Gravity Experiment and Questions of common sense

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

Just before half of the document there is a nice description for a gravity experiment anyone can do which profes the existence of gravity, making the UA (if I remeber right) kinda senseless..

But it would also show, that at least parts of the theory are disprovable..

Maybe you guys think about the hole theory after that..

and last but not least - why pumping millions of dollars into a conspiracy that does not provides any power or profit?

[ ...] gravitational attraction from random items in the basement, etc.)[ ...]

Kinda... lacking answers for a topic that "has been discussed alot of times and was proven false" in my point of view..

Oh.. and please regard my 2nd question
"and last but not least - why pumping millions of dollars into a conspiracy that does not provides any power or profit?"

Thanks

Among other things, the tuna fish can of water used as a damper didn't seem to impress the people who took a closer look at the setup.  That and the fact that it's hard to eliminate all possible stray influences that could skew the results (i.e. air currents, uneven mass density of the floor, gravitational attraction from random items in the basement, etc.).  Some guy's basement isn't exactly lab quality controlled conditions.

No profit?  You need to look at the amount of money that NASA lost... every year, for years.  Do a search for NASA, Audit, Pricewaterhouse.  I posted the links a couple of times.

Even the outside auditors couldn't tell where all of NASA's money went, because NASA wouldn't tell them.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 04, 2009, 05:15:00 PM

No profit?  You need to look at the amount of money that NASA lost... every year, for years.  Do a search for NASA, Audit, Pricewaterhouse.  I posted the links a couple of times.

Even the outside auditors couldn't tell where all of NASA's money went, because NASA wouldn't tell them.

I think I haven't understood you - losing money is in my point of view the exact opposite of profit

Or do you mean the space missions from NASA that are all fake and they take the money from the government?

Even that wouldn't make much sense, because there are much more easier ways to hide money (look at the black budget for FBI, Area 51 for example..)

Ah, but those funds go back to the government.  If you want funds for something you don't want the entire government to know about... you have to "spend" it on some they do know about.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 07:47:39 AM

Ah, but those funds go back to the government.  If you want funds for something you don't want the entire government to know about... you have to "spend" it on some they do know about.

Hmm - but even in this case it would be easier to start projects there which are consuming less money and giving some of the money back instead of the huge expenses for a conspiracy of this size.

Quote from: gregg on March 05, 2009, 02:08:15 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 07:47:39 AM

Ah, but those funds go back to the government.  If you want funds for something you don't want the entire government to know about... you have to "spend" it on some they do know about.

Hmm - but even in this case it would be easier to start projects there which are consuming less money and giving some of the money back instead of the huge expenses for a conspiracy of this size.

And give up the 17.9 billion dollars a year?  Are you crazy?

Hm... I can run the same scam as long as it works...
or I can try and make up a new one every few years or every year and try and get as much money.

Which one sounds better to you?

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 02:10:04 PM

Quote from: gregg on March 05, 2009, 02:08:15 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 07:47:39 AM

Ah, but those funds go back to the government.  If you want funds for something you don't want the entire government to know about... you have to "spend" it on some they do know about.

Hmm - but even in this case it would be easier to start projects there which are consuming less money and giving some of the money back instead of the huge expenses for a conspiracy of this size.

And give up the 17.9 billion dollars a year?  Are you crazy?

Hm... I can run the same scam as long as it works...
or I can try and make up a new one every few years or every year and try and get as much money.

Which one sounds better to you?

Scammers get caught because they don't change up their game every so often.  People do eventually catch on, you know (hence the Price-Waterhouse and GAO audits that you referred to earlier).

Don't attribute to malice what can be just as easily explained by stupidity.  Incompetence or improper accounting practices are not the same as fraud.

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2009, 03:11:31 PM

Don't attribute to malice what can be just as easily explained by stupidity.  Incompetence or improper accounting practices are not the same as fraud.

2 or 3 million is an error... 644 million is a bit different.  Even i can take amount A(Amount given to NASA by COngress,), subtract amount B(Amount NASA spent in that fiscal year,) and see what's left.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 03:14:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2009, 03:11:31 PM

Don't attribute to malice what can be just as easily explained by stupidity.  Incompetence or improper accounting practices are not the same as fraud.

2 or 3 million is an error... 644 million is a bit different.  Even i can take amount A(Amount given to NASA by COngress,), subtract amount B(Amount NASA spent in that fiscal year,) and see what's left.

But they already got their 30 billion dollar budget of which nobody knows where exactly it flows to - and they dont need such a huge lie to cover it - its just there.. (The Black Budget) or smth. like that its called - some people say its mostly used for area 51 and stuff - i mentioned that earlier

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 03:53:57 PM

Why are all the NASA centers doing pretty much the same thing?  All ten of them?

Sorr but your going to provide some evidence that all NASA centers are doing the same thing (apart from space research and exploration which is the obvious)

your link only says there is some overlap. that is all.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: mendoza on March 05, 2009, 03:59:37 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 03:53:57 PM

Why are all the NASA centers doing pretty much the same thing?  All ten of them?

Sorr but your going to provide some evidence that all NASA centers are doing the same thing (apart from space research and exploration which is the obvious)

your link only says there is some overlap. that is all.

Excuse me?  Other than space exploration and remaining at the forefront of the space race, what does NASA do?

Nothing.

*  To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

* To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.

* To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

So... why do they need ten separate centers to do that?

Because they very difficult things to do! i lol'd

also link just show overlap you not give evidence they all do pretty much same thing.

and now you say it make more money nasa to repeat same thing over and over at every center? this not sound like good conspiracy to me.

Ravenwood240 - You know the first "A" in NASA stands for "Aeronautics," right? 

Quote from: Ambassadork on March 05, 2009, 05:21:49 PM

Ravenwood240 - You know the first "A" in NASA stands for "Aeronautics," right? 

NO!!  Really!?!?  I didn't know that.

I think that the subtle point that he's trying to make is that NASA's entire budget is not dedicated to space systems.  NASA needs to use a significant portion of that that budget for aeronautical research and educational programs.  Therefore it really isn't fair to imply that NASA's whole budget is used to further the conspiracy.

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2009, 07:02:44 PM

I think that the subtle point that he's trying to make is that NASA's entire budget is not dedicated to space systems.  NASA needs to use a significant portion of that that budget for aeronautical research and educational programs.  Therefore it really isn't fair to imply that NASA's whole budget is used to further the conspiracy.

If NASA's faking its space research to save money, what makes you think that they aren't also faking its aeronautical research to save money?

Until last year NASA didn't even know how far the atmosphere even extended.

http://current.com/items/89644124/space_is_closer_than_we_thought.htm

Only one center is doing any of the work.  They pocket millions of dollars.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2009, 07:10:17 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 05, 2009, 07:02:44 PM

I think that the subtle point that he's trying to make is that NASA's entire budget is not dedicated to space systems.  NASA needs to use a significant portion of that that budget for aeronautical research and educational programs.  Therefore it really isn't fair to imply that NASA's whole budget is used to further the conspiracy.

If NASA's faking its space research to save money, what makes you think that they aren't also faking its aeronautical research to save money?

One word: Results.

And?  They would get results if some of them were working on the missions that they claim to be working on.  Nor have I ever said that their entire budget is going to the Conspiracy.  90% of NASA doesn't even know about it.  They just work for the people that do run the Conspiracy.

NASA has been getting a lot of results form its research and there are many products that exist today that would not exist if NASA was not getting results. Not only of their Aeronautics division, but also their Space division.

What this means is that NASA can not be pocketing the money from their Space programs as they are getting results.

Uh huh.  So, you think they actually paid 1800.00 bucks for toilet seats?

Also, NASA is not a pure research entity, they are in fact an "Administration" entity (and they state that in their name). That is that they are not solely dedicated to researching or even launching space missions, but are in fact the National Administrative Body for those endeavours. This means a lot of legal wrangling goes on, and as you might be aware, Lawyers are expensive.

And?  18 billion dollars.  They managed to misplace 644 million dollars in 1992, hiding it even from the Auditors at first.  In 1992, they didn't have 18 billion dollars to play with.  Google "NASA budget audit (ANY year)...  They all have the same first pages and one of them is an admission from the Auditors that NASA is within federal guidelines... for the money shown, but that NASA couldn't account for all of their money.  That's been going on since at least 1982, that being as far back as I have looked so far.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 05, 2009, 07:10:17 PM

Until last year NASA didn't even know how far the atmosphere even extended.

http://current.com/items/89644124/space_is_closer_than_we_thought.htm

Tom, the problem with the Atmosphere is that there is not a sharp line dividing Atmosphere form Outside the Atmosphere.

As you get higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. It doesn't just "end", but it keeps getting thinner and thinner.

http://photoshophelp.blogs.com/photos/grayscale/gradient.html

In the image in that link Tom, can you tell me where white ends and black begins?

No, because there is no sharp dividing line. Such as it is with the Atmosphere. It is only because of legal reasons that the "Edge" of the atmosphere has had to be defined, and because there was many countries and many different people (and because there were many lawyers involved) it has taken a long time to reach a consensus.

It is not that NASA "Discovered" the edge of the Atmosphere, but that a legal definition was reached.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 05, 2009, 04:55:58 PM

Only one center is doing any of the work.  They pocket millions of dollars.

And as soon as they are audited, they are exposed and they loose all funding and the world knows the truth.

No, they don't.  NASA simply says... they lost some money and the Auditors put their disclaimer on the audit.

"Two weeks later, troubling new doubts were raised about NASA's financial management. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the agency's auditor, issued a disclaimed opinion on NASA's 2003 financial statements. PwC complained that NASA couldn't adequately document more than $565 billion ? billion ? in year-end adjustments to the financial-statement accounts, which NASA delivered to the auditors two months late. Because of "the lack of a sufficient audit trail to support that its financial statements are presented fairly," concluded the auditors, "it was not possible to complete further audit procedures on NASA's September 30, 2003, financial statements within the reporting deadline established by [the Office of Management and Budget]."

http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1167

Now, the big question about the conspiracy is: IS there any proof that they really are doing it.

One of the major rationales behind the FE is Zetetic Philosophy. In it, it states categorically, you can not accept something if you have no direct proof of it. So, any Zetetics out there that claim to accept the conspiracy either has such evidence and are not releasing it, or are not actually following the Zetetic Philosophy and can not claim to be Zetetic.

The common "escape" that the Zetetics then use is to claims that as they accept the Earth is Flat, and so that if the Earth is flat, then NASA must therefore be conspiring.

BUT this was the very reason that the requirement for Direct evidence was included into the Zetetic philosophy. Without direct evidence of this conspiracy (as opposed to the current use of Inductive Reasoning as evidence),, then there is the possibility of NASA not being in a conspiracy and then the whole of FET falls down.

So, without DIRECT evidence, as Zetetic Philosophy REQUIRES, no Zetetic can support any conspiracy theory. This of course does not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, but without the direct evidence, no true Zetetic can use that as support of FET.

Oh, and by the way, if you use acceptance of a FE as proof of a conspiracy, but then use that conspiracy to support FET, then that is circular logic and is a logical fallacy. The other requirement of Zetetic Philosophy is that you use correct logic to reach conclusions, and so the use of such a logical fallacy is also against Zetetic philosophy.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 06, 2009, 10:42:52 AM

NASA is doing something with huge chunks of money.  I have posted at least a dozen links to claims of lost money, including the one above.

If NASA is so clean, what happened to that 565 billion dollars they can't account for?

And please don't try to claim that half a trillion dollars is an accounting error.

I think 65 billion a lot money but i remeber now that article very vague. but 65 billion loss was collected over several years.

If nasa get billions a year is 65 billion a lot? It sound like lot, but it only small percentage of total money recieved.

That's not NASA's money though... That money is controlled by the GAO.

NASA is doing something with huge chunks of money.  I have posted at least a dozen links to claims of lost money, including the one above.

If NASA is so clean, what happened to that 565 billion dollars they can't account for?

And please don't try to claim that half a trillion dollars is an accounting error.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 06, 2009, 10:42:52 AM

NASA is doing something with huge chunks of money.  I have posted at least a dozen links to claims of lost money, including the one above.

If NASA is so clean, what happened to that 565 billion dollars they can't account for?

And please don't try to claim that half a trillion dollars is an accounting error.

Not accounting error. Quote from the link you gave:
NASA says blame for the financial mayhem falls squarely on the so-called Integrated Financial Management Program (IFMP), an ambitious enterprise-software implementation. In June 2003, the agency finished rolling out the core financial module of the program's SAP R/3 system. NASA's CFO, Gwendolyn Brown, says the conversion to the new system caused the problems with the audit. In particular, she blames the difficulty the agency had converting the historical financial data from 10 legacy systems ? some written in COBOL ? into the new system, and reconciling the two versions for its year-end reports.
 I guess you are expert for migrating stuff from legacy systems so that you can say for sure that there can't be problems in way of transition from older systems to new one.