NASA Obligated To Hide ETI?

Very well stated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I found it fascinating to find out that, Project Blue Book, had no access to reports that were above "Secret".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Really?

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

Which particular bit of the sentence:

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

Enquiring minds need to know....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... 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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!