Why all the NASA hate?

Sparticle

Illuminate me to why it is so untrustworthy?

+ Why do many CTers cite NASA images and at the same time claim it to be a source of "disinfo".

WakeUp

Sparticle wrote: »

Illuminate me to why it is so untrustworthy?

+ Why do many CTers cite NASA images and at the same time claim it to be a source of "disinfo".

I don't think people hate NASA as the thread would suggest. You will get the odd person saying they don't trust them or whatever but I dont think there is a general dislike of them by the majority of posters here.

Torakx

Well i speak for myself here.But i consider NASA untrustworthy just as much as David Icke.
However i will still entertain both of their ideas.Both will have agendas so really i must look at the bigger picture when considering info from both sources.

caseyann

Well considering what they did with (The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ) Although they knew something was wrong with the wing they let those people die.I would say strong reasons why i wouldn't trust any American institute or power.

WakeUp

A lot of well meaning people work for NASA who just go in everyday and do their job like everyone else some of the stuff they have done is amazing. They wouldn't necessarily be the people making the big decisions or whatever or covering up things if indeed they have covered up certain things there is a hierarchy like most institutions. You don't have to hate someone or something to not trust them, hate is a strong word. People who don't trust NASA have their reasons which they are entitled too, just think it should be pointed out that the big decisions are usually taken by the big few and if they are covering up certain things then ultimately those decision rest with them few. Personally I think if the are covering up stuff it is because they are under instructions from the US government to do so and they wouldn't have much choice in the matter even if they wanted to do the right thing and inform people about whatever.

Nick Dolan

I dont get people saying NASA is untrustworthy. Nasa is a huge organisation , deals with spacecraft and scienctific stuff, and like most big companies keeps its R and D under wraps. All this makes it perfect for conspiracy theories

"Show us the aliens!"
"We dont have aliens"
"Aha! I knew it!"

I trust NASA cos they deal in data, not wild theories. if theres life found on Mars or not, if theres ice on a certain comet or not, either way they just release it. The only thing you can accuse them of is whipping up public support for this this project or that project every so often, the same way coca cola/Apple/Toshiba does.

mysterious

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I dont get people saying NASA is untrustworthy. Nasa is a huge organisation , deals with spacecraft and scienctific stuff, and like most big companies keeps its R and D under wraps. All this makes it perfect for conspiracy theories

"Show us the aliens!"
"We dont have aliens"
"Aha! I knew it!"

I trust NASA cos they deal in data, not wild theories. if theres life found on Mars or not, if theres ice on a certain comet or not, either way they just release it. The only thing you can accuse them of is whipping up public support for this this project or that project every so often, the same way coca cola/Apple/Toshiba does.

Lol....... "I trust NASA" I will stop before I pop a vein" There is no hope for humanity

Nick Dolan

Mysterious, me auld mucker and fellow insomniac, how things!

Nasa is a great hope for humanity, pushing at the boundries of knowledge, soaring into the comos of understanding [ insert stirring music and video of the stars and stripes fluttering in a god fearing breeze]. well maybe not, but its not EVILLE like some people claim.

mysterious

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Mysterious, me auld mucker and fellow insomniac, how things!

Nasa is a great hope for humanity, pushing at the boundries of knowledge, soaring into the comos of understanding [ insert stirring music and video of the stars and stripes fluttering in a god fearing breeze]. well maybe not, but its not EVILLE like some people claim.

lol!

humanji

Sparticle wrote: »

Illuminate me to why it is so untrustworthy?

+ Why do many CTers cite NASA images and at the same time claim it to be a source of "disinfo".

My take is that the majority of info about space comes from NASA, so if you believe that there's a conspiracy involving space, then the only ones who could be behind it all are NASA.

The moon landings are a perfect example. If you believed that they were faked, then it can only be NASA who are behind it. But the main images of the moon come from NASA, so people don't have much choice but to use them.

robtri

Do i trust nasa.... yes.... i dont think they purposely lie about things... they are not right all the time... but i would generally trust them...


This is a huge organisation and as such there is a lot of internal issues, with one team trying to get one up on the other team... the race to mars is a great example of that.. and this can cause a lot of issues being made public...

studiorat

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Mysterious, me auld mucker and fellow insomniac, how things!

Nasa is a great hope for humanity, pushing at the boundries of knowledge, soaring into the comos of understanding [ insert stirring music and video of the stars and stripes fluttering in a god fearing breeze]. well maybe not, but its not EVILLE like some people claim.

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!!

thecommander

caseyann wrote: »

Well considering what they did with (The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ) Although they knew something was wrong with the wing they let those people die.I would say strong reasons why i wouldn't trust any American institute or power.

