http://anomalous.wordpress.com/2006/01/12/the-space-act/

Can NASA release evidence of alien intelligence to the public? This depends greatly on how they are allowed to operate. How do we find this out? We read the Space Act of course... This act was designed as a general outline of the Administrators guide with do's and dont's regarding information and findings made while in the position of administrator. The part which deals with states what they can and cannot do regarding such a thing as ETI spacecraft.

* SPACE ACT: Sec. 303. (a) Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this Act shall be made available for public inspection; except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, (B) information classified to protect the national security.

Essentially what this is, well just what it says. NASA Administrator can release information for public viewing and inspection, as long as the information is not classified to protect the national security. To further drive home this point, that NASA is obligated to hide some data read this;

* SPACE ACT: The (administrator) making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense, of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency.

This is essentially saying, if the administrator comes into “DISCOVERIES” that would have anything to do with our national defense, then we need to hand it over to them. So, would unknown/ETI objects (Vehicles or structures) fall under such an umbrella? I would certainly consider intelligent alien vehicles A DISCOVERY THAT HAS SIGNIGIFIGANT MILITARY VALUE. Well, let’s see;

* SPACE ACT: (2) the term “aeronautical and space vehicles” means aircraft, missiles, satellites, and OTHER space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts.

The "Other space vehicles" opens the door to a lot. This could constitute (not that it has) ALIEN SPACE VEHICLES, AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, DIVICES, COMPONENTS, AND PARTS.

I would suggest reading this; http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/workshops/societal/societal_report.pdf

For a look at how the space act and the "threat of intelligent alien life" might have on our society. It's important to understand that I am not saying this means NASA HAS covered up anything. What I am saying, is that via the Space Act - the wording is sufficient to assume that they very well could "hide" such a thing and be following the law.

Didn't you know? Nasa is run by aliens. ;)

Didn't you know? Nasa is run by aliens. ;)

:p yep..

Pseudoscience section please.

Any discovery of aliens by NASA would result in a massive increase in their budget and status in our culture. I can't see any reason why they would want to keep it a secret.

Any discovery of aliens by NASA would result in a massive increase in their budget and status in our culture. I can't see any reason why they would want to keep it a secret.
Exactly right.

I would certainly consider intelligent alien vehicles A DISCOVERY THAT HAS SIGNIGIFIGANT MILITARY VALUE.

Why?

Although frankly I'm in perfect accord with Superluminals response to this, there's just something about INAPPROPRIATE CAPITALISATION that's just pulls at they eye, y'know...?

I just thought up a slogan for btimsah.

btimsah: because fuzzy black dots and pictures of rocks must be space aliens.

I agree

Why?

Although frankly I'm in perfect accord with Superluminals response to this, there's just something about INAPPROPRIATE CAPITALISATION that's just pulls at they eye, y'know...? Just shut your open wide mouth. This thread is about the legal aspects that can help an Alien encounter coverup by US.

I always wonder, US people being so dumb, why are they so advanced.

To the completely non-substantive "responses" above;

It appears many of you did not read the thread, because this nothing to do with my past moon images, or "funding for NASA". You need to make sure you use your correct debunking tactics in the correct thread. ;)

Now, it's important that you read the quote below;

The Space Act states quite simply that the NASA Administrator can release information for public viewing and inspection, as long as the information is not classified to protect the national security.

The (administrator) making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense, of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency.

To suggest the quote above is pseudoscience is rather funny, when you consider it's NASA's operating procedures. :rolleyes:

If this is moved to pseudoscience I will need to do another thread on weather the Space Act is really pseudoscience.

Because, believe it or not, there are actually some clever people in america. Also the chances of NASA hiding something like this is very small.

I just thought up a slogan for btimsah.

btimsah: because fuzzy black dots and pictures of rocks must be space aliens.

This is doing nothing more than replacing substance with ridicule, thus revealing how empty you are.

This thread has nothing to do with rocks or any pictures, but I understand how you would still be fanatically drawn to debates of old. It's hard for you to let go of.

Get over it and get some substance!

Because, believe it or not, there are actually some clever people in america. Also the chances of NASA hiding something like this is very small.

Leaks do occur, so that debunkery doesnt really mean much. There are witnesses from inside NASA who have spoken of them being obligated to hide sensitive ETI information. So, you might be right - NASA has not succeeded in hiding it completely? :m:

Why?

Although frankly I'm in perfect accord with Superluminals response to this, there's just something about INAPPROPRIATE CAPITALISATION that's just pulls at they eye, y'know...?

So, your saying NASA should have just violated the Space Act and their operating procedures because of the potential for increased funding.

I wish they would as well, that would work for me...

Any discovery of aliens by NASA would result in a massive increase in their budget and status in our culture. I can't see any reason why they would want to keep it a secret.

NASA does not want to keep it secret, the DoD/government does. This isnt a personal attack against NASA. They have to follow rules and laws, NASA works with the DoD and has to follow these security requirements. It's not up for discussion for them.

Pseudoscience section please.

If you feel the Space Act is Pseudoscience..

Hey, has anyone read "Deception Point"? the whole book is about this topic, and in the end there was no proof that NASA did hide anything about aliens. I know its just a book but i think it tells a certain truth.

NASA actively promoted the idea of Alien Life when they went public with meteorite ALH 84001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

Anyway, NASA aren't the only space agency. They'd go public with what they knew, or they'd look pretty silly if ESA or someone published first. I mean, NASA, and it's huge budget, losing out on a scoop like proving alien life? That would be an embarrassment.

Hey, has anyone read "Deception Point"? theat whole book is about this topic, and in the end there was no proof that NASA did hide anything about aliens. I know its just a book but i think it tells a certain truth.

No I've never read that, but it sounds interesting. It's important to understand that if the evidence of ETI was hidden, how would we prove it?

The reason it's so difficult to get anywhere in this field is because it plays on so many hypotheticals. Do aliens exist? Does NASA know if they do? Does NASA know what the hell they are? Is it hidden? How much is hidden? How can you prove it's hidden, if the evidence is hidden? :rolleyes:

It's incredibly difficult..

So I figure it's easier to start from this question; Can NASA release evidence of ETI (or objects of unknown origin)? Answer that one first, then move on.. ;)

NASA actively promoted the idea of Alien Life when they went public with meteorite ALH 84001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

Anyway, NASA aren't the only space agency. They'd go public with what they knew, or they'd look pretty silly if ESA or someone published first. I mean, NASA, and it's huge budget, losing out on a scoop like proving alien life? That would be an embarrassment.

Microbial life is not a threat to our national security. Now, as for the ESA - I just don't know what security measures they have.

btimsah is perfectly correct. NASA would have the opportunity to legally withold evidence for alien life if they so chose. This is not, however, the same as saying they would automatically do so.

Can NASA release evidence of alien intelligence to the public?

Why would NASA have evidence of alien intelligence? What about the thousands of scientists involved in astronomy? Or SETI? Why NASA? I would argue that they are the least likely to have such evidence. Unless you think our solar system has been a stomping ground for aliens for millions of years?

It would be impossible to "hide" real evidence of an alien intelligence based on human nature alone. You may be able to classify and 'hide' the details of a thing. Look at the Coca Cola company - their formula has been safe for 100yrs, but no one denies it's existence. In the field of science, it is impossible.

Think about it. Given all of the supposed evidence combined with all of the photographs, you would have to postulate a veritable industry of photo-retouchers alone.

Microbial life is not a threat to our national security. Now, as for the ESA - I just don't know what security measures they have.

Have you not seen or read 'War of the Worlds'? If earthly microbes could theoretically be danger to alien life forms, alien microbes could theoretically be a danger to earth, so that is a matter of 'national security'. So much so, NASA was worried that astronauts might bring back some nasties from space.

If aliens have the technology to travel across the vast distances of space, NASA doesn't have the capability to suppress their existence, if they wanted their presence to be known. In fact, NASA could not suppress such information by itself. Like I said, there are other space angencies and organisations, all looking to prove they are better than each other. I used to work for one.

ESA, OK, telescope/satellite data is analysed by the person that requested the observation. Nobody knows what the data contains until the PI analyses it. No pre-analysis is done, no filtering, no suppression, because there isn't the manpower or computing power to do so.

A colleague of mine discovered a 'secret' nuclear power plant whilst analysing some data, so people are free to discover things, and could go public if they chose to do so. If he'd discovered ETI, he would have shared, for sure!

Anyway, here's a thought for you. There are all sky surveys taking place right now. They look for anything 'new' that appears, or any change of brightness, so we can get focus on that object, and get more data on supernovae. These surveys occur in more than just optical wavelengths. If any craft was buzzing about, emitting or reflecting light, infra red, or x-rays (or gamma rays, for that matter) it would be captured on the all sky survey, and set alarm bells ringing around the planet.

But such things are not seen. Alleged alien craft can be seen with the eye, supposedly. So how come they reflect light on earth, but don't reflect sunlight when in space?

So, your saying NASA should have just violated the Space Act and their operating procedures because of the potential for increased funding.

No, I'm actually asking you a perfectly simple one word question and, since I'm not actually aware of saying or even suggesting anything of the sort as you seem to relay in the above, I'm simply going to ask you the same simple one word question again -

You say in your opening statement: "I would certainly consider intelligent alien vehicles A DISCOVERY THAT HAS SIGNIGIFIGANT MILITARY VALUE."

My question is simply why?

Just shut your open wide mouth.

Of course, y'do realise. Responses that begin in these precise sorts of terms rarely ever bode well for the future, don't you? Would you care at all to explain further, if not the actual recourse to begin matters on so amusing a footing, at least run by me one time quite why you believe a statement such as "I always wonder, US people being so dumb, why are they so advanced," has any the slightest baring on either my question posited to btimsah or infact myself personally, being as I'm not in the slightest American to begin with...

Are you being simply frivolous or, as we say in my neck of the woods, merely being a twat of the first order?

Enquiring minds and all that, don'tcha know.... ;)

I'm American. And there are plenty of dumb ones. But seeing as nationality has little to do with your genetic propensity (or lack thereof) for intelligence, I can only assume that Anom's natural genetic propensity is, ummm, how you say, tending toward the lower end of the scale, nationality not withstanding.

I also would love to hear BT's explanation of the human military value of an alien spacecraft that uses technology that almost certainly exceeds our current physical understanding. Whaddya got?

:) ... Mmmmmm, me too old man. I'm all of a tizz with anticipation.....

phlogistician is right, there is no way you could hide something like that. if I were analyzing some data and found evidence of ETI and the government tried to keep it under wraps, I would just set up my own equipment and be in all the history books as the person who proved we were not alone. I am sure many other people would do the same.

....
I also would love to hear BT's explanation of the human military value of an alien spacecraft that uses technology that almost certainly exceeds our current physical understanding. Whaddya got? A human, obviously.

....
Of course, y'do realise. Responses that begin in these precise sorts of terms It was your choice of Avatar now pay for it.

rarely ever bode well for the future, don't you? What future ?

Would you care at all to explain further, if not the actual recourse to begin matters on so amusing a footing, at least run by me one time quite why you believe a statement such as "I always wonder, US people being so dumb, why are they so advanced,"
I thought it should have been obvious to understand what I said.


has any the slightest baring on either my question posited to btimsah or infact myself personally, being as I'm not in the slightest American to begin with... yep, Americans always steal, they steal oil, and Alien technology. Why is Intel and Amd in USA and not in Europe ? Given the way americans act and react to intelligent statements its clear theres something fishy.

Are you being simply frivolous or, as we say in my neck of the woods, merely being a twat of the first order?

Enquiring minds and all that, don'tcha know.... ;) [/FONT] [/SIZE]
Do I sound like that or its your disability that U cant listen properly.

Anom,

You are a complete idiot.

Anom,

You are a complete idiot.Ya, right, I know i admit th....

No, I'm actually asking you a perfectly simple one word question and, since I'm not actually aware of saying or even suggesting anything of the sort as you seem to relay in the above, I'm simply going to ask you the same simple one word question again -

You say in your opening statement: "I would certainly consider intelligent alien vehicles A DISCOVERY THAT HAS SIGNIGIFIGANT MILITARY VALUE."

My question is simply why?



Of course, y'do realise. Responses that begin in these precise sorts of terms rarely ever bode well for the future, don't you? Would you care at all to explain further, if not the actual recourse to begin matters on so amusing a footing, at least run by me one time quite why you believe a statement such as "I always wonder, US people being so dumb, why are they so advanced," has any the slightest baring on either my question posited to btimsah or infact myself personally, being as I'm not in the slightest American to begin with...

Are you being simply frivolous or, as we say in my neck of the woods, merely being a twat of the first order?

Enquiring minds and all that, don'tcha know.... ;)

I did not know that was your question, must have missed it. Anyways it's of military value because of the object's abilities and who should have it. Then the final tact of the object/craft being (potentially) so technologically advanced as to scare the hell out of the populous. This was a very real fear when the Space Act was first written back in the 50/60's.

The simple answer is "knowlege" that our military only wants usto have as opposed to our enemies. At least that's typically how this top secret stuff works.. That's my working hypothesis - hope you like it. :D

btimsah is perfectly correct. NASA would have the opportunity to legally withold evidence for alien life if they so chose. This is not, however, the same as saying they would automatically do so.

Almost exactly right :p..

I am not sure how the administrator is supposed to know what is a threat to our national security. Does he have a list? :confused: Or is he just supposed to decide for himself? This question needs to be answered factually with documents to further this investigation. If I can find out how the administrator deams what is a threat to our national security, we can then move to PROVE that object's of unknown origin are in fact a threat to our national security.

:m:

Have you not seen or read 'War of the Worlds'? If earthly microbes could theoretically be danger to alien life forms, alien microbes could theoretically be a danger to earth, so that is a matter of 'national security'. So much so, NASA was worried that astronauts might bring back some nasties from space.

If aliens have the technology to travel across the vast distances of space, NASA doesn't have the capability to suppress their existence, if they wanted their presence to be known. In fact, NASA could not suppress such information by itself. Like I said, there are other space angencies and organisations, all looking to prove they are better than each other. I used to work for one.

ESA, OK, telescope/satellite data is analysed by the person that requested the observation. Nobody knows what the data contains until the PI analyses it. No pre-analysis is done, no filtering, no suppression, because there isn't the manpower or computing power to do so.

A colleague of mine discovered a 'secret' nuclear power plant whilst analysing some data, so people are free to discover things, and could go public if they chose to do so. If he'd discovered ETI, he would have shared, for sure!

Anyway, here's a thought for you. There are all sky surveys taking place right now. They look for anything 'new' that appears, or any change of brightness, so we can get focus on that object, and get more data on supernovae. These surveys occur in more than just optical wavelengths. If any craft was buzzing about, emitting or reflecting light, infra red, or x-rays (or gamma rays, for that matter) it would be captured on the all sky survey, and set alarm bells ringing around the planet.

But such things are not seen. Alleged alien craft can be seen with the eye, supposedly. So how come they reflect light on earth, but don't reflect sunlight when in space?

Undoubtedly, there's a chance (because of the debunkery points you just made) that NASA has never seen an ETI object or being EVER and this whole thread is pointless.

I suppose my answer would be that we don't know enough (anything, really) about these objects to answer such detailed question's about why some see them and some don't. Furthermore, I am not (yet) trying to prove that some UFO's are extraterrestrials. Well, I suppose I could - but not in this thread.

