No motive, no case

After reading through the FAQ and many threads, I have what I think to be a valid point. From what I’ve seen the FE’s will probably come up with something to refute it, but please consider with an open mind. I respect you (I respect anyone that stands up for their cause), so please do me the same honor. Here we go:

It is based on motive and intent, these being two basic parts of any case brought forth attempting to indict someone. You are accusing (from what I gather) NASA heads and various others of “avarice”, in other words, going after money. You also say that power or control may play a part. I say these motives are flimsy at best.

First point: government auditing. I have some conception of what it means to be audited working in the back offices of a bank. We have not only internal auditing but government auditing as well. I can only imagine how much the government and its programs (notably NASA) are strictly audited (if you don’t believe that they are audited, Google it: for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_audit. It is out there and often they even publish auditing reports. It is a fact that every government entity is audited; fraud, waste and abuse included). If money were to mysteriously go missing, someone would notice. Granted, it could happen over short periods of time or in short, irregular intervals. But sustained, consistent embezzling/fraud/secrecy would not hold up for the decades that NASA has existed. It would require the bribing of many hundreds more people, spanning generations of workers. And as more and more people are let into the secret, the more the possibilities increase of some sort of leak. Additionally, the more people added to the bribing payroll, the more suspicious things become as more and more money must be dished out. Not to mention the bribed auditors, investigators, etc. consistently letting NASA “pass with flying colors” would raise great suspicion. What’s more, the top men would be bulging with cash. Given, it is possible they put it in off shore bank accounts and keep it under wraps, but is it plausible that they will not actually spend it? If they are greedy SOB’s as you say, they whole point would be to spend it, right? The Missus isn’t going to wonder how we can afford this brand new ten bedroom house? Little Timmy isn’t going ask old dad why we have a Bentley and two BMW’s in the garage? No one in these guys’ circle of friends and acquaintances is suspicious, not to mention coworkers and politicians? Do you honestly think these handful of top NASA men have complete control of the budget? And if they do, that no one would get suspicious after they suddenly got rich? And over the 50 years NASA has existed, these factors only compound to be more and more dangerous and precarious to carry out!

Motive of avarice: ruled out.

Second point: I will make this short. Power is a weak motive/intent. Who do they have power over? The gullible public? They hold an idea over the publics’ head, but obviously the public is perfectly fine in its ignorant state. This is a bit of science we are talking about. They would go on living the same if the world is flat or round.  These men don’t control anybody. If it is simply to say “I control the world’s ideas! Mwhahahah!” or to “stroke their ego,” that is hardly going to satisfy them because they can’t tell anyone. No one will ever know of their “power.” And that is half the fun of having power. It’s called pride. Just like many criminals can’t help but tell someone of their crime, this inner circle of forty could not be sustained on “power” alone; someone would spill the beans. You could still use this motive, but it is extremely weak.

This leaves you with no stable ground to stand on. There is no plausible motive. No motive, no case. Does it make it impossible, no, of course not. Just improvable and highly, highly improbable, near impossible. Find a motive.

Note: All above questions are rhetorical, please do not answer them.

SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!

tl;dr

I find it funny how all serious threads that actually have (a) valid point(s) are brought offtopic within one or two posts...

SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!

tl;dr

Keep low-content posts exactly like this out of FED&D and FEQ&C, consider this an official warning. The next low or no-content post you produce in either of these two forums will result in a probationary ban.

Anyway, on topic, the auditing of NASA is actually an interesting point which I've not seen anyone bring up so far, so well done for making an original contribution.

My initial response is this. Here is a breakdown of NASA's annual budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget.  The budget of NASA is always measured in billions of dollars. What percentage of a billion dollars would you reckon to be a sufficient one to convince a few audit staff to turn a blind eye here and there? Bear in mind that much of the NASA structure is rigged to look like it's actually sending things into space already. Auditers wouldn't even need to know why they were being bribed for certain minor points of checking.

however you could still find out errors, everything must be accounted for throught the GAO not to mention all of the watchdog organizations that are always looking for a reason to blast the government for one thing or another

Like These Guys
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7410

however you could still find out errors, everything must be accounted for throught the GAO not to mention all of the watchdog organizations that are always looking for a reason to blast the government for one thing or another

Hmm, maybe. I think this aspect of the Conspiracy is definitely going to require further research. Thanks to the OP and to C Barnett for bringing it to light!