They knew there was an issue with the wing, but they had no idea that it would cause a catastrophic failure of the heat shield and lead to the accident.

Curious as to why you believe that NASA wanted to murder its own astronauts?

caseyann

thecommander wrote: »

They knew there was an issue with the wing, but they had no idea that it would cause a catastrophic failure of the heat shield and lead to the accident.

Curious as to why you believe that NASA wanted to murder its own astronauts?

No they decided to let it be even though they warned of the situation and no one even started to make plans to get them in safely or at least try to.
I was watching the documentary other night about it,and some NASA employees were giving out about it.But no one tried to save them.
So you tell me?

thecommander

caseyann wrote: »

No they decided to let it be even though they warned of the situation and no one even started to make plans to get them in safely or at least try to.
I was watching the documentary other night about it,and some NASA employees were giving out about it.But no one tried to save them.
So you tell me?

There was a ****up, they admit that. But to suggest that they willingly killed them is a different story.

caseyann

thecommander wrote: »

There was a ****up, they admit that. But to suggest that they willingly killed them is a different story.

They knew what the possibility on reentry what was going to happen,they could have in the time made up a rescue plan.They didn't.
This is not me talking this is what they said in the documentary,they ignored the advice and warnings.And things could have been done to save them but i guess would have cost them to much money.

Di0genes

caseyann wrote: »

They knew what the possibility on reentry what was going to happen,they could have in the time made up a rescue plan.They didn't.

Because launching a rescue within the time frame of the shuttles oxygen supply isn't an easy matter.

This is not me talking this is what they said in the documentary,they ignored the advice and warnings.And things could have been done to save them but i guess would have cost them to much money.

Yes the cost effective solution was to blow up the most expensive vehicle ever created, ground the shuttle program for years was the cost effective manner.

Also your suggestion that they just didn't really give a damn about the shuttle crew's life is a disgusting slur.

caseyann

Di0genes wrote: »

Because launching a rescue within the time frame of the shuttles oxygen supply isn't an easy matter.



Yes the cost effective solution was to blow up the most expensive vehicle ever created, ground the shuttle program for years was the cost effective manner.

Also your suggestion that they just didn't really give a damn about the shuttle crew's life is a disgusting slur.

Tell that to the families of the people who died and the other people in NASA who said they ignored it and these people were expendable. Because they didnt want to go to the bother of trying.
What i said isnt a slur,was insinuated by those people involved in documentary.

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

My take is that the majority of info about space comes from NASA, so if you believe that there's a conspiracy involving space, then the only ones who could be behind it all are NASA.

The moon landings are a perfect example. If you believed that they were faked, then it can only be NASA who are behind it. But the main images of the moon come from NASA, so people don't have much choice but to use them.

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

cyrusdvirus

This came to light this week, a shocking indictment of NASA and their capabilities.

A Site that looks disturbingly like BBC......but isn't!! wrote:

NASA ‘faked England 1966 World Cup win’
NASA ‘faked England 1966 World Cup win’ thumbnail

A leading ex-NASA scientist has gone on record to confirm one of the longest-standing conspiracies in the football world: that the American space agency faked footage of the 1966 tournament in order to imply an England win.

Dr Robert Wellington – who worked for the agency throughout the sixties and seventies – spoke out following ongoing speculation on the internet.

“We needed a practice run for the moon thing,” he said, from his home in Florida. “And the soccer world cup seemed just the job. We wanted to see if we could delude an entire nation that they could achieve something that was frankly unimaginable. And it worked perfectly.”

“But we had absolutely no idea that it would become a recurring delusion,” he added.

The ‘live broadcast’ of the famous 1966 final was, in fact, pre-recorded at Shepperton Studios, then best known for the Boulting Brothers series of comedy films.

Russian

“We set up a goal at one end and then used a mixture of live action and models to simulate the game,” recalls Dr Wellington.

“It was very advanced for the time, although we did make mistakes that eventually people picked up on. A couple of shadows faced in opposite directions, and we presented Alan Ball at completely the wrong scale.”

“The US government were happy to pay, as long as we figured out a way to incorporate a Russian looking stupid.”

The hoax paved the way for NASA’s famous moon landing footage of 1969. But in its way, the English dry-run proved more successful.

“Even forty years on, everybody still talks about our world cup work,” comments Dr Wellington. “Whereas if you come to the States, nobody really mentions the moon landings any more.”

“Except Buzz Aldrin,” he adds.

“The English FA did approach us with a view to recreating the project for 2010. They sent us some tapes and everything,” reveals Dr Wellington.

