Grey Aliens On The Moon Dark side of the moon

"Wally Anglesea" wrote in
:


"Happy Troll" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:37:33 GMT, "Wally Anglesea"
wrote:

No, but over the next few weeks it will give us something to laugh
about. Laughing at *you* alexa.

You're working overtime and I don't hear any laughter except on my
end watching you pervs calling Neil Armstrong a liar.


I'm not calling Neil a liar. I'm calling YOU a liar.

You also called brave Apollo Astronauts cowards and liars who faked
their missions to the Moon.
Hows THEM apples, you lying ****?

Actually Wally, I think she lies with her mouth (or in this case, her
fingers). Lies, nonetheless.

P.S. (sung to the tune of "I shot the Sherrif") I stole the saucer... but I
did not steal the aliens.

Happy Troll wrote in message . ..
snip
finding out extraterrestrials have been on or around earth for a long time
or finding out that some of the people who have known this all along want to
kill you if you find out?
Both qualify as extraordinary claims. Maybe we should tackle
something simpler first:

1. Please provide evidence for your claim that Neil Armstrong said he
encountered aliens on the Moon during Apollo 11.
2. Please check your computer configuration, or borrow somebody else's
computer, to look at some of the clips of post-Apollo 11 landings, at
the links which were provided to you. You claim they don't exist,
but, like other people on this thread, I had no problem locating and
watching them. You may have problems with your browser configuration,
proxy server, firewall, or helper application (e.g., RealPlayer).

On 7 Sep 2004 11:27:57 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

Don't you think it's a little late for that now? I mean really, the
Russians & the Chinese already beat you to it. thank goodness

Happy Troll wrote in message . ..
snip
finding out extraterrestrials have been on or around earth for a long time
or finding out that some of the people who have known this all along want to
kill you if you find out?
Both qualify as extraordinary claims. Maybe we should tackle
something simpler first:

1. Please provide evidence for your claim that Neil Armstrong said he
encountered aliens on the Moon during Apollo 11.
2. Please check your computer configuration, or borrow somebody else's
computer, to look at some of the clips of post-Apollo 11 landings, at
the links which were provided to you. You claim they don't exist,
but, like other people on this thread, I had no problem locating and
watching them. You may have problems with your browser configuration,
proxy server, firewall, or helper application (e.g., RealPlayer).

YRT wrote in message . ..
On 7 Sep 2004 11:27:57 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

Don't you think it's a little late for that now? I mean really, the
Russians & the Chinese already beat you to it. thank goodness

A little late for/the Russians and Chinese beat us (presumably the
U.S.) to what, exactly?

Actually, it's beside the point. I'm just looking for Happy Troll's
responses to (1) and (2) below. Or are you Happy Troll under a
different handle? If so, would you mind answering those two points?

Happy Troll wrote in message . ..
snip
finding out extraterrestrials have been on or around earth for a long time
or finding out that some of the people who have known this all along want to
kill you if you find out?
Both qualify as extraordinary claims. Maybe we should tackle
something simpler first:

1. Please provide evidence for your claim that Neil Armstrong said he
encountered aliens on the Moon during Apollo 11.
2. Please check your computer configuration, or borrow somebody else's
computer, to look at some of the clips of post-Apollo 11 landings, at
the links which were provided to you. You claim they don't exist,
but, like other people on this thread, I had no problem locating and
watching them. You may have problems with your browser configuration,
proxy server, firewall, or helper application (e.g., RealPlayer).

On 7 Sep 2004 20:08:59 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

A little late for/the Russians and Chinese beat us (presumably the
U.S.) to what, exactly?

Technological, scientific and social structure superiority. And they can
keep their egos in check. All of which the Americans devised a way to make
themselves personally rich.

There is no free ride after the horse is dead.

red dust wrote in message . ..
On 7 Sep 2004 20:08:59 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

A little late for/the Russians and Chinese beat us (presumably the
U.S.) to what, exactly?

Technological, scientific and social structure superiority. And they can
keep their egos in check. All of which the Americans devised a way to make
themselves personally rich.
There's a great deal to talk about as far as "social structure" and
American society. In this particular case, I'm more interested in
what examples you are willing to offer of the "technical and
scientific superiority" of the Russians and Chinese over the past few
decades. It is no knock on the Russian or Chinese scientific or
technical community - I have worked with Russian and Chinese
scientists - to point out that the overwhelming flow of transnational
students and workers is *to* the U.S., not the other way around.

There are other facts that contradict your assertion, namely, lists of
inventions/discoveries and Nobel prize winners over the past
half-century or so. But really, if you are Happy Troll posting under
a different handle, I'm more interested in your response to my
previous post regarding Apollo mission evidence.

On 8 Sep 2004 14:57:21 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

I have worked with Russian and Chinese
scientists - to point out that the overwhelming flow of transnational
students and workers is *to* the U.S., not the other way around.

Not anymore it isn't. There's a brain drain to China right now.

And the Russians and Chinese are collaborating on their space programs.
Honest science in Russia and China is embraced, where as with NASA their
science is kept secret.

On 8 Sep 2004 14:57:21 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

red dust wrote in message . ..
On 7 Sep 2004 20:08:59 -0700, (sts060) wrote:

A little late for/the Russians and Chinese beat us (presumably the
U.S.) to what, exactly?

Technological, scientific and social structure superiority. And they can
keep their egos in check. All of which the Americans devised a way to make
themselves personally rich.
There's a great deal to talk about as far as "social structure" and
American society. In this particular case, I'm more interested in
what examples you are willing to offer of the "technical and
scientific superiority" of the Russians and Chinese over the past few
decades. It is no knock on the Russian or Chinese scientific or
technical community - I have worked with Russian and Chinese
scientists - to point out that the overwhelming flow of transnational
students and workers is *to* the U.S., not the other way around.