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

Actually, you're right. Auditors would require an absurdly high level of scientific qualification to even understand half the claims which NASA makes. I think a combination of the inaccessibility of NASA's "science" with a few minor bribes which appear to be for reasons other than the huge cover-up might fairly well explain success in audits.

Auditors are going to look at actual money spent. They will not simply take these people's word that they used x amount of money for Project y. When it comes to light that $1 billion was said to be used for a rocket and only $700 million was used, they will investigate it. All money is accounted for.

As for bribing auditors we assume two things: that 1) every person is motivated by avarice and is susceptible to bribery. That paints a very grim picture of the world. I would like to think that truth seeking, honest people still exist in this world, whatever shape it be. 2) Look at my original post. As more and more people are bribed, more and more money is spent and thus there exist more irregularities for future auditors to discover. At this point the bribing would never stop. After 50 years, imagine how many people they would be bribing. I can only guess. And still the question arises: no one would notice that these men have become extremely rich and question how?

Another point is that if we are talking about bribes, the conspiracy would only require minor private investment in bribes to produce major returns in profit from government money. The money used to make bribes need not be from the government; the conspiracy invests past profits in bribes for massive gains from the revenue they receive.

Liquid Snake, we are talking about cutting edge science. How is any accountant going to know what kind of research finance is needed to produce a probe destined for planet Mars? You simply cannot audit that process without a full understanding of it.


A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

Well sure, but this still does not amount to the motive of making money out of the deal. If the money is being spent on the rockets as said, then there is no money left for the consipiritors to stick in their pockets... The accountant does not care about the fact if the rocket reached space or not, just if it cost X amount of dollars.

The question of motive still remains...

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on August 05, 2008, 01:15:46 PM

SNAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!

tl;dr

Keep low-content posts exactly like this out of FED&D and FEQ&C, consider this an official warning. The next low or no-content post you produce in either of these two forums will result in a probationary ban.

Note: All above questions are rhetorical, please do not answer them.

Uh-oh!

This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 05, 2008, 02:09:31 PM

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

Well sure, but this still does not amount to the motive of making money out of the deal. If the money is being spent on the rockets as said, then there is no money left for the consipiritors to stick in their pockets... The accountant does not care about the fact if the rocket reached space or not, just if it cost X amount of dollars.

The question of motive still remains...

My point is, how could he know the cost without understanding the science involved?

I recognize your point NEEMAN. Accountants will not know anything about the technology behind the money. But nonetheless, money given by the government must all be accounted for. If NASA was using all of the money or at least part and rolled the rest over to the next fiscal year, then it would receive a pass from the auditor. But if this were the case, they head guys wouldn't be able to get any money out of it. So somewhere down the line, these guys will not have any proof of where some amount of money went. They may say "Oh it went to the quantum field nuclear device we built" and the auditor will give a blank stare, but they must produce some sort of evidence of where the money actually went. I am not sure if I make my self clear or not?

On a side note, who will address the moral question I posed earlier: you say: every person is motivated by avarice and is susceptible to bribery. That paints a very grim picture of the world. I would like to think that truth seeking, honest people still exist in this world, whatever shape it be.

I understand you, don't worry. I suppose what I'm getting at is that if you create a whole series of research processes, devices and projects, all of which are beyond the grasp of an accountant, and appear to create them, it would be impossbile for an accountant to know if what is in them really is in them. Remember, any single component of any single NASA device is worth serious money. I have no doubt that through the process of researching, building and testing a NASA project, there is plenty room to skim a little (or perhaps a lot) off the top here and there, and disguise it by virtue of it being such a complex field. When you look at the sums spent on individual components (never mind projects) by NASA, you start to see the scope for corruption. The concepts NASA are dealing with are, unlike those of most government organisations, well beyond the grasp of the common man.


As for your side note, all people are ultimately motivated by wishing to give themselves pleasure or prevent displeasure, if you'll pardon me spouting Nietzsche. It simply happens that this often conforms to artificial social constructs such as morality and virtue. But there's a philosophy board for all that. =)

It's a good thing I don't concern myself with Nietzshe. I personally don't believe you can bribe any human being to do anything you want. But that is another case to study, as you say.

Anyway, I feel like the original post covers for explanations of this sort. It doesn't simply boil down to the auditors not understanding science, although that is a valid point.

A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.

NEEMAN, I'm currently exploring ideas similar to that, but my research isn't complete. Non-NASA entities (such as the US military's "Masters of Space") as well as private contractors such as Scaled Composites appear to have some rather clandestine connections. The whole aeronautical industry, as far as I can see, seems to be pretty rife with cloak-and-dagger esoterica. I'll obviously post more as I find it out.

Indeed, auditors might not need to have been bribed at all - if the individuals behind these independent entities could be bribed to "sell" their false technologies, everything would look perfectly above board.

Uh-oh!

This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?

I've been modding this website since before you joined. I'm afraid I'm going to take the bait and ban you, because you're derailing a pretty interesting discussion with your profane personal attack. I'm giving you 14 days to cool off, but if you trash-talk me in FED&D again when you come back, I'll let you cool off for ever.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 05, 2008, 02:41:25 PM

A bit off-topic, but I have always wondered if there are connections between the major arms manufacturers and NASA. It seems to me, when you look at military aviation over the last 50 years, that NASA has effectively been a free research lab for many military projects.

NEEMAN, I'm currently exploring ideas similar to that, but my research isn't complete. Non-NASA entities (such as the US military's "Masters of Space") as well as private contractors such as Scaled Composites appear to have some rather clandestine connections. The whole aeronautical industry, as far as I can see, seems to be pretty rife with cloak-and-dagger esoterica. I'll obviously post more as I find it out.

Indeed, auditors might not need to have been bribed at all - if the individuals behind these independent entities could be bribed to "sell" their false technologies, everything would look perfectly above board.

Quote from: Kasroa

Uh-oh!

This is what happens when a lying, brown-nosing little retard is allowed to become a moderator. Are you going to ban all the other spamming fuck-tard trolls after one warning too? Oh no, silly me, you just have a personal vendeta against Kas because he can see through your patheric facade. Is your middle name "fail"?

I've been modding this website since before you joined. I'm afraid I'm going to take the bait and ban you, because you're derailing a pretty interesting discussion with your profane personal attack. I'm giving you 14 days to cool off, but if you trash-talk me in FED&D again when you come back, I'll let you cool off for ever.

You really think I give a shit? Ban me for life if you want, I only come here to spam and wind the likes of you up and you always bite. Hopefully more people will cotton on to your lies.

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 05, 2008, 02:09:31 PM

The point is simple. Would an audit organisation be able to prove that the machines NASA re making are not what they claim to be? This is the core of the theory. Money is not going missing, it is being spent on things that most auditors would not understand. The job of these people is to search for financial irregularities. Money is spent on a rocket. Said rocket is seen to take off. But is any accountant capable of ascertaining the properties of that rocket?

Financial auditors simply check that money is spent where it is supposed to be spent. If it appears said rocket has been built at said cost (and it then appears to go into space), how could they question it?

it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money

But how they know how much things cost if they do not understand why it costs that? You're talking about fuel and payroll; I'm talking about where the real money is spent- R&D, testing and construction of cutting edge technology. How does an auditor ascertain how much it should cost to build the Hubble Telescope, for example? Can an accountant really ascertain the costs involved in designing and building something of that scale when he/she has no understanding of the concepts involved?

The point that we are trying to make is the money must go somewhere and that must be accounted for, whether the auditors understand it or not. They can not understand and still say "OK, show me a receipt for materials, companies billed, bank transactions made. Oh wait, whats this, a personal account! Hmmm." That auditors don't understand is an argument that can be made in many fields that are audited, yet this does not stop auditors from successfully auditing companies. (....too many audit words!.....)

The governments of earth have found it quite difficult to track underground crime rings with their money laundering tactics. Why would it be any easier for the governments of earth to try and track the governments of earth when there is no motive to do so?

Heck, the U.S. government can interject $26 Billion in unaccounted for funds, and nobody looks twice. Tell me, where are those monies?

Because this "supposed underground crime ring" (aka NASA) is receiving money from "above ground" or uncorrupted sources (tax money, unsuspecting politicians) that require that the money be tracked and accounted for. Money laundering is done with money already underground (i.e. from illegal sources), and these sources don't require accounting.

And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?

Because this "supposed underground crime ring" (aka NASA) is receiving money from "above ground" or uncorrupted sources (tax money, unsuspecting politicians) that require that the money be tracked and accounted for. Money laundering is done with money already underground (i.e. from illegal sources), and these sources don't require accounting.

And what is this $26 billion that you are referring to?

Alot of money went missing but it was found.   

it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money

Exactly! So if Scaled Composites, the Masters of Space, and other organizations not subject to the same auditing are listed as having been paid x amount of USD, who is going to care? We've established that a large number of NASA's direct sub-contractors and "unaffiliated" associate groups may have deeper Conspiracy involvement. If NASA is able to list these seemingly legitimate organizations in their breakdown of "expenditures", who's going to care?

You really think I give a shit? Ban me for life if you want, I only come here to spam and wind the likes of you up and you always bite. Hopefully more people will cotton on to your lies.

Sure thing! Will do! Your ban has been upgraded from 14 days to life.

But we are citing real, hard facts that take place in auditing across the board, that are verifiable with NASA as an entity, as well as with other major entities and corporations. It is possible for you, or anyone, to come up with any wild theory to refute this. There are limitless conspiracy explanations that we could conjure up. But the fact remains at the end of the day that this is not cold, hard truth that you are giving me and therefore cannot be seriously considered. Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven.

Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven, and this seems to be the general problem with FE ideas.

As long as you recognise that the conspiracy is possible, then thats all that matters. Unlikely? Certainly, but not impossible.

But we are citing real, hard facts that take place in auditing across the board, that are verifiable with NASA as an entity, as well as with other major entities and corporations. It is possible for you, or anyone, to come up with any wild theory to refute this. There are limitless conspiracy explanations that we could conjure up. But the fact remains at the end of the day that this is not cold, hard truth that you are giving me and therefore cannot be seriously considered. Your theory makes the whole conspiracy possible, but not probable or proven.

If that truly is the case, then we currently end in a stalemate over the shape of the Earth. To be fair, if you're actually able to concede a lack of absolute knowledge either way, you've made it further than most globularists, and on that point I congratulate you to the furthest extent that I can.

I'd like to make it clear that I've made no "wild theory". Almost all of my major claims about the organizations involved in the "Satellite" deception are backed by real and currently verifiable claims. The bodies to whom NASA accredits a great deal of their spending cannot be reliably vouched for in the face of legitimate evidence, and their audits can, on their own, and when one does not consider the legitimacy of the groups whom they have subcontracted or paid-off, appear reasonably fiscally "above-board".

Since I refuse to accept the legitimacy of such groups, I remain firmly of the opinion that agents of NASA have not travelled in space.

Quote from: cbarnett97

it does not matter if the auditors understand the science they just need to see that x smount of dollars was paid to so and so for these parts and this was the payroll and they spent this muck on fuel ect. from there it is a simple matter to find missing money

Exactly! So if Scaled Composites, the Masters of Space, and other organizations not subject to the same auditing are listed as having been paid x amount of USD, who is going to care? We've established that a large number of NASA's direct sub-contractors and "unaffiliated" associate groups may have deeper Conspiracy involvement. If NASA is able to list these seemingly legitimate organizations in their breakdown of "expenditures", who's going to care?

I met a NASA contractor.  Your statement is WRONG. 

I met a NASA contractor.  Your statement is WRONG. 

Get banned.