“But what you have to realise is that for hoaxes to work, they need at least a small element of plausibility. We now have immensely powerful GCI techniques, green screens and animatronic facilities. But we’ve looked at your Emile Heskey – and we can’t do anything with that.”

http://newsarse.com/2010/06/21/nasa-faked-england-1996-world-cup-win/?utm_source=NewsArse+newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=d924b58f34-NewsArse_Weekly_Newsletter_25_06_2010&utm_medium=email

robtri

gatecrash wrote: »

This came to light this week, a shocking indictment of NASA and their capabilities.



http://newsarse.com/2010/06/21/nasa-faked-england-1996-world-cup-win/?utm_source=NewsArse+newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=d924b58f34-NewsArse_Weekly_Newsletter_25_06_2010&utm_medium=email

lol that is comical........

I know someone who was at the actual game.... so it wasnt faked...

robtri

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

lol......

humanji

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

And I have been told that they don't. And I know my contacts are infallible. Check and mate.

caseyann

humanji wrote: »

And I have been told that they don't. And I know my contacts are infallible. Check and mate.

Nothing is

Di0genes

robtri wrote: »

lol that is comical........

I know someone who was at the actual game.... so it wasnt faked...

Unless they're an claymation fake.

Di0genes

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned.

Privately owned by whom? And your source for this?

I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole

Yes because extreme cold and water is just the kind of thing electrical parts want.

and New Zealand;)

Yes, this would explain why lord of the rings movies were shot there.

And they have been using alien technology for years.

Really because I heard they had reverse engineered care bear technology.

caseyann wrote:

Tell that to the families of the people who died and the other people in NASA who said they ignored it and these people were expendable. Because they didnt want to go to the bother of trying.
What i said isnt a slur,was insinuated by those people involved in documentary.

Ah so you're not condemning nasa just repeating a documentaries lies.

Going into space is extremely risky, astronauts are aware of the risk.

caseyann

Di0genes wrote: »

Ah so you're not condemning nasa just repeating a documentaries lies.

Going into space is extremely risky, astronauts are aware of the risk.

So you are calling the families of those astronauts and the people who were actually there and witnessed the lack of commitment to rescue them even though they knew the possibilities of their reentry been death liars?

robtri

caseyann wrote: »

So you are calling the families of those astronauts and the people who were actually there and witnessed the lack of commitment to rescue them even though they knew the possibilities of their reentry been death liars?

how do you know the documentry is true???

you just believe because u want it to be true

mysterious

Di0genes wrote: »

Privately owned by whom? And your source for this?

The Church, banks, federal reserve is also privately owned and most of the media networks. Get used to it,

Yes, this would explain why lord of the rings movies were shot there.

Thats a sneaky trick, to try dis info a point I made. This kind of crap should be below you. If you continue this I will not reply to such nonsense.

Ah so you're not condemning nasa just repeating a documentaries lies.

Why do you care?

Going into space is extremely risky, astronauts are aware of the risk.

Annnnnnd your point is?

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

The Church, banks, federal reserve is also privately owned and most of the media networks. Get used to it,

Your point is?

robtri

mysterious wrote: »

The Church, banks, federal reserve is also privately owned and most of the media networks. Get used to it,

no there not 9excluding media, which are)... wake up and stop being mis led by these junk websites... you need to become more aware of what is really going on in the world

thecommander

caseyann wrote: »

They knew what the possibility on reentry what was going to happen,they could have in the time made up a rescue plan.They didn't.
This is not me talking this is what they said in the documentary,they ignored the advice and warnings.And things could have been done to save them but i guess would have cost them to much money.

The cost of a rescue mission was far less that the cost of grounding the shuttle program, the investigation and the cost of loosing 7 astronauts in the line of duty. While this hadn't been thought thru to the Nth degree there were multiple ideas within NASA to launch such a rescue if the need occurred.
Example in 1980

There was a f*ckup within NASA, noone disputes that, but to think that they purposely sent 7 astronauts, hundreds of man-hours and the entire future shuttle missions to their demise over this is silly.

If you're so sure about the money then come back after you've done the maths.

the_syco

The way I see it is that I believe most of what NASA tells me, but since the US government controls the pay strings, I believe some shenanigans will have had taken place in the past to ensure national security, etc.

Pick the easy option:
Deny X aircraft was not made, and hope the enemy doesn't look into it.
or
Blame aliens. "Leak" false information, so that no-one knows what's true, and what isn't. Heck, some of those who leak the false info may start believing it... :pac:

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

Your point is?

Made.

mrgardener

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

PRICELESS!!:D:D:D

namloc1980

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

:pac:

Myrddin

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

Well thats me convinced, cheers.

Sparticle

mysterious wrote: »

This is why people don't think, or realise what they just blindly accept as truth. NASA is privately owned. I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand;) And they have been using alien technology for years.

Oh the irony.

Lab_Mouse

mysterious wrote: »

If you continue this I will not reply to such nonsense.

