas anymore and your supposed morality and science means absolutely nothing as human nature breaks down into what it always has been since the dawn of mankind.

Again, only a liar like you - and you have been clearly exposed as such in this thread - would make the statement that I said or suggested this.

In general people do not resort to violence when they believe that an overwhelming disaster is looming.

Can you show us even one instance when this happened? I am not talking about a riot in which a relatively few people go nuts. Even think about historical events. In general did people turn to violence on the Titantic when it was sinking, or Pompeii when it being destroyed, or in events when people are urged to flee from flood waters or approaching hurricanes or approaching armies or anything you can think of?

All you've done so far is post opinion. I have posted more than opinion. I have posted an instance when people were warned of the imminent threat of incineration by atomic bombs and people did not resort to violence. So far the common sense is completely against your position.

damn awesome videos. THANKS

NASA is a private corporation. They are beholden to the shareholders and their employers which are not the people. The give the illusion that they are a company designed for the people but they in no way are beholden to the people. This is an important fact, it is not an open source company, but a private company whose business model is not to help people.

The reason I say this is that people are angry that NASA hides things, but they don't hide any more than Microsoft, or Johnson and Johnson, or the Fed. They are under no obligation to reveal anything at all. The only reason they reveal things like the astronauts drink Tang, and they still can't figure out space sickness after all these years, is to appease the populace a bit, in the same way the church hides everything it knows, but has a mass from time to time to keep people happy in their ignorance. I expect that if you offered to pay for some information from NASA you could buy it.

There is the last issue. Say the planet was going to be hit head on by Elenin on October 3rd. Would telling the world do a single thing to alter the process?

reply to post by crankyoldman

NASA is a private corporation.

NASA is a part of the US government. It is not a private company. It does not have shares and shareholders.

From the NASA web site

NASA Remains One of the Federal Government's Best Places to Work in 2009

About NASA

The orbital path published by NASA can be checked by anyone in the world. The position can be predicted and tested by observers.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

NASA is a private corporation.

NASA is a part of the US government. It is not a private company. It does not have shares and shareholders.

From the NASA web site

NASA Remains One of the Federal Government's Best Places to Work in 2009

About NASA

Help me out here, "one of the federal government's...." doesn't say anything about who owns them. It only makes reference to who controls them. The US has been bankrupt for nearly 100 years. Dig deep and you'll find out they don't own the agency. I'd defer to Zorgon for the exact situation has he is an established expert. NASA is not owned by the people of the US.

Originally posted by stereologist
The orbital path published by NASA can be checked by anyone in the world. The position can be predicted and tested by observers.

I would like to re-emphasize this line. I've observed it myself, it's following the orbital path calculated by the minor planet center and published on JPL's website as well as others. If Elenin were going to hit earth, there would not be a darn thing NASA could do to keep that information hidden, shy of murdering every single amateur astronomer capable of seeing it.

Originally posted by ngchunter
there would not be a darn thing NASA could do to keep that information hidden, shy of murdering every single amateur astronomer capable of seeing it.

Hm ... interesting idea ... oops, sorry, my evil ego slipped out there for a moment

reply to post by crankyoldman

Dig deep and you'll find out they don't own the agency. I'd defer to Zorgon for the exact situation has he is an established expert. NASA is not owned by the people of the US.

Your claim is an utter failure. It is just delusional.