This is merely about the Space Act and NASA's obligation under it. I'm starting small and working my way up. Now I just need to get a grant to study this for a few years. :cool:

Why Hide ETI?

#1. We can't stop them from entering our country/world.
#2. Their technology must be much, much more advanced than ours therefore of extreme value for reverse engineering purposes.
#3. Such valuable technology should be hidden to keep it out of the hands of our enemies.
#4. Such a discovery, might throw religions and certain parts of the world into chaos.

I don't believe #4 anymore, but there was a brookings report done on this issue and it said certain societies would go into chaos. NASA (Ironically) wanted to know the impact of how the world would react to certain life forms being discovered. ;)

Of course, if this is top secret than the real reason we may never know. Maybe they wish to destroy us, and that is why their "such a threat".

All of us in here should be able to hypothesis why ETI would be a threat to our national security.

Since I'm rambling... I've read the book Skunk Works about the Top Secret project to build the Stealth Bomber and other projects. In it, Ben Rich talks a great deal about what it's like working under Top Secret conditions.

I remember reading the story about when Gary Francis Powers was shotdown (and did not kill himself like he was supposed too!) over Russia. The United States Military along with NASA developed an effective cover story, BEFORE he ever crashed. Hey, they are prepared for these kinds of things!

The cover story was that it was an "Advanced weather study by NASA". Much to the President's embrassment, because Powers was still alive, which proved they were lying. When you read this book you get a great sense of the value of hiding technology. I just fear that perhaps the value of technology might be hiding the greatest discovery of - well ever.

Anyways, the only reason I brought this up is how we've seen similar (failed) cover stories like this before in the UFOlogy field. Roswell has had 3 explanations and Kecksburgh has had 3 as well, and the final one (that NASA recovered the object in Kecksburgh and studied it and it was an advanced Russian sat - even though it could not have been - acording too NASA scientist's - do a search for this online. Oh and the documents NASA used in this case have mysteriously been lost.. :rolleyes: ) was b.s. as well.

After reading this book and increasing my understanding of how our military worked on top secret project's - I see a lot of the same things in the UFO cases, as I do top secret projects. The military responses, denials and talk-arounds. People leaking amazing information about a craft that radar's cannot see.
Okay, that was enough rambling - back to the thread. :o

Anom,

You are a complete idiot.

Hmmmm, now how would Issac Hayes frase it...? Ah, I know - "You're damn straight." ;)


I did not know that was your question, must have missed it. Anyways it's of military value because of the object's abilities and who should have it. Then the final tact of the object/craft being (potentially) so technologically advanced as to scare the hell out of the populous. This was a very real fear when the Space Act was first written back in the 50/60's.

The simple answer is "knowledge" that our military only wants usto have as opposed to our enemies. At least that's typically how this top secret stuff works.. That's my working hypothesis - hope you like it.

Right - let's take that to be the case. Here you have you're alien object/ space craft. Peels out of hyperspace, parks its arse in orbit directly above the continental US of A. NASA inform the Whitehouse, the Whitehouse ask for military options, the Military replys.....

.........

It isn't an invitation to fill in the blanks. These are the military options.


With your ET scenario you're supposedly dealing at every juncture with a level of technology capable of successfully crossing the enormous gulfs of interstellar space, with presumably the same capability of returning, intact, to whence it came - and yet somehow our development of the solid fuel ICBM places within our capacities the means to acquire this level of technology by, presumably, force of some description?

How, exactly?

On the one hand the premise dictates the viable existence of a degree of technology capable of unparallelled means of travel with unprecedented degree's of both accuracy and control - on the other, a civilisation which its ability's to merely be able to cross the incomparably short distances in comparison of its own solar system via liquid chemical rockets the pinnacle of cutting edge space tech.

You're Government can draft all the amendments regarding the matter it wishes - frankly, what the hell damage is even a nuclear war head going to do against something that, at the very minimum, must at least be constructed to withstand the rigours and stresses of crossing deep space for prolonged periods at the precise extremes of velocities our technology simply and plainly cannot under any circumstances in anyway match.

So how exactly is either yours, or anyone else's Government actually supposed to be able to capture this magnificent beast?

Ah, yes, I remember now. They've got the crossing interstellar space thing down to pat - everytime, delivers them bang in this solar system, no problems whatsoever.

The instant they enter Earths atmosphere however, suddenly they forget how to drive....

Which particular part of the oft over flogged term "Advanced Technology" does no one who actually believes in these things and yet uses the term the most as if it's actually supposed to mean something not understand the most?

If the technology involved is actually advanced enough to do what the people who believe in visiting ET's believe with impunity it's actually capable of doing in the first place - by simple dint of it actually existing it's not going to fall into anyones hands, full stop because, if it exists and actually does what it says on the tin, it is advanced and there's jack all, terrestrial technology wise, to do anything to counter it with.

You ask me what I thought of your hypothesis - I think, with the right sort of a budget and the right kind of director it would make an enjoyable enough motion picture or TV Mini series - but think about what the sorts of words and phrases you're using actually mean in real terms - the actual underlying premise for your own hypothesis undermines the likelihood of the entire rest of it of serving any point other than exposition for a story...

Fiction requires the suspension of belief in order for it to work - real life just simply doesn't require it.

NASA is obligated to hide my garlic-press from me. And the vampires are coming over.

Hmmmm, now how would Issac Hayes frase it...? Ah, I know - "You're damn straight." ;)




Right - let's take that to be the case. Here you have you're alien object/ space craft. Peels out of hyperspace, parks its arse in orbit directly above the continental US of A. NASA inform the Whitehouse, the Whitehouse ask for military options, the Military replys.....

.........

It isn't an invitation to fill in the blanks. These are the military options.


With your ET scenario you're supposedly dealing at every juncture with a level of technology capable of successfully crossing the enormous gulfs of interstellar space, with presumably the same capability of returning, intact, to whence it came - and yet somehow our development of the solid fuel ICBM places within our capacities the means to acquire this level of technology by, presumably, force of some description?

How, exactly?

On the one hand the premise dictates the viable existence of a degree of technology capable of unparallelled means of travel with unprecedented degree's of both accuracy and control - on the other, a civilisation which its ability's to merely be able to cross the incomparably short distances in comparison of its own solar system via liquid chemical rockets the pinnacle of cutting edge space tech.

You're Government can draft all the amendments regarding the matter it wishes - frankly, what the hell damage is even a nuclear war head going to do against something that, at the very minimum, must at least be constructed to withstand the rigours and stresses of crossing deep space for prolonged periods at the precise extremes of velocities our technology simply and plainly cannot under any circumstances in anyway match.

So how exactly is either yours, or anyone else's Government actually supposed to be able to capture this magnificent beast?

Ah, yes, I remember now. They've got the crossing interstellar space thing down to pat - everytime, delivers them bang in this solar system, no problems whatsoever.

The instant they enter Earths atmosphere however, suddenly they forget how to drive....

Which particular part of the oft over flogged term "Advanced Technology" does no one who actually believes in these things and yet uses the term the most as if it's actually supposed to mean something not understand the most?

If the technology involved is actually advanced enough to do what the people who believe in visiting ET's believe with impunity it's actually capable of doing in the first place - by simple dint of it actually existing it's not going to fall into anyones hands, full stop because, if it exists and actually does what it says on the tin, it is advanced and there's jack all, terrestrial technology wise, to do anything to counter it with.

You ask me what I thought of your hypothesis - I think, with the right sort of a budget and the right kind of director it would make an enjoyable enough motion picture or TV Mini series - but think about what the sorts of words and phrases you're using actually mean in real terms - the actual underlying premise for your own hypothesis undermines the likelihood of the entire rest of it of serving any point other than exposition for a story...

