NASA is and has always been a total SHAM.

[truthufo]

Back in the early 1940's a alien craft crash and recovery happened. Our government knew nothing
about where it was from, what it wanted, and if they where friendly or not. You know all the questions the
American public would demand answerers to upon acquiring this information. Good reason for a gag
order I would say.. The more craft recoveries n such the more reason for secrecy, yet sooner than later
our people began pushing for travel and knowledge of space.

What if our government knew at this time, there was an alien base on the moon, mars etc already? And
now our people want to go there, How would we deal with this? Well we have to tell them the truth, or
Trick them somehow and control the amount of knowledge they can acquire about space travel and alien existance.
I give you NASA, Our governments Way of controlling the peoples knowledge of space and time travel.
Don't believe me yet? Listen.

I use to believe in NASA till I turned about 17 and I begun questioning NASA as well as Human
propulsion technology itself. I would often wonder things such as "why the heck would anyone with a brain
work on an aircraft that Blows ALL its recourses out the back and waste it all"? Why not use it in a
spinning manner or some form that may save energy and reuse it or something?

Then Bob Lazar came out with his Story of Gravity Application. When I was young we where allover this anti matter idea.
Yet Bobs idea seems to be exactly the opposite, As appose to making something wiegh less by means of
anti matter, Bobs idea was to make more Gravity so we produce waves as well as the ability to travel
through worm holes. This Idea soon became so much the truth in how space travel must be done that
Bob Lazar invented the most brilliant lie of all time or he really did work on a craft. David Adair said he
would not work on the alien craft he was shown, because he realized his life work was a sham when he
had seen what technology our government possessed.

Point! The longest Human to stay in space was a Russian Astronaut, I believe he lasted something
like 410 days in space. 410 Days is not long enough to even go to mars. It took 4 men to help lift the
Russian astronaut out of the capsule because of severe atrophy. But at the time this was a great feat,
All the Americans at NASA where all over learning how the Russians lasted so long in space. So they
started to study the methods of Russia, Rubber bands and bungee cords Bow flex like devices . But the
truth here is there is now and never will be any way to tie a rubber band to your vital origins, like your
heart. A man in space is like a beached whale, And no rubber band will attach to ones heart. So how
would we then fix this problem one might ask?

Well You have no choice but to Amplify gravity, Its the only way. There is one simple way to amplify
gravity. If you have ever been to an amusement park you may have seen the ride called the Gravitron, It
looks like a UFO and spins and you stick to the wall. Well in space a craft such as this will make you walk
as if you had G. It also will replicate the g force on your origins. But there we are using a lot of energy to
spin for Gravity but wouldn't we need this energy for travel? Well maybe we could incorporate the spin
for Gravity or travel.

The other way would be To amplify gravity in a manner such as both the Bob Lazar and David Adair story.
And if we could amplify Gravity in this manner we then could bend SpaceTime and not have any time spent
in space travel. And with no Time spent in space travel you need not exercise.

This is the power of Bob Lazars story of Gravity Amplification. The bottom line is, In space travel One
Must have Gravity amplification of one kind or another, or long distant space travel is not possible. And
if we learn space travel is impossible without gravity amplification, why would we stop at a spinning
device as low tech as a gravitron? I would think we would go elite, do the true Gravity amplification and
solve ALL the problems of space travel. Space debris, Time spent in space, Fuel used in long distance
travel.

Gravity amplification cuts Both space and Time out of the travel. The Power Of G. AMP is that we bring
our destination to us. And the bottom line here is NASA has to be fake because the supposed space
travel technology went obsolete back in the 50's before you even knew it existed. And NASA would have
you believe that they will use this same monkey technology to go to mars? I think it is about time NASA
stops feeding its people ** . We know there is a problem when the 15 year olds of our nation are asking
questions like , why are we still using Neanderthal space travel technology?

jin More On This at www.truthufo.com

[NEOWatcher]

All those rockets in the last half century must have been oil pipelines spontaneously combusting and flying into the air. There's no other way to launch them.

[Bob B.]

Nice science fiction; it could make a interesting novel but there's not much truth to what you say. I'm not quite sure were to start, so I'll just correct a couple factual errors:

410 Days is not long enough to even go to mars.

This depends on what you mean. Total mission duration would probably be over 410 days, but we can currently get TO Mars in about 6 months. Once on Mars, gravity is about 0.38 g.

But there we are using a lot of energy to spin for Gravity but wouldn't we need this energy for travel?

No, we would not use a lot of energy to spin for gravity. Once the vehicle is spun-up it will continue to spin on its own without any additional energy being required. The amount of energy required to create artificial gravity by spinning is very small.