There are other facts that contradict your assertion, namely, lists of
inventions/discoveries and Nobel prize winners over the past
half-century or so. But really, if you are Happy Troll posting under
a different handle, I'm more interested in your response to my
previous post regarding Apollo mission evidence.

Science In The USA is dead.

Government science goes political
Archive Recent Editions 2004 Editions Jul 3, 2004
Author: Kevin Knobloch
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 07/01/04 15:43


Imagine if a government scientist discovered unseen bacteria in the air that
posed serious health risks to the public, but was ordered to suppress the
research by an agency with connections to the very industry producing the
hazard. It sounds like something from a Michael Crichton novel or Hollywood
thriller. Unfortunately, the case is real, and is becoming an
all-too-familiar practice within the Bush administration.

Appointees of past Republican administrations and senior scientists who have
advised administrations of both parties have concluded that the breadth and
magnitude of the Bush administration’s manipulation, suppression, and
misrepresentation of science is unprecedented. Russell Train, Environmental
Protection Agency administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said
recently, “How radically we have moved away from regulation based on
independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and
economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the
White House and driven primarily by political considerations.”

Indeed, more than 20 Nobel laureates have joined scores of the nation’s top
scientists in charging that the Bush administration’s abuse of science
reaches across a wide range of agencies and issues. For example, in a clear
effort to forestall growing demands for mandatory limits on emissions of
carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, the administration has
consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of how the
consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Just last year,
White House officials demanded so many unsupported changes to the climate
change section of the EPA’s draft report on the state of the environment
that the EPA scientists deleted the entire section rather than agreeing to
publish it.

In response to the episode, Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel laureate in
chemistry, said, “The public deserves rational decision-making based on the
best scientific advice about what is likely to happen, not what political
entities might wish to happen.”

Consider the issue of lead poisoning. In 2002, an expert advisory committee
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appeared ready to
recommend a more stringent federal lead standard on the basis of new public
health data. But just before the advisory committee was to meet, Health and
Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson took the extraordinary step of
rejecting several qualified researchers nominated by the agency’s scientific
staff to serve on the committee. Two of his substitute choices were
handpicked by the paint industry.

Another example involves endangered species. After more than a decade of
research, a team of scientists advising the government recommended changes
in the flow of the Missouri River to protect some bird and fish species,
changes opposed by agricultural interests and the barge industry in a key
electoral state. A senior political appointee at the Department of the
Interior created what he called a “SWAT team” of other agency scientists to
review the earlier opinion. A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
biologist who had supervised the study for more than five years told the
press, “It’s hard not to think that because our findings don’t match up with
what they want to hear, they are putting a new team on the job that will
give them what they want.”

The list goes on and on, with manipulation of scientific knowledge and
science advisory committees from mercury emissions and forests to worker
safety, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. The suppression and distortion
of science carries serious implications for our future. One long-term effect
of the administration’s behavior could be widespread demoralization of
researchers at the federal agencies, many of whom already feel their
integrity is being compromised. According to Dr. Margaret Scarlett, who
worked at the CDC for 15 years, “We’re seeing a clear substitution of
ideology for science and it is causing many committed scientists to leave
the agency.”

The Nobel laureates and senior scientists say the abuse of science must stop
to protect the public’s health and safety. Congress should hold oversight
hearings and guarantee public access to government scientific studies and
other measures to prevent such abuses in the future. And action should be
taken to reestablish an organization able to independently assess and
provide guidance to Congress on technical questions bearing on public
policy.

Only then will we read about these practices in best-selling thrillers
rather than the pages of our newspapers.


Kevin Knobloch is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists,
www.ucsusa.org.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5459/1/222

Red Dust wrote:

There's a brain drain to China right now.

Evidence for that assertion? As I've said, I've worked with Russian
and Chinese scientists. There's a lot more of them that come here
than U.S. citizens going over there. I do think (without any
statistics to back up that feeling) that this trend is slowing as the
Chinese economy grows and the political climate (slowly) changes, but
that is hardly a "brain drain", nor evidence that Chinese science is
currently ahead of U.S. science. Similar remarks apply in the case of
Russia, perhaps more strongly.

Red Dust also wrote:
And the Russians and Chinese are collaborating on their space
programs.

Not very much. The Chinese are very intent on building a home-grown
space program, even if they derive their manned capsule design from
Russian heritage.

Honest science in Russia and China is embraced, where as with NASA
their
science is kept secret.
and
snip posting of presumably copyrighted article, in its entirety,
about politics and science

Well, there's a lot of commotion right now about the treatment of
science by political leadership, and that's a proper subject for a
debate. But the debate should go in another thread.

That still does not prove, or even support, your previous contention
that the U.S. is just now catching up to Russian and Chinese
science/technology of the Apollo era. I would like you to support
that claim before going off in another direction.

Also, leaving aside your assertion that "honest science in Russia and
China is embraced", what evidence do you have that NASA keeps their
science secret? Would you like a free subscription to NASA Tech
Briefs? Have you signed up for the daily and other periodic science
updates from various NASA centers? Have you been to a library to
browse the uncounted number of scientific and technical NASA
publications freely available? I'm not saying NASA is the embodiment
of all virtue or anything like that - it's just that this particular
statement is in stark contrast with easily available information, and
in order for me to take it seriously, you need to provide some
evidence to back it up.

One more thing - are you Happy Troll posting under another handle? If
so, fine, but what about my response to your previous claims that NASA
has no evidence for lunar landings after Apollo 11?