Fiction requires the suspension of belief in order for it to work - real life just simply doesn't require it.

You may very well see it as sci-fiction, (which fits with this websites name) but this IS a study of the Space Act and NASA's potential obligation to hide evidence of ETI - were it a threat to our national security.

You, and others seem to doubt our very ability to cover up such a thing. For some reason, people like yourself fail to look at the "stories" we have heard which suggests this cover up, which should illustrate that perhaps they have not been ABLE to cover it up completely? If you can prove that the evidence, or more importantly, the PROOF has been covered up - it would be foolish for people to keep asking for it. From our government at least..

This is not an exercise in trying to prove "aliens exist", this is an exercise to prove that NASA could have hidden it, if they did exist and done so with the full support of the law. I can't go into such an investigation, debunking it before I even start.

From what I've read from the eye-witnesses; These ETI craft are supposedly very advanced, but not unstoppable. I'm all for skeptiscm, but skeptiscm goes both ways. For instance, when you find yourself doubting our ability to cover-up ETI, try being skeptical the other way and see where you land.

Don't just automatically accept that NASA "Would not, and could not" hide such a thing. Where's your skeptiscm regarding that claim? Fair, open and truthfull skeptiscm is fine and needed to get to the truth, but it has to be open to both sides - not just one. ;)

From what I've read from the eye-witnesses; These ETI craft are supposedly very advanced, but not unstoppable.

Then the question you should be asking yourself, if that remains the case, is exactly how did this technology manage to make it from one solar system to this one with pin-point accuracy across a distance of light years perfectly adequately yet fail completely to cope with rigours of just 5 miles of terrestrial atmosphere when it gets here?

It's a very simple, fundamental question - without an adequate explanation of which, y'don't get any of the rest of the stuff these so called "eyewitnesses" purportedly relay.

That's not scepticism asking it, its just basic common sense.

btimsah, for the record, and since we have crossed light sabres in the past, I develop here, a point or two.
I agree with you that NASA, and other government agencies, could be capable of covering up evidence of ET activity. However, for the reasons explicit and implicit expressed by others, I feel the events on which this evidence would be based would have to be limited. Many genuine sightings could not be kept under wraps. Eventually someone would blab.
In this regard, then, we are not looking at any of the UFO sightings as representing the type of evidence or event that might be concealed. The two categories of evidence/event that might be suppressed are
1) Detection of intelligent signals from within the solar system, perhaps from robotic observation devices.
2) Detection, by our space probes, of alien artifacts in space, or on planetary or satellite surfaces.

Why am I restricting this cover up to off planet observations? Simple. There would be too many agencies involved, not to mention too many countries, to effectively cover up terrestrial incidents.

Didn't you know? Nasa is run by aliens. ;)

Right Said Fred, just like area 51.

Then the question you should be asking yourself, if that remains the case, is exactly how did this technology manage to make it from one solar system to this one with pin-point accuracy across a distance of light years perfectly adequately yet fail completely to cope with rigours of just 5 miles of terrestrial atmosphere when it gets here?

It's a very simple, fundamental question - without an adequate explanation of which, y'don't get any of the rest of the stuff these so called "eyewitnesses" purportedly relay.

That's not scepticism asking it, its just basic common sense.

I'd prefer not to make assumptions about the propulsion system of aliens. :)

But I get where your going with this, many scientist's object to the ability of these beings to get here. It's something I just don't think we can make (very accurate) claims about yet.

btimsah, for the record, and since we have crossed light sabres in the past, I develop here, a point or two.
I agree with you that NASA, and other government agencies, could be capable of covering up evidence of ET activity.

However, for the reasons explicit and implicit expressed by others, I feel the events on which this evidence would be based would have to be limited. Many genuine sightings could not be kept under wraps. Eventually someone would blab.

In this regard, then, we are not looking at any of the UFO sightings as representing the type of evidence or event that might be concealed. The two categories of evidence/event that might be suppressed are;

1) Detection of intelligent signals from within the solar system, perhaps from robotic observation devices.
2) Detection, by our space probes, of alien artifacts in space, or on planetary or satellite surfaces.

Why am I restricting this cover up to off planet observations? Simple. There would be too many agencies involved, not to mention too many countries, to effectively cover up terrestrial incidents.

Would you like testimony from NASA scientist's who have blabbed? :D

I found this piece on J. Allen Hynek really interesting, because he spent so much time on this issue and formed a much different hypothesis than the assumption that these unknown-incredible-flying-objects are E.T;

Go To The Wikipedia Page To Read More About Him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek)

Late in his life, Hynek was critical of the popular Extraterrestrial hypothesis. He began expressing his doubts that UFOs are physical spacecraft from other planets. As Hynek himself said in October 1976: "I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home."

Hynek eventually inferred a possible link between certain UFO reports and psychic phenomena. Many UFO reports, he said, seem to pertain more to accounts of poltergeists (cases where objects fly around the room and strange sounds are heard) and other types of 'psychic' manifestations than to 'actual solid items of nuts and bolts hardware.' "That is one of the reasons," added Dr. Hynek, "why I cannot accept the obvious explanation of UFOs as visitors from outer space." (1)

Hynek developed the Close encounter scale to better catalogue various UFO reports. Dr. Hynek was also the consultant to Columbia Pictures and Steven Spielberg on the popular 1977 UFO movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and made a brief, non-speaking appearance in the film (he can be seen with his pipe, looking on as aliens communicate with Earth scientists at the Devils Tower contact site).

In November 1978, a statement on UFOs was presented by Dr. Allen Hynek, in the name of himself, of Dr Jacques Vallee, and of Dr Claude Poher. This speech was prepared and approved by the three authors, before the United Nations General Assembly. [2]

Hynek was the founder and head of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).

On April 27, 1986, Dr. Hynek died of a malignant brain tumor at Memorial Hospital in Scottsdale, Arizona. He was 75 years old.

He certainly had an unusual view on this issue, and dare I say more bizzare than ETI? :D - figures.

I'd prefer not to make assumptions about the propulsion system of aliens. :)

Yeah, well. Touché.... Very wise and very deftly done. :)

But I get where your going with this, many scientist's object to the ability of these beings to get here. It's something I just don't think we can make (very accurate) claims about yet.

Yet the people who relay claims that these exact sort of craft are already here on Earth being held in either in cold storage or being retro-engineered in some way... aren't?

Bits, Google will throw up something in the region of 22,000 odd hits on this precise subject alone without being even very picky about the search criteria being used - the world, his wife and his wife's best friend apparently already know the Mysteries of The Flying Saucers.

Plenty of people think they can make absolutely accurate claims about the physical characteristics and capacities of UFO's - A great many of them claim to have seen them in operation in Government controlled facilities...

I mean, isn't this getting down to the nub of the whole premise of this thread - these sorts of beliefs in UFO's dictate that, in order for the rest to be true, the actual "advanced technology" UFO's are supposed to represent fundamentally must be pretty damn unspectacular in practice otherwise how else can a bunch of bozos like us, who can't even successfully cover-up a presidential infidelity or two, capture the things with such supreme ease.

Oh, its spooky and mysterious and it works by magic moonbeams and will get you from zeta Reticuli and back again in less time than it takes to play a game of Ka-Plunk! - but steers like a cow and fly's like a sideboard the instant it gets here...

And, really, that's just got to be so much BS it must squeak.

Oh, its spooky and mysterious and it works by magic moonbeams and will get you from zeta Reticuli and back again in less time than it takes to play a game of Ka-Plunk! - but steers like a cow and fly's like a sideboard the instant it gets here...



Ah, isn't that the well know problem with multi-cluster quark drive? Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow?

One minute, strolling along with the star drive hardly ticking over, and ten seconds later, smashing straight into the third moon of Jaglan Beta.