I think most people would prefer if you didnt post nonsense tbh mysterious.

espinolman

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

I think most people would prefer if you didnt post nonsense tbh mysterious.

Who is most people ? Who ever most people is , its not me .


I would prefer if certain skeptics stopped posting nonsense on this forum .

caseyann

Di0genes wrote: »

Privately owned by whom? And your source for this?







Ah so you're not condemning nasa just repeating a documentaries lies.

Going into space is extremely risky, astronauts are aware of the risk.

Both accidents were foreseen by engineers, who were then ignored by NASA managers under pressure to meet launch schedules and cut costs. Renowned during the heady days of Apollo for its clear-eyed evaluation of risk and willingness to do everything possible to reduce it, NASA, some experts felt, had become complacent and bureaucratically rigid. Even while the damaged Columbia was still in orbit, there was a chance the crew could have been rescued by another shuttle if only the true state of her condition had been known. But that chance was tragically missed. "Space Shuttle Disaster" is a penetrating look at the history of the shuttle program and the political pressures that made the shuttle a highly complex engineering compromise, which fell short of its ambitious goal to make space travel routine, cheap, and safe. The film brings to the forefront the uncertain future of human spaceflight after the 2010 scheduled shuttle retirement. Many questions remain, including what are the consequences if the U.S. is out of orbit for five years?
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002344.html

Lab_Mouse

espinolman wrote: »

I would prefer if certain skeptics stopped posting nonsense on this forum .

its a discussion site so thats not gonna happen.Bummer that aint it?

so do you agree with mysterious:

I have been told they already send elites to space from Alaska, North Pole and New Zealand And they have been using alien technology for years.

cos to me thats nonsense.He was told,yeah right he was

caseyann

thecommander wrote: »

The cost of a rescue mission was far less that the cost of grounding the shuttle program, the investigation and the cost of loosing 7 astronauts in the line of duty. While this hadn't been thought thru to the Nth degree there were multiple ideas within NASA to launch such a rescue if the need occurred.
Example in 1980

There was a f*ckup within NASA, noone disputes that, but to think that they purposely sent 7 astronauts, hundreds of man-hours and the entire future shuttle missions to their demise over this is silly.

If you're so sure about the money then come back after you've done the maths.

Had they instead docked with the ISS, the crew could have waited for an emergency rescue mission using one of the other shuttles in the fleet. There would have been enough supplies on board between the shuttle and the ISS to sustain them long enough for this to happen, and then NASA could have figured out how to go about repairing the Columbia in orbit and then bringing it home safely. Nobody needed to die that day. Not for the sake of a flying brick.


http://www.iguanadons.net/The-NASA-Murders-Space-Shuttle-Columbia-20.html

The documentary included people who were there and apart of NASA who had voiced their concern long before re entry was to occur and it was ignored.

robtri

caseyann wrote: »

The documentary included people who were there and apart of NASA who had voiced their concern long before re entry was to occur and it was ignored.

how many people in Nasa said the ship was fine, it would make the journey a the time of the incident...... more than the number of people who said it was wrong decission....

espinolman

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

so do you agree with mysterious:

Its very possibly true , i hear they have spacecraft capable of intersteller travel for a while now .

Di0genes

caseyann wrote: »

Both accidents were foreseen by engineers, who were then ignored by NASA managers under pressure to meet launch schedules and cut costs. Renowned during the heady days of Apollo for its clear-eyed evaluation of risk and willingness to do everything possible to reduce it, NASA, some experts felt, had become complacent and bureaucratically rigid. Even while the damaged Columbia was still in orbit, there was a chance the crew could have been rescued by another shuttle if only the true state of her condition had been known. But that chance was tragically missed. "Space Shuttle Disaster" is a penetrating look at the history of the shuttle program and the political pressures that made the shuttle a highly complex engineering compromise, which fell short of its ambitious goal to make space travel routine, cheap, and safe.

It reminds me of an old industry motto "fast, cheap, and good" pick two.

The idea that space transport could be routine, cheap and safe is ludicrous.

It's very easy to do monday morning quarterbacking about shuttle flights.

mysterious

espinolman wrote: »

Its very possibly true , i hear they have spacecraft capable of intersteller travel for a while now .

Yup. A lot of people in the know are well familar with what's going on our world. To bad most people are so consumed by this matrix.
The elites are opening wormholes, and have intersteller technology, look at the wormholes they opened in Norway.

Oh it's a missile flare:rolleyes:

People are so gullable:pac: Welcome to planet earth. We are all so alone.

Nick Dolan

espinolman wrote: »

Its very possibly true , i hear they have spacecraft capable of intersteller travel for a while now .

The Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft spring to mind