... the supposed space travel technology went obsolete back in the 50's

Incorrect; chemical propulsion IS NOT obsolete. It is currently the best thing we have.

[truthufo]

Incorrect; chemical propulsion IS NOT obsolete. It is currently the best thing we have.

you ment to say "best KNOWN thing we have" did you not?.. Have you forgotten that we are over 40 years behind our secret government in technology??
I remember when I tried to buy a thermo image scope, they told me they where 30 years ahead of anything I could buy, sell or dream up.. And other scorces have told me its more like 50 years. If this is true it would sure blow your quote out of water does it not? And if you think about it,, 50 years is a LOT .. So if our secret government is 50 years ahead of our rockets and space travel technology.. than would this not prove what i say about nasa being a sham to be true?? That is if NASA should be 50 years more advanced than of course they are telling lies.. Look into this Please!!!

jin

[truthufo]

No, we would not use a lot of energy to spin for gravity. Once the vehicle is spun-up it will continue to spin on its own without any additional energy being required. The amount of energy required to create artificial gravity by spinning is very small..

I like your point here .. But about the 410 days may be able to get us to mars but for any serious time in space we must replicate the effects of gravity on our vital organs yes? But the idea that you could spin with little energy means we could replicate gravity to do this task..

One thing i feel for sure is the bow felx idea will not work for long time in space.. do you agree?

jin

[JayUtah]

you ment to say "best KNOWN thing we have" did you not?.. Have you forgotten that we are over 40 years behind our secret government in technology?

Well, I work in that field and I've never seen any of that "secret" technology you speculate about. If it's so secret that the industry doesn't even know about it, how do you know about it.

And other scorces have told me its more like 50 years.

Name your sources.

If this is true it would sure blow your quote out of water does it not?

And if that's not true, your claims are hogwash. So it seems that the answer to your question comes down to whether you can prove this "secret" technology you speculate about actually exists.

[JimTKirk]

<snip>I remember when I tried to buy a thermo image scope, they told me they where 30 years ahead of anything I could buy, sell or dream up.. And other scorces have told me its more like 50 years. If this is true it would sure blow your quote out of water does it not? <snip>

When you talk about thermo image scopes are you talking about infrared? EBay has those for sale right now!
http://search.ebay.com/infrared-scop...fkrZ1QQfromZR8

[Waarthog]

Back in the early 1940's a alien craft crash and recovery happened.

Since your whole premise for your argument hinges on this and there is no credible evidence for it, I will vote that NASA is NOT a sham.

Look into this Please!!!

I have. In my youth, I was quite the believer. Then the Roswell story broke with all its lunacy and I found that was being claimed didn't match with evidence that was available.

edited to correct a double word

[jfribrg]

For the record, I voted no as well.

[Nethius]

Voted NO... and it's 16 NO's to 1 Yes t this point!

[Astronot]

410 Days is not long enough to even go to mars.

A physicist that is working on the engines for NASA’s mission to Mars told me that if NASA could give him a reactor from a nucular submarine (that nuclear to those not from Texas) to power his engines, a space craft could get to Mars in a under two months. He actually gave me the number of days but I don’t recall them right now. He also said that he won’t get that much power, so the trip will be longer. They plan to use electric engines that heat gas to very high temperatures and pressures and expel it for the main propulsion. Chemical engines are not part of the design. These engines are not secret technology, its not even technology right now. It’s a research project and they publish their work as they get results along the way.

The problem in life that you seem to be ignoring is that secrets are very hard to keep secret. Sure you and I may not know many things but that doesn’t mean that because they are not widely known they are secrets. While the specific operational characteristics of a weapon under development (such as a stealth airplane) will likely be kept secret, it is simply not possible to keep the most of the technology that goes into developing it a secret because it has been developed by so many different people that publish their work.

[ToSeek]

Voted NO... and it's 16 NO's to 1 Yes t this point!

Now 30 to 1.

[Van Rijn]

Voted NO... and it's 16 NO's to 1 Yes t this point!

Now 30 to 1.

When I voted, it was 40 to 1, and there was another vote immediately after mine. Heh.

[Gillianren]

I was vote 42! (Gillian does happy dance, strains her knee, and falls over.)

I note, OP, that you're citing Bob Lazar. wow, does that influence your credibilty.

[tjm220]

Voted NO... and it's 16 NO's to 1 Yes t this point!

Now 30 to 1.

When I voted, it was 40 to 1, and there was another vote immediately after mine. Heh.

43 to 1 and still counting. =D>

[CJSF]

Here's a NASA sham...





CJSF

[tjm220]

and a NASA Scram...

[publiusr]

I'll split the difference with you "truthufo."

I'll offer that NASA was a sham under Goldin--but not now.

So log onto www.whitehouse.gov, and write the President a letter about how we need to fund shuttle-derived Heavy-Lift--and if they use it and find alien bases on the moon--you get to say:

"i told you so."

Deal?

[robert_d]

Back in the early 1940's a alien craft crash and recovery happened.

Most UFO believers think a crash happened at Roswell in 1947 - Do you have information about a different incident? If you mean Roswell then you have a huge hill to climb to even get attention for such a thoroughly discredited story.

Don't believe me yet? Listen. I use to believe in NASA till I turned about 17 and I begun questioning NASA as well as Human
propulsion technology itself. I would often wonder things such as "why the heck would anyone with a brain
work on an aircraft that Blows ALL its recourses out the back and waste it all"?

The reaction mass is NOT "wasted" - it is precisely because you can throw lots of mass out one end very fast that you can accelerate the rest of the rocket to orbital velocity.

[truthufo]

Nice science fiction; it could make a interesting novel but there's not much truth to what you say. I'm not quite sure were to start, so I'll just correct a couple factual errors:

410 Days is not long enough to even go to mars.

This depends on what you mean. Total mission duration would probably be over 410 days, but we can currently get TO Mars in about 6 months. Once on Mars, gravity is about 0.38 g.

But there we are using a lot of energy to spin for Gravity but wouldn't we need this energy for travel?

No, we would not use a lot of energy to spin for gravity. Once the vehicle is spun-up it will continue to spin on its own without any additional energy being required. The amount of energy required to create artificial gravity by spinning is very small.

... the supposed space travel technology went obsolete back in the 50's

Incorrect; chemical propulsion IS NOT obsolete. It is currently the best thing we have.

You seem to act like you should know if our government has something,, Where is my proof?? ok a$$ try the SR-71 Blackbird. When was it built?? why dont you tell us... And how many of you knew about that?? hmmm and you seem to think our government could not be so far ahead? well once again you make an idiot of your self.. You could be a little more subtle about things and make friends but you have to come at me like that and talk smack that is not even true. You act like there is no secret government.. and you know about the UFO crash you can do all the research you want.. I think the best research would be to ask the men who where there working the crash.. And I have collected video of most the men involved and they all say it involved alien craft. so they can cover it up all they want i dont buy it.. and im sure you also believe NASA went to the moon huh?? well I do not..
I know Bad Astronomy is full of NASA believers so I dint expect to much from the poll.. But i have posted this poll on other boards and got exactly the other side.. Guess its all where you post it.. Bad astronomy is full of people who believe in the moon landing.. and the government.

And once again Bob Ill add that you think fuel rockets are best KNOWN technology. So are we suppose to believe you because you work on rockets?? well John Lear has much more credentials than you do, should we all believe him?? How bout David Adair? I think he has done a lot more In rocket science than you have?? should we buy his story anymore than we should buy yours?

Bob you have to be a little more Open.. if your not you are Blind

[sts60]

A physicist that is working on the engines for NASA’s mission to Mars told me that if NASA could give him a reactor from a nucular submarine (that nuclear to those not from Texas) to power his engines, a space craft could get to Mars in a under two months. He actually gave me the number of days but I don’t recall them right now. He also said that he won’t get that much power, so the trip will be longer. They plan to use electric engines that heat gas to very high temperatures and pressures and expel it for the main propulsion.

I assume you're talking about Franklin Chang-Diaz's Variable Specific Impules Plasma Rocket Engine (VSIPR), which now goes by Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). (I worked a little bit in his lab when I was at U. Houston.) The mission profile at the time got you there in 90 days. Presumably that's what you heard about.

truthufo, there is credible work being done, in the open, that is far more interesting than unverifiable, incredible claims by people like Bob Lazar. The truth is out there... but you won't find it in "Crashed Alien Land".

[CJSF]

{ruslting around in an old battered tote bag}
Snert-B-Gon, Snert-B-Gon... where's that bottle... Ah!

PSSSSSHHHHHRRRTTT!!!

CJSF

[tjm220]

... Where is my proof?? ok a$$ ...

You should read the FAQ before posting anything further.

[Musashi]

Don't bother.

[JimTKirk]

<snip>try the SR-71 Blackbird. When was it built?? why dont you tell us... And how many of you knew about that?? hmmm and you seem to think our government could not be so far ahead?

The SR-71 was first built in 1966. I first saw it at an airshow in 1975 in Texas. Cool plane! 8) As far as "far ahead" goes, you've obviously never seen one as it's getting ready to take-off. It leaks like a sieve! The titanium has to heat up to seal the plane up!

Edit: I'll have to eat my words on the build date: The SR-71 went into service in 1966. JayUtah's probably right about 1964 as the build date. Thanks www.sr-71.org for setting me straight on what my failing memory thought I knew! :wink:

[CJSF]

<snip>try the SR-71 Blackbird. When was it built?? why dont you tell us... And how many of you knew about that?? hmmm and you seem to think our government could not be so far ahead?

The SR-71 was first built in 1966. I first saw it at an airshow in 1975 in Texas. Cool plane! 8) As far as "far ahead" goes, you've obviously never seen one as it's getting ready to take-off. It leaks like a sieve! The titanium has to heat up to seal the plane up!

But there was and is nothing about the plane that doesn't fit with 1960s technology. Sure, it was implemented in secret, and its final capabilities have been kept mostly secret... but nothing about it was beyond 1960s capabilities to build.

People are smart. Give us enough money and motivation and we can build and do about anything. Like Moon landing by 1969. And ridiculously fast and high-flying planes by 1966. No aliens required.

CJSF

[JimTKirk]

But there was and is nothing about the plane that doesn't fit with 1960s technology. Sure, it was implemented in secret, and its final capabilities have been kept mostly secret... but nothing about it was beyond 1960s capabilities to build.

People are smart. Give us enough money and motivation and we can build and do about anything. Like Moon landing by 1969. And ridiculously fast and high-flying planes by 1966. No aliens required.

CJSF

Yep, and most of us realize this secrecy had more to do with the cold war (let's not give any info to the ruskies!) than keeping our fellow americans in the dark. When the SR-71 was on display at Randolph, the cockpit was shrouded. Just in case some russian or sympathizer was around.

[Bob B.]

But there was and is nothing about the plane that doesn't fit with 1960s technology. Sure, it was implemented in secret, and its final capabilities have been kept mostly secret... but nothing about it was beyond 1960s capabilities to build.

Thanks, Christopher. I was just about to make this same point. When one looks at the evolution of technology starting with Robert Goddard in the 1920s up to the present day, we see a nice steady progression. This includes the then-secret black ops programs which, in retrospect, are nothing more than the next step in the continuing growth of technology. I see no evidence that there was ever an influx of technology from extraterrestrial sources.

[Yorkshireman]

<snip> You act like there is no secret government.. and you know about the UFO crash you can do all the research you want.. I think the best research would be to ask the men who where there working the crash.. And I have collected video of most the men involved and they all say it involved alien craft.

Cites please, names and video clip provenance before we take any of that at all seriously.

so they can cover it up all they want i dont buy it.. and im sure you also believe NASA went to the moon huh?? well I do not..

Please give us your reasons why you do not. Also, as others here have already said, don't disguise rude words to try and beat the site filters. That's how people get themselves banned from this site, and it's rare enough we get a real live Hoax Believer here - we'd like you to stick around and argue your points with us.

I know Bad Astronomy is full of NASA believers so I dint expect to much from the poll.. But i have posted this poll on other boards and got exactly the other side.. Guess its all where you post it.. Bad astronomy is full of people who believe in the moon landing.. and the government.

Believe in the Moon landing? Yes, with good reason. "Believe in the government"? That's too sweeping a statement to even answer. I'm not even a US citizen, there is a world outside the US of A you know.

[ranb]

410 Days is not long enough to even go to mars.

A physicist that is working on the engines for NASA’s mission to Mars told me that if NASA could give him a reactor from a nucular submarine ..... They plan to use electric engines that heat gas to very high temperatures and pressures and expel it for the main propulsion. .....

Who is this physicist?

Do you know how much a reactor from a nuclear powered submarine weighs? You can not just use the bare reactor vessel along with it's core. It depends upon coolant pumps (also electrically driven) to transfer heat to the steam generators which produce steam for turbines. The entire primary plant is enormous and while I am not sure, I think it would take several Saturn V rockets to get it into orbit. Since the core is made from a non-steel alloy with a rather low melting point compared to steel, it does not operate at high temperatures. The coolant (water) coming out of the reactor is less than 550 F, and the fuel peak centerline temp is going to be less than 1500 F. I guess putting up a few turbine generators might take care of the power problem, but they weighs tons also. Even the newest Virginia class sub reactor is not able to generate electrial power directly. It is just a small heat source for the steam generators.