Yeah, but I bet even the cigar lighter works on hyperdrive....

Robert, that was an excellent link about Joe Hynek, unfortunately his name has been co-opted as if he believed all the most ridiculous flying saucer stories at first sight. I disagree with his conclusions, but he was the first man to genuinely try to apply scientific rigour to the subject, and to reveal Project Blue Book as the time-serving dustbin for incompetent Air Force majors that it was.

Ah, isn't that the well know problem with multi-cluster quark drive? Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow?

One minute, strolling along with the star drive hardly ticking over, and ten seconds later, smashing straight into the third moon of Jaglan Beta.

Well, yeah. Basically why everyone who's anyone drives a diesel these days but fairs fair with regards to those old multi-cluster quark drives and that particular ball of rock - they don't call it The Leaping Recklessly Psychotic Third Moon of Jaglan Beta for nothing y'know. A sentient planetoid with a nasty sense of humour. One for the Encyclopedia Galactica, sure, but a complete bastard to run into when you're not expecting it....

Thank heavens they put the speed ramps throughout that entire sector, that's all I can say.

Yeah, but I bet even the cigar lighter works on hyperdrive....

Well, you'd think wouldn't you but apparently no. :)

Yeah, well. Touché.... Very wise and very deftly done. :)

Yet the people who relay claims that these exact sort of craft are already here on Earth being held in either in cold storage or being retro-engineered in some way... aren't?

Bits, Google will throw up something in the region of 22,000 odd hits on this precise subject alone without being even very picky about the search criteria being used - the world, his wife and his wife's best friend apparently already know the Mysteries of The Flying Saucers.

Plenty of people think they can make absolutely accurate claims about the physical characteristics and capacities of UFO's - A great many of them claim to have seen them in operation in Government controlled facilities...

I mean, isn't this getting down to the nub of the whole premise of this thread - these sorts of beliefs in UFO's dictate that, in order for the rest to be true, the actual "advanced technology" UFO's are supposed to represent fundamentally must be pretty damn unspectacular in practice otherwise how else can a bunch of bozos like us, who can't even successfully cover-up a presidential infidelity or two, capture the things with such supreme ease.

Oh, its spooky and mysterious and it works by magic moonbeams and will get you from zeta Reticuli and back again in less time than it takes to play a game of Ka-Plunk! - but steers like a cow and fly's like a sideboard the instant it gets here...

And, really, that's just got to be so much BS it must squeak.

Of course the true believers, who make grand claims with a lack of proof are as faulty as those who make grand claims BASED on a lack of evidence, in a subject in which we know virtually nothing.

(Yes, that was complicated) :p

The more we study the subject, the more we (should) realize how little we know. I feel Hynek felt that way. Years and years of study and he still could not explain what they were seeing, in the unsolved cases.

There are about 3 groups in this field which create confusion, but all work with different premises;

Group #1: Assume these "incredible, unknown object's" are from out of this world and are alien-created.

Group #2: Does not believe any of these object's can be alien, because there's no proof of such a thing.

My Group: I believe the issue of Unidentified incredible object's is completely unknown, that is, we simply DON'T KNOW what they are. Period. Why can't something remain unsolved? As is the issue of life on other planets. The correct approach would require an agnostic-like view toward this issue, until more facts can be produced and our understanding of astronomy is better. Hypothesis are fine, and can be encouraged this way. As long as they are not presented as fact. The other views are too strict and don't allow any room for alternative perspectives.

But, that's just how I view this. ;)

I've read some of you, referring to the abilities of these "amazing crafts" that mysteriously become very un-amazing once they get here, and crash. :bugeye: That's a fair enough question, because eye-witnesses can give you the impression that these crafts can do almost anything. Such as dissapear, fly at incredible speeds and make death-defying changes in direction and speed.

The truth is, we don't know the answer to that. However, because we don't know the answer (at this time) in no way really does much to further the discussion for, or against ETI.

Are you arguing that the ETI explanation for the very small percentage of UFOs that are not fully explained is the best available explanation for such sightings? The only explanation? A very unlikely, but not completely impossible explanation? Other?

Yeah, but I bet even the cigar lighter works on hyperdrive....

Robert, that was an excellent link about Joe Hynek, unfortunately his name has been co-opted as if he believed all the most ridiculous flying saucer stories at first sight. I disagree with his conclusions, but he was the first man to genuinely try to apply scientific rigour to the subject, and to reveal Project Blue Book as the time-serving dustbin for incompetent Air Force majors that it was.

It might be interesting to note that one website I had visited said that Hynek served on the N.A.C.A. committee, which was chartered in 1915 to 1958 and then The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 created NASA from NACA.

Are you arguing that the ETI explanation for the very small percentage of UFOs that are not fully explained is the best available explanation for such sightings? The only explanation? A very unlikely, but not completely impossible explanation? Other?

It's plausable that these incredible vehicles could be of alien origin, but it's just one possibility. One could easily assume every un-explainable UFO is merely a "top-secret" space craft. Ironically, as we've seen with the Space Act - A top-secret craft could still constitute an ALIEN craft! :bugeye:

Hope that answers your question's.

It's plausable that these incredible vehicles could be of alien origin, but it's just one possibility. One could easily assume every un-explainable UFO is merely a "top-secret" space craft. Ironically, as we've seen with the Space Act - A top-secret craft could still constitute an ALIEN craft! :bugeye:

Hope that answers your question's. So in which Area are UFOs most seen in the world ?

So in which Area are UFOs most seen in the world ?

Hmm.. good question. Mexico has had some fascinating cases.

There is a mysterious thing about UFOs that I know and no one knows about, is anyone inetersted ?

How does one know a mysterious thing? :)

How does one know a mysterious thing? :)
http://sciforums.com/member.php?u=19363

As an update and side note, a few weeks ago I sent a letter to my Senator (Jim Inhoff) and asked him point-blank - does the Space Act allow NASA to hide from the public view, information about objects of unknown origin? This was the response I got back;

Thank you for your recent correspondence. As your public
servant in Washington, I am glad you brought the classification of
unknown objects by NASA to my attention. I will certainly look
more closely at this issue. I rely on constituents like you to keep
me informed of matters of importance to you. When you give me
your feedback, I can then share it with Congress and, in turn, the
nation.

The issues important to Oklahomans are not always the top
priority at the federal agencies, in the news media, and elsewhere;
but they are of the utmost importance to me. As your Senator, I
will see to it that our state's values, traditions, and needs are voiced
and acknowledged.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns and please do
not hesitate to contact me in the future.

So, I guess he's looking into it. :rolleyes: Obviously that's not what I had hoped for. In a nutshell, he did not care. :(

If anyone else would like to email their congressmen or someone at NASA and ask them question's about this, that would be much appreciated. :D

So, I guess he's looking into it. :rolleyes: Obviously that's not what I had hoped for. In a nutshell, he did not care. :(

He probably has more important things to do.

Here's an interesting report on Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly (http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ufo-retrieval/)

It's fascinating to see how the FOIA documents suggest that, not only does the Military study these unknown object's, and that they are of military value, but that NASA helps them in study and retrieval. Given the inconsistant responses the Air Force gave it makes you wonder if protocol was followed and weather or not this is properly classified.

He probably has more important things to do.

You have successfully replaced substance with ridicule. Good job, soldier. ;)

No, seriously. He has to deal with healthcare, education and other enquiries. Why would he take the time to answer what appears to him to be an alien-conspiracy theorist when he has pressing hospital enquiries to attend to?

My Group: I believe the issue of Unidentified incredible object's is completely unknown, that is, we simply DON'T KNOW what they are. Period. Why can't something remain unsolved? As is the issue of life on other planets. The correct approach would require an agnostic-like view toward this issue, until more facts can be produced and our understanding of astronomy is better. Hypothesis are fine, and can be encouraged this way. As long as they are not presented as fact. The other views are too strict and don't allow any room for alternative perspectives.

