Back to Home

UFO Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | UFO Discussion and Tracking | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SCIENCE? What Do You Now Of SCIENCE?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Jim Schings on January 21, 2001 16:12:06 UTC

>Once again you have failed to address anything in a factual manner, bury this over with a mass of
unrelated detail<

Unrelated detail? Yes, I suppose my hand-on experience in the program and those of others that I still deal with are "unrelated."

>and personal horn blowing and after totally failing to address the your respondent's

I addressed the points that deserved any comment.
>That of seeking to deminish your opponent in dishonest associations, demeaning phraseology and condescending tone.<

"Condescending tone" Is that YOU speaking?

>Specifically, your unprofessional manner is evidenced by:...<

Oh good you caught a single spelling error. Did you check yours?

>Seeking to deminish your opponent in dishonest associations<

Check the thread. I ASKED if you were associated with those other areas. Primarily due to your obvious slant toward "conspiranoia". A common symptom.

>I knew Y2K would be a complete non event technologically wise, however I was not underestimating the penchant for human beings to act irrationally and panic given the build up.<

Do you know how many times I have heard this retraction from people who were screaming the "sky is falling".

>Actually, Art Bell, like any medium, has points of value..<

I am sure.

>Curious to see you're a listener, however.<

Do you see a trend? Your "research" has you thinking I listen to the Art Bell show. The fact is I have only heard portions of it twice. Actually, I don't think he was even the host during those shows.

>represents a total avoidance of the discussion at hand.<

Well sir, in science we do things a bit differently. The remarkable claimer has the burden of proof. You have offered none. And that which you think is PROOF is purely false or coincidental. One MIGHT call it EVIDENCE. But again, in science it takes pretty good evidence for remarkable claims. I think aliens having a base on a planet (or moon) in our solar system is quite remarkable.

>"error correcton nor bit redundancy nor any sort of mombo-jumbo "special protocols".<

I am sorry that you consider FEC, protocol, etc. "mombo-jumbo". Maybe if you did some reading?

>Further more, it is not any sort of processing failure nor image malfunction.<

Not all are. Some are pure fakes, some are very interesting anomalies, and MAYBE some are even images of real alien something's. But, as I said, you need something more that what you have offered.

>The later images from SOHO are deliberately obscured image alteration<

Another wild claim that you picked up from a web page or UFO book, etc. Again, your ONLY first hand "evidence" is images that you SAY you saw or that were given to you by a "deep throat" friend.

>has all the reliance on technical jargon to bemuse the audience and amounts to the skill
and creation level of an electornics radio technician able to view Moon videos on his lunch breaks with "other NASA subcontractors", and this does not amount to - analysis.<

While my degree is actually EE/ME, I have seen those "electronics radio technicians" monitor live down feed very successfully. Hundreds do it on every launch. Interestingly enough it was many of those same technicians, that validated NASA claims that the wild unsubstantiated reports of "UFOS, "snowmen", "large cylinders" etc. were simple fabrications.

>Meanwhile my own PROFESSIONAL background and training and exposure in regard to the relevant issue of Satellite Image anaylses of topographic detail is, Double unergraduate degrees in Geology and Geophysics and English from a highly reputed Ivy League school.......<

But you don't use your real name? Interesting.

>Translation: you are out of your league and ill-equipped to pronounce on anything seen in the Mars Global Surveyor Satellite imagery.<

Well, NASA and IBM and Motorola did seem to think so.

>I think we're well on your way to you looking foolish, but not at all done yet.<

You were done 2 messages ago.

>your only commentary consists of non-sequitors (things not following nor pertaining to the ongoing discussion) and repeated desires to demean your opponent<

Yes, sometimes I do take the EASY way out.

>and saw your repeated pathetic need to quelch inquisitive minds yet never providing any substance yourself.<

Yes, I ask challenge remarkable claims.

>I promise, I am not one of these. <

Then provide some logic.

>You just dismiss the detail with a wave of your arrogant hand presuming you know what this detail will reveal.<

I find your "evidence" lacking. Present some evidence or even some simple logic and I might not wave my "arrogant hand"

>The fact is the "devil is in the detail" and requires expertise, no small degree of inate ability, and long hours of analysis and interpration.<

There are an infinite number of possible images of mars. You have selected a handful that with some imagination "look" like something recognizable. You choose to ignore all others. Since "NASA" fakes them. A catch 22 don't you think?

>You've shown your total inability to involve yourself in detail by posting no detail in any of your postings hereon.<

I am sorry you refuse to consider my detail.

>WHY would not Clinton leave such potentially damaging legislation for his successor?<

Well, you made the claim, You tell us?

>None of the imager I present from Mars is "blurry" nor "faked".<

I never said they were. They are samples of what randomness can provide you when you look for things.

>The imagery i present is fully corroborated by NASA itself in directly suporting links to the orignal images at...<

Yes, interesting that NASA would make all those images so freely available when they are so telling, isn't it?

> features to give the appearance of artificial constructs, but this would be totally irrational. <

Yes, wouldn't it? Of course, I never said that, did I? "Totally irrational" would be NASA releasing images that "prove" your claim while for 50 years the gov and NASA have made it the best kept secret in history.

>and not whether or not NASA downlink feed was encrypted. You surely dont think private enterprise had the ability to monitor the broadcast feeds<

Again, you refuse to listen. ALL downlinks are unencrypted. Radio Hams from all over the world (and others) monitor them all the time. Since they are live transmissions, exactly who is doing this "editing" and where?

>televsion stations were obtained by filming a monitor; there was no direct feed. Check your

Originally they were live. Today they are delayed for the reason I specified. However it is a simple matter to receive the live downlink.

> i issue ONE CHALLENGE to your showing any degree of FACT and contribution of relavant information.<

Well, I could suggest a few names for you to contact and ask, but we know where that would go don't we? It's the catch 22. They would obviously lie. Give Jim Oberg a call.

Read all the above and present something tangible.


There were two.


Your turn to do the "research"

How long do you think NASA, this government and of course several other governments will be able or desire to keep this secret? Why are they all involved in this cover-up. In 50 years we have done nothing but fight with all these nations, yet they have all agreed to keep this thing secret? Do you believe that no other nations have the ability to monitor these downlinks as simply as our "radio technicians"? Why has no astronaut ever even released info from their death beds of otherwise. Please don't site the misquotes and fabrications, that can readily be explained.

On one had it is the greatest cover-up in mankind's history, yet, one geologist has figured it all out.

BTW, While your vocabulary seems fine, I think you will have much better luck on your thesis if you get a spell checker. Not to mention, possible improvement in your credibility.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins