NASA secret technology

Pages: 1... 34567
There were some, if I recall. Specifically, some specific Greek mythology requires that the Earth be flat for it to make any sense. Hence, religious.
i was not aware of that. you learn something new everyday
closed account (z0My6Up4)
@Ispil , @BHX Specter was it not once a commonly held belief (that was once Scientific and Religious 'fact'), not only in the United States but around the world, that black people were of lower intelligence than white people? How many people would accept this as fact today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Last edited on
The fact that some previously held beliefs or theories were subsequently found to be false lends no credence to any particular claim. The fact that Galileo was persecuted for accurately stating that geocentrism was false -- or any other similar event in human history -- doesn't imply that all claims deserve equal consideration no matter how outlandish or how unsupported by any evidence they may be. "Planets, including the Earth, revolve around the Sun; here is the math to back it up" doesn't have the same weight as "the Crab People, working with Future Robot CIA, faked the moon landing using a mind control beam; here's other whackjobs who agree with me".

EDIT: This isn't meant to be an appeal to ridicule. I have nothing against the Crab People thesis if compelling evidence is found.
Last edited on
closed account (z0My6Up4)
The fact that some previously held beliefs or theories were subsequently found to be false lends no credence to any particular claim.


I beg to differ. It is precisely the point that what is "commonly accepted as a scientific fact" can change. The repeaters do not entertain any argument that challenges their world view and label such arguments as fanciful or "crack pot".
Why is it crack pot to say for example that we may have been visited in the past by beings from other worlds or that there was use of electricity in ancient Egypt? Because a group of 'respected' scientists says 'that's not the case'? Well the science of the day has been proven to be demonstrably wrong on more than one occasion.
Last edited on
or that electricity existed in ancient Egypt?

electricity did exist in ancient egypt...
Because a group of 'respected' scientists says so?


Not because scientists say so, but because experiments say so. Scientists don't just sit around coming up with ideas and then saying "that's probably right, we'll say that." They test and test and test ideas and then test them again and the first time that a well executed, repeatable experiment shows something to be not quite right, scientists are the first to come forward and say our ideas need adjusting. It's why they are in the field to start with, and keeps them in a job.

The key thing about the paragraph I wrote above is that is based upon evidence. The evidence has to be something that everyone can go and measure or observe, otherwise, your science is not valid. The point many people here are trying to make is, as Tim Vine would say, easy-origami (two-fold).

Firstly, the evidence you present comes from badly reputed sources that are not considered reliable.

Secondly, the way you present your arguments is not proper. Saying well x is true, so y must be true, or y is more likely to be true, when x and y are unrelated, adds nothing to your argument. For some reason, you believe it does. It doesn't. Sources who have a self-interest in gaining publicity are also generally not good.

Anyway, many of your claims are easily being shown to be ridiculous and yet you still refuse to re-consider your view. Why? Why will you not listen to the overwhelming body of evidence and instead believe books, mostly written by one author, who is not considered reliable?
It is precisely the point that what is "commonly accepted as a scientific fact" can change.
Well, no. Your line of reasoning assumes that any explanation that differs from currently accepted explanations is valid a priori. My guess about why would be because you're only taking into account the explanations that did cause paradigm shifts. What about the explanations that were rejected to begin with because no compelling evidence to support them was ever found? Should we assume them to be true as well?
What about supernatural explanations that can't be proven false? Do they have the same validity as explanations that have been corroborated, merely because neither has been disproven?

Why is it crack pot to say for example that we may have been visited in the past by beings from other worlds or that electricity existed in ancient Egypt? Because a group of 'respected' scientists says so?
No. A crank is a person who makes an outlandish claim that can't be backed up by evidence, and when told this, maintains their claim and disparages the other party for disbelieving them.

well the science of the day has been proven to be demonstrably wrong on more than one occasion.
Show your evidence. Prove scientists wrong. You will still not be assumed right before then.
So his argument is that they aren't crackpots and then presents fiction as fact and fact as fiction?
closed account (z0My6Up4)
Not because scientists say so, but because experiments say so.


Experiments are not always right. One day certain parts of today's accepted science may well be ridiculed. How many times do I have to write this? Take a look at the scientific racism link above. No doubt experiments were carried out which led to those scientists reaching their conclusions.

I recommend you subscribe to Legendary Times Magazine - do a Google search for it. It is fairly cheap and very informative with well researched material. (You can opt to get the paper version which I recommend or a pdf edition and there are trial copies available on-line so you can see before you buy).
Last edited on
One day certain parts of today's accepted science may well be ridiculed.
Again, this doesn't mean new claims should be assumed to be true until proven otherwise.

I recommend that you do some reading on the philosophy of science, particularly Popper and Kuhn.
"Crackpot theory" is another (more pejorative) term for Pseudoscience.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

"Pseudoscience is often characterised by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
" -- Wikipedia

The nature of science is that if it can be shown to be inaccurate it is modified, so pointing out where science has evolved is pointless.

If pseudoscience gets to the point where it can be considered science the it will be but the further you are away from such rigour, especially if it flies in the face of current science, the more pejorative there term used to describe it will be.
Last edited on by Canis lupus
Flint, in response to that question, science also once said that all of the celestial planes are bound together by giant glass spheres. Still, I fail to see how this ties into NASA's budget.

Also, you are right. There is a good portion of the federal budget shelled out to nonspecific use. However, if history serves right, it is not to NASA or any other technological development. Things like the Iran-Contra Affair, most of the political riling in El Salvador and Nicaragua, and other foreign funding of pro-US governments (or soon-to-be-governments) are what get the bulk of the funds. Hell, the Iran-Contra affair was as a result of this- they needed more money, so they sold arms to Iran to pay for aid for the rebel group overthrowing Nicaragua's communist Sandinista government. There's a whole bunch more I could go in depth on, but let me just put it this way- there's no money in that secret budget for non-political use.
but let me just put it this way- there's no money in that secret budget for non-political use.
Source?
Well, here's the background on the Iran-Contra Affair:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
The funding issue is just common sense. Why would the government divert funds from an already-illegal deal with Iran to a rebel group if it had the money to do so just sitting around, diverted from a budget? The US government does things like this because it doesn't have the money earmarked away in a "secret stuff" category of the budget. Otherwise, the diverted funds wouldn't be a thing.
@Ispil
Your theory isn't very compelling.
...that the US isn't shoveling countless funds into crazy superprojects for NASA and such because it is shoveling them away for political nonsense?

...you do realize that NASA is actually a part of the official budget anyway, right? And that it has been cut so many times that they have to use Russian ships to get anything to space nowadays anyway?
I am not defending anyone's theory here.

Your theory that the US doesn't have any money in the Black Budget for technology/research isn't very compelling.

You can't disprove one crackpot theory with another crackpot theory.
Well, it's not like it's a crackpot theory that the US shoveled money away for covert things. Whether they do that now is... well, we won't know for another 20 or so years.
closed account (z0My6Up4)
I wonder if those who laughed about government conspiracy theories are so sure now. Clearly the "heartbleed bug" was designed and implanted into recent versions of openSSL by the security services financed by the black budget.
Pages: 1... 34567