But, that's just how I view this. ;)

:) ... And a refreshingly sane view it is too. Applause, applause....

So, what exactly are your prescise concern regarding these new Bill Amendments then?

No, seriously. He has to deal with healthcare, education and other enquiries. Why would he take the time to answer what appears to him to be an alien-conspiracy theorist when he has pressing hospital enquiries to attend to?

I don't particularly care if you feel it's worth it. In fact, if you don't think it's worth it - then that makes me think I'm on the right track.

:) ... And a refreshingly sane view it is too. Applause, applause....

So, what exactly are your prescise concern regarding these new Bill Amendments then?

Bill amendments?

The changes you indicate to the Space Act - presumably it had to go through the Senate as some form of amendment to an already existing Bill.... Hence, you're writing to your local Senator? Hence, somewhat equally, the question....

Any discovery of aliens by NASA would result in a massive increase in their budget and status in our culture. I can't see any reason why they would want to keep it a secret.

Exactly right.

Umm..no exactly wrong actually. NASA is funded by the US government as most of us know. If such a discovery has/is/will happen(ed)(ing) any funding wouldn't be directed through NASA's Budget; it would go under one of the several confidential "Black Ops" that the government runs, and would fall most certainly under the National Security Budget. I think you are far underestimating the capablities of the US government; if they don't want the general public to know about something, they most certainly have the means of "keeping a lid on it."

Why keep it under wraps? The most obvious answer to me is technology...the second most obvious answer being security.

The changes you indicate to the Space Act - presumably it had to go through the Senate as some form of amendment to an already existing Bill.... Hence, you're writing to your local Senator? Hence, somewhat equally, the question....

I did not ask the Senator about the Space Act amendment's. I asked him how one should interpret the Space Act.

Umm..no exactly wrong actually. NASA is funded by the US government as most of us know. If such a discovery has/is/will happen(ed)(ing) any funding wouldn't be directed through NASA's Budget; it would go under one of the several confidential "Black Ops" that the government runs, and would fall most certainly under the National Security Budget. I think you are far underestimating the capablities of the US government; if they don't want the general public to know about something, they most certainly have the means of "keeping a lid on it."

Why keep it under wraps? The most obvious answer to me is technology...the second most obvious answer being security.
The funding would most likely go to the agency that is best suited to gather scientific data. If not NASA which agency would be better suited?

The funding would most likely go to the agency that is best suited to gather scientific data. If not NASA which agency would be better suited?

It could have been said - If the Military really had a stealth bomber, Lockheed would tell everyone so they could make thousands and thousands off them. It would increase their funding!

But, alas they kept it as secret as they could because it was the perfect weapon for a time when we needed something to get around the evil :mad: empire's improving radar.

I did not ask the Senator about the Space Act amendment's. I asked him how one should interpret the Space Act.

.... Right, so what you're saying here is you wrote to him asking how you should interpret the space act without actually refference the space act at all.... Becasue, apparently you "did not ask the Senator about the Space Act amendment's."

Btimsah, this really is a terribly simple question - you began this post referencing certain amendments to the Space Act - you specify these in your initial post.

What, exactly, are your concerns regarding these changes?

Pretty much the same damn question I asked you three posts back but apparently a question you have no idea how to answer without fannying around making out as if you don't know what the question means.

Any particular reason for this or have you just very recently been kicked in the head by a horse or something - enquiring minds and all that.

.... Right, so what you're saying here is you wrote to him asking how you should interpret the space act without actually refference the space act at all.... Becasue, apparently you "did not ask the Senator about the Space Act amendment's."

Btimsah, this really is a terribly simple question - you began this post referencing certain amendments to the Space Act - you specify these in your initial post.

What, exactly, are your concerns regarding these changes?

Pretty much the same damn question I asked you three posts back but apparently a question you have no idea how to answer without fannying around making out as if you don't know what the question means.

Any particular reason for this or have you just very recently been kicked in the head by a horse or something - enquiring minds and all that.

If you don't know what my concerns are, by now, then I guess the horse must have hit you too.

Well, one of us certainly is getting about due for a good kicking somewhere - it's a simple question. Why the reluctance to give a simple, straight answer?

btimsah does seem to avoid answering questions. Try Mine again- who better than NASA?

Mmmm, does rather, don't 'e...? Perhaps there's a secret password or handshake or some such... ;)

One needs to understand that ET Life and ET Intelligent Life are two vastly different phenomena. Humanity probably isn't prepared for the actuality of extraterrestrial life, much less extraterrestrial intelligent life; contact, or the cultural and social fallout.

As has been demonstrated in many other threads on this forum, we're not even ready to let go of (qed-) "racism" and embrace our terrestrial diversity in any kind of rational terms; so in more than one regard, welcoming ETI is even more unfathomable and "out of this world."

On the subject of this thread, NASA is not obliged to hide ET Life; proof of this was the Mars meteorite (ALH84001) analysis. However, ETI is (and has been) a National Security phenomenon and subject to special handling. There are genuine historical documents, and some of questionable authenticity, which indicate (probably even "prove"- in the legal sense) that (members within) the US Government and their Armed Forces have taken this matter seriously enough to: issue regulations which quarantine astronauts and pilots after their flights; engage in high altitude, interatmospheric, and space-based surveillance and intelligence gathering; implement procedures for control and command, classification and compartmentalization of unknown phenomena; issue written and tacit directives to pacify public information consumption (the news media, et al) with cover stories and disinformation; and to draft offical department position statements of denial.

Greetings, All

btimsah does seem to avoid answering questions. Try Mine again- who better than NASA?

People call me paranoid.. :rolleyes:

Who better than NASA, at what? I don't really understand what your question is, or the other guy's.

One needs to understand that ET Life and ET Intelligent Life are two vastly different phenomena. Humanity probably isn't prepared for the actuality of extraterrestrial life, much less extraterrestrial intelligent life; contact, or the cultural and social fallout.

As has been demonstrated in many other threads on this forum, we're not even ready to let go of (qed-) "racism" and embrace our terrestrial diversity in any kind of rational terms; so in more than one regard, welcoming ETI is even more unfathomable and "out of this world."

On the subject of this thread, NASA is not obliged to hide ET Life; proof of this was the Mars meteorite (ALH84001) analysis. However, ETI is (and has been) a National Security phenomenon and subject to special handling. There are genuine historical documents, and some of questionable authenticity, which indicate (probably even "prove"- in the legal sense) that (members within) the US Government and their Armed Forces have taken this matter seriously enough to: issue regulations which quarantine astronauts and pilots after their flights; engage in high altitude, interatmospheric, and space-based surveillance and intelligence gathering; implement procedures for control and command, classification and compartmentalization of unknown phenomena; issue written and tacit directives to pacify public information consumption (the news media, et al) with cover stories and disinformation; and to draft offical department position statements of denial.

Greetings, All

Very well stated. :) I found it fascinating to find out that, Project Blue Book, had no access to reports that were above "Secret". :p Some might say, rightfully so - That info cannot be released! Yes, that's true and illustrates how useless Blue Book is. I think that speaks to the compartmentalization you were talking about.

Classification of Object's Of Unknown Origin with incredible abilities is probably a better term for some of what might be classified.

For instance, Kecksburgh.

People call me paranoid.. :rolleyes:

Who better than NASA, at what? I don't really understand what your question is, or the other guy's.

Yeah, whatever...

Rather than reading that ineffable gob-shite of a brain fart your initial post links to, and since actual answers from you remain pretty thin on the ground, I thought I'd take the prudent liberty of actually reading the Space Act in its full, complete context.

Unlike the bollocks pondered upon by the chap in the blog your initial post links too, the actual Space Act itself proves genuinely interesting reading - lets review:

The pertinent passage from the Space Act around which this whole ETI angle hangs reads as following -

* SPACE ACT: (2) the term “aeronautical and space vehicles” means aircraft, missiles, satellites, and OTHER space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts.

After which you conclude: "The "Other space vehicles" opens the door to a lot. This could constitute (not that it has) ALIEN SPACE VEHICLES, AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, DIVICES, COMPONENTS, AND PARTS."

The Space Act was ratified by Congress in 1958 during the hight of the Cold War: in stipulating the terms, as the act does, " “aeronautical and space vehicles” means aircraft, missiles, satellites" in specific all the Act is referring to is technological applications available at the time - you'll note the term Rocket or Rockets isn't specified in the Act as it stands, even though Rockets and and Multi-Stage Rocket Delivery Systems subsequently proved an enormous part of NASA's ongoing programmes throughout the 60's, they aren't specified particularly except they can be classified under the codicil "and OTHER space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts."

As too equally can the subsequent development of the Space Shuttle and other more up-to-date developments currently underway relating to manned space flight.

And this is precisely as "extraterrestrial" as the Acts wording gets - simply put, the Act as written in such a way is done so to include current existing technology of the day (1958) but not exclude subsequent technological developments on the simple grounds that to do so would require a redraft and amendment of the relevant sections of the Act as it stands.

Since the passage quoted remains quite unchanged from the original, unamended Space Act of 1958 - as a legal definition of mandate the passage as it stands obviously works.

And that's as spooky as it gets.

This whole ETI/UFO interpretation of The Space Act as posited is exactly the same as people used to blather on about ad infinitum with regards to Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations - the so-called Extraterrestrial Exposure Law initiated on 16 July 1969 and subsequently repealed in 1991 wherein UFO nuts the US over consistently managed to interpret their own definitions upon a perfectly clear, perfectly non-extraterrestrial orientated piece of legislature.

Now, if you want to waste your time thinking about this sort of shite, that's your business - personally, I believe doing it in private is probably best and foisting it upon a straight science section of the forums like this one instead of the Pseudo Science section where it belongs - nil poi for any actual thinking at all.

Previous to this I had had you pegged as being simply a straightforward ETI Believer who demonstrated a really quite admirable degree of accommodation when considering other peoples point of view, however, as your behaviour throughout this thread has demonstrated - you're nothing but a regular UFO nut - you're is to propose, our's is to simply agree with you and tell you you're absolutely right about everything.

Your not interested in debate, only putting the spin on matters which concern your own boneheaded beliefs.

I've met more than enough of your kind already thanks very much. And now you've bored me.

Cleaver old you. Toodles. ;)

Personally, I'd rather look around and see nothing important than bury my head in the sand and make blind proclamations of the world around me.

/shrug

A very penetrating remark qwerty, unfortunately on this occasion I could not determine whether it was designed to penetrate btimsah or Mr A. Could you clarify please. Thanks.

It was pointed inwardly, tbh; it should've followed Mr. A's post, but I can see how it must seem "snide," contextually (posting late after Bt). I apologize for any confusion. Cheers!

Thanks for the clarification.

Btimsah, would you contemplate the following points for a moment.
1) We are in the midst of a mass extinction event that appears to be a direct consequence of the actions of humans.
2) The world is overpopulated and population numbers are still increasing.
3) Depsite this 30,000 persons die every day in the third world as a direct and indirect result of poverty.
4) The potential for a global conflict between the West and Islam, between China and the US, between the haves and the have nots, appears to increase annually, not decrease.
5) Did I mention global warming, or global epidemics, or forthcoming potable water shortages, or desertification, or......

In the light of these issues, why do you feel the speculative possibility that the US government might apparently have the power to conceal certain facts about possible ETI visistations, is in any way of particular importance?

Who better than NASA to investigate space related matters?

ESA

Fka

But ESA has so little experience compared to NASA. How did they do with Beagle?

Beagle 2 was designed and run by the British Space organisation, which is terribly underfunded. The ESA-run probe which it launched from did well.

Beagle II did about as well as the following:

· Mars 1960A (Soviet Union, 1960) - failure
· Mars 1960B (Soviet Union, 1960) - failure
· Mars 1962A (Soviet Union, 1962) - failure - flyby
· Mars 1 (Soviet Union, 1962) - failure - flyby
· Mars 1962B (Soviet Union, 1962) - failure - lander
· Mariner 3 (USA, 1964) - failure - flyby
· Zond 2 (Soviet Union, 1964) - failure - flyby
· Mariner 8 (USA, 1971) - failure - orbiter
· Mars 2 Lander (Soviet Union, 1971) - failure - lander
· Mars 3 (Soviet Union, 1971) - partial failure - orbiter
· Mars 3 Lander (Soviet Union, 1971) - failure - lander
· Cosmos 419 (Soviet Union, 1971) - failure
· Mars 4 (Soviet Union, 1973) - failure - orbiter
· Mars 6 Lander (Soviet Union, 1973) - failure - lander
· Mars 7 Lander (Soviet Union, 1973) - failure - lander
· Phobos 1 (Soviet Union, 1988) - orbiter - failure
· Phobos 2 (Soviet Union, 1988) - orbiter - failure
· Mars Observer (USA, 1992) - failure - orbiter
· Mars 96 (Russia, 1997) - failure - orbiter
· ??? (Russia, 1997) - failure - lander
· ??? (Russia, 1997) - failure - lander
· ??? (Russia, 1997) - failure - penetrator
· ??? (Russia, 1997) - failure - penetrator
· Mars Climate Orbiter (USA, 1998) - failure - orbiter
· Mars Polar Lander (USA, 1998) - failure - lander
· Deep Space 2 "Amundsen" (USA, 1998) - failure - penetrator
· Deep Space 2 "Scott" (USA, 1998) - failure - penetrator
· Nozomi (Japan, 2003) - failure - orbiter

[Courtesy of wikipedia]

Yes, Mars has been a hard luck planet for everybody.
edited for typo/srr

Thanks for the clarification.

Btimsah, would you contemplate the following points for a moment.
1) We are in the midst of a mass extinction event that appears to be a direct consequence of the actions of humans.
2) The world is overpopulated and population numbers are still increasing.
3) Depsite this 30,000 persons die every day in the third world as a direct and indirect result of poverty.
4) The potential for a global conflict between the West and Islam, between China and the US, between the haves and the have nots, appears to increase annually, not decrease.
5) Did I mention global warming, or global epidemics, or forthcoming potable water shortages, or desertification, or......

In the light of these issues, why do you feel the speculative possibility that the US government might apparently have the power to conceal certain facts about possible ETI visistations, is in any way of particular importance?

Ophiolite, if one wanted to use the points you made above too deny the importance of this subject - they could do that.

However, that is not the subject matter of this post. As for the "global epidemics" you cited. There have always been problems in the world, there will always be. That's no excuse to avoid this topic on a small internet forum, on one small thread in Astronomy, Exobilogy and Cosmology.

So, your just taking one small step for man.

Yeah, whatever...

Rather than reading that ineffable gob-shite of a brain fart your initial post links to, and since actual answers from you remain pretty thin on the ground, I thought I'd take the prudent liberty of actually reading the Space Act in its full, complete context.

Unlike the bollocks pondered upon by the chap in the blog your initial post links too, the actual Space Act itself proves genuinely interesting reading - lets review:

The pertinent passage from the Space Act around which this whole ETI angle hangs reads as following -

* SPACE ACT: (2) the term “aeronautical and space vehicles” means aircraft, missiles, satellites, and OTHER space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts.

After which you conclude: "The "Other space vehicles" opens the door to a lot. This could constitute (not that it has) ALIEN SPACE VEHICLES, AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, DIVICES, COMPONENTS, AND PARTS."

The Space Act was ratified by Congress in 1958 during the hight of the Cold War: in stipulating the terms, as the act does, " “aeronautical and space vehicles” means aircraft, missiles, satellites" in specific all the Act is referring to is technological applications available at the time - you'll note the term Rocket or Rockets isn't specified in the Act as it stands, even though Rockets and and Multi-Stage Rocket Delivery Systems subsequently proved an enormous part of NASA's ongoing programmes throughout the 60's, they aren't specified particularly except they can be classified under the codicil "and OTHER space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related equipment, devices, components, and parts."

As too equally can the subsequent development of the Space Shuttle and other more up-to-date developments currently underway relating to manned space flight.

And this is precisely as "extraterrestrial" as the Acts wording gets - simply put, the Act as written in such a way is done so to include current existing technology of the day (1958) but not exclude subsequent technological developments on the simple grounds that to do so would require a redraft and amendment of the relevant sections of the Act as it stands.

Since the passage quoted remains quite unchanged from the original, unamended Space Act of 1958 - as a legal definition of mandate the passage as it stands obviously works.

And that's as spooky as it gets.

This whole ETI/UFO interpretation of The Space Act as posited is exactly the same as people used to blather on about ad infinitum with regards to Title 14, Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations - the so-called Extraterrestrial Exposure Law initiated on 16 July 1969 and subsequently repealed in 1991 wherein UFO nuts the US over consistently managed to interpret their own definitions upon a perfectly clear, perfectly non-extraterrestrial orientated piece of legislature.

Now, if you want to waste your time thinking about this sort of shite, that's your business - personally, I believe doing it in private is probably best and foisting it upon a straight science section of the forums like this one instead of the Pseudo Science section where it belongs - nil poi for any actual thinking at all.

Previous to this I had had you pegged as being simply a straightforward ETI Believer who demonstrated a really quite admirable degree of accommodation when considering other peoples point of view, however, as your behaviour throughout this thread has demonstrated - you're nothing but a regular UFO nut - you're is to propose, our's is to simply agree with you and tell you you're absolutely right about everything.

Your not interested in debate, only putting the spin on matters which concern your own boneheaded beliefs.

I've met more than enough of your kind already thanks very much. And now you've bored me.

Cleaver old you. Toodles. ;)

Hey, Genius. Maybe there's nothing to debate, because I'm not claiming anything?

No.. Never! In your rather pointless post above, you seemed to circle around what I've been saying this entire thread - as though you just finally got it.

The alternate view is that an unknown object could be an ETI object. And, finally let me just say that you are far too obsessed with the idea that this is too "wierd" to ever be true, so don't waste ANYONES time anymore by participating in this thread.

You simply cannot give it a chance, you have allready decided and have not given the effort to conceede what is obvious - Given the Space Act's terminology NASA could hide objects that are of ETI origin.

As I've said fifteen times now, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE.

So, your just taking one small step for man.

I guess I am. I doesnt hurt to ask these question's, even if the Earth is 2 degree's cooler today than it was "yesterday".

The simple fact is we don't know the implications of this issue. Nor do we know anything about global warming.

I know, I know. It's getting warmer!! I am enjoying this great weather.

Hey, Genius. Maybe there's nothing to debate, because I'm not claiming anything?

Really?

The alternate view is that an unknown object could be an ETI object.

Oh, so I guess I must be seeing things then. Odd, reads like an accretion to me.

And, finally let me just say that you are far too obsessed with the idea that this is too "wierd" to ever be true, so don't waste ANYONES time anymore by participating in this thread.

Which particular bit of the sentence:

And now you've bored me

Did you have the hardest problem understanding, the use of the word "bored" or "you've"?

Enquiring minds need to know.... :rolleyes:

Hey, Genius. Maybe there's nothing to debate, because I'm not claiming anything? I believe I have seen you use this debating trick in the past, when you have been cornered: "Oh no Guv, I wasn't claiming them there rocks was anything other than a rock, I was just saying as how me and the missus had never seen any rock that looked quite like it. Whoi, it could almost have been artificial. But I ain't saying that, Guv."

Well that approach might fool a lot of people, but it never fooled me and it seems it hasn't fooled Mr. A. [Though, being charitable, I accept that you may have managed to fool yourself.]

You are claiming explicitly that the Space Act requires NASA to conceal from the public evidence of ETI, since such evidence might have national security implications.

Mr. A's detailed assessment of said Act and the context in which it was written, reveals that your claim is unfounded. If you wish anyone to take you seriously, rather than dismissing his analysis as rather pointless, you need to dissect and counter it point by point. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, your claim is dead and buried.
Now please have the sense to turn to Mr A's analysis. Do not change the subject by deviating to a discussion of what I have said. That is not central to the issue. I am merely commentating on it. Mr. A has gone to its heart.

:) ... Well, its certainly heartening to know that somebody at least read the bladdy thing...

Good luck with getting any form of actual answer there, by the way. Give me a nudge if y'do, I'm going back to m'kip. ;)

People arguing about things they can never know. How amusing.

It's definitely possible that ET/ETI information has been hidden. It might be sensible for government to do so.

Why?

Interesting.

Via the Space Act wording it seems NASA could "hide" such information and be following the law.
I think it's also likely that if the U.S. Government asked them to do so, they would, both for national security and as a simple courtesy to the US Govt.
I suppose though that this is standard procedure for any organization with information that might be used to significantly harm U.S. military objectives. (Like the companies that design jet fighters and stuff)

Of course, this is not sufficient to assume that such a thing has happened.

However if Nasa found "something", I think that the best way to hide it is with a disinformation campaign designed to make people look in the wrong direction. In my opinion, judging from the vast amount of contradictory public info on the issue and the odd way the USAF deals with these thing, this is what seems to have happened.

So it seems to me that the US Military has found (or made) "something" and that the USAF is hiding it, and that NASA, assuming it is involved in the issue, would avoid releasing any information on this that could harm the country. Whatever this "something" is is probably very far from what we've heard about so far and there are probably many of these somethings being hidden at any one time.

This is normal in the same way that businesses hide their trade secrets from competitors. Not what I'd call a conspiracy but certainly not nothing.

Of course, I'm guessing at best.

Circumstantial evidence, I believe it's called

Circumstantial speculation would be a more accurate phrase.

I think that the following from the Space Act suggests that the jurisdiction for anything ET falls outside NASA,

The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

I think that the following from the Space Act suggests that the jurisdiction for anything ET falls outside NASA,

The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

;) Well, of course there's no direct reference to "ET's" in the space act. So, we have to follow a more broad term such as Unknown Objects, which could be terrestrial or not.

Either way, these object's of unknown origin (enemy or alien) would be of interest of our military for study. Ironically, we may have proof of just such a corroberation.

In the Kecksburgh case, for years NASA and the Military have been lying about what crashed there. I believe they have given us 3 explanation's, and NASA has allready DEBUNKED the current one. In addition too that, the documents they used to claim this object was a "Russian" Sat has been lost, including (im sure) the Russian Sat that looked like a huge acorn with no russian symbols on the side.

What does all of that mean? It means that at Kecksburgh, the Military recovered a craft of unknown origin and (They said) they sent it too NASA to be "studied". All the while claiming they recovered nothing. Now they are saying, "we recovered a Russian satellite - even though we have no documents that prove it'.

If the documents don't exist, then how did they all of a sudden figure this out? :mad:

Possibly via a device called a telephone: in this scenario they dialled a few digits, asked for the office number of the Director of the Russian Federal Space Administration and asked him "Vlad? Have you lost any satelights recently?"

An unusually straightforward and practical approach for a Government Agency to take I grant you but, y'know, doable... :rolleyes: