Tell me: which is more relevant? That they were Jewish or that they were Bolsheviks? Just curious.

I.e., they have awakened to nothing. Still dreaming to support their anti-Semitism. And the mods turn a blind eye.

On this page, supposition leads to investigation for the purpose of bias confirmation. I've seen it too many times.

Just like Zeena Schreck is distinguishable from Taylor Swift. My point exactly.

I notice you have no judgement on the resemblance of one for the other. Dexter's career was hindered by the type-casting resulting from his appearance as Valentino. He used the name Walter Craig only after he gave up his acting career and became a high school teacher.

The point being: there are coincidences of appearance. They occur all the time.

Not in the least. But your question begs some self-reflection on your part.

"Seems" and "likely" are just fans behind which to hide your inability to address my points. When evidence or proof are utterly absent, declare certainty.

Totally crazy. Supposition is not a basis for plausibility.

Or not. You have little appreciation for the recurrence of facial features in the general population. Tell me who is who between Rudolf Valentino and Anthony Dexter.

Prove it and win a Nobel Prize. Not all the deaths (nor possibly even the majority of them) came from the camps. Western Russia and Ukraine were killing fields for more than Great Russians.

"it was the Jews..." You reveal yourself through your speech.

You are welcome. Other anons do a good job, too. Personally, I loathe the "Dude, check this video out," style of recommendation. No hint of why. Not even a disclosure of how long it is. Very inconsiderate.

In the case of NASA, we actually get what we pay for. Unfortunately, it is expensive, and it is hard to sort blame from circumstances. But we have photos from the Hubble Telescope that are historic in their depth of field and resolution. We have raw data from the surface of Mars.

There is no question that budgeting for NASA involves the same financial politics as budgeting for any other organization, but that is the fault of the Legislature, not of NASA.

NASA is not responsible for priority. That is exclusively a matter of the Legislature and the office of the President. There was never a low standard of work during the Apollo program. (Having Germans in charge of the launch vehicle may have been culturally responsible, I think. Typical German meticulousness.)

If you want priority, get out there and lobby for it. I spent a lot of time in the union dealing with carpers who didn't want to make any effort to remediate the things they were complaining about.

That is exactly what Griffin pointed out as NASA's failure. But their space probe and satellite work is first rate. It depends on what they are doing and who is stirring the pot. (It is not for nothing that the Space Launch System [SLS] is commonly referred to as the "Senate Launch System.")

You don't fully buy Griffin's criticism of the Artemis mission architecture? Or his other criticisms? I identified the Gateway as a fatal weak link at the beginning. The whole point of Artemis is to land on the south pole of the Moon. SpaceX got the contract to design/develop the manned lander. You don't agree that NASA has lost the experience base for effective project supervision?

I suspected that's what it might be, but I am worn out with guessing games.

It's entirely a matter of the numbers. Divide the population (360 million) by the number of days in the year, and the result is inescapable. You get a similar result if you estimate how many people are having lunch between noon and 1 PM. No fine tuning. You can, in fact discern the effect of intervention by the departure from statistical behavior (which is the norm...and leads to coincidences).

This is why one must take special measures to determine whether a given event can be explained as coincidence, and keep that in mind. There is a tendency on this page to equate a low probability with no probability, but that is a willful dishonesty. Traffic accidents are low probability events, but I have had a head-on collision when I least expected it. The whole science of reliability engineering is the effort to make undesirable events (system failures) a very low probability. The design objective for airliners is a probability of one in ten million for a critical in-flight failure. Sadly, it doesn't rule them out. Doing better is too expensive.

I don't understand "tbh." I've spent a career drenched in acronyms and contractions, and once when I looked up an in-house reference for an acronym that I wasn't familiar with, I got about 2 dozen possibilities. Instead of being an efficient form of communication, it was anti-communication. But that's an aside.

You have free will and you can disagree. But you can't claim that reason is on your side. You are embarking on denial of a fact, and that does NOT ground you in reality and truth.

I'm curious. What technology and where is your evidence? Or are you just dreaming this up?

Of course there are coincidences. Probably close to a million people share a birthday---each day of the year. Every solar and lunar eclipse is literally nothing other than a coincidence. 2.6 million people share the last name of Smith.

The presumption that "there are no coincidences" is simply a false myth, as these counter-examples demonstrate. This does not mean that all concurrent events are simply coincidences, but it does mean that coincidental events cannot be dismissed. We can't understand reality and truth if we engage in filtering them through a falsehood.

It's never nice for decent buildings to be destroyed in fire, but the building was the only connection withTesla. It had been gutted of his equipment and tower long before, and used as a place for business operations. Before being sold to the museum project, it had been a film processing location for Agfa. Nothing of Tesla-related technology value was present.

Thank you for taking the effort to track down these videos. But I am sorry I can only briefly sample them. Video, for me, is a retrogression. I can assimilate material 5 times faster by reading it. The point being made in this testimony is something I've known since the late 1960s from the books by Maj. Donald Keyhoe, so this is old news.

What I deduce from 60 or so years of reading about this is that there are no "leads." Unless you want to follow the accounts of abductees, but there are serious problems with that. In any case, the existence of any alien technology is an open question, since nothing has materialized. We have no hints. There is no reverse-engineered technology. If you think there is, I would be happy to know what it is. Everything we have is terrestrial in origin.

Since these episodes were known since the 1970s, I don't think the government is "hiding information of interest." Of interest to whom? What is it? I've worked at the security clearance levels that one of the witnesses claimed (and should not have identified them so far as he did), and there is information that is legitimately kept from the general public that is crucial to the functioning of our defense systems. It is not usually breathtaking. What would be the point of hoarding an entirely new technology and not making use of it---or letting the Russians or Chinese make use of it first? (Surely, you don't think any aliens are playing favorites, do you?) Most of the information we have on encounters has been from the military, so I find it peculiar that you should claim they are opposed to such revelations. I have never experienced or know of any experience of citizens being ridiculed for showing such interest. The subject has received extensive motion picture coverage, and even series programs on television. I have never heard the narrators of investigative programs complain of government interference with their investigations.

And, honestly, what has this to do with space exploration? I think a stronger case can be made for a unified defense of the Earth from extraterrestrial threats and provision made for mass civil defense.

You overestimate the public desire to travel in space. "2001" was perhaps the best-produced film portraying space travel as an accomplished feat, and won high esteem---but people still didn't take it as a priority for today. There is no desire. There may be curiosity. There may be visionaries who set aside the problems by concentrating on the glory. Look at Antarctica: it is blessed with air and water and barely tolerable temperatures, and is nowhere as difficult to get to as Mars. Yet nobody wants to colonize Antarctica. We don't know what will happen when the "new" wears off any Martian colony---and the inhabitants descend into claustrophobia and paranoia. I'm all in favor of finding out whether Mars is a place worth being---and let the colonization proceed from those discoveries.

The lack of public interest is conclusive. I was there. I watched it. The Congress decided to go in a different direction (Space Shuttle), NOT give up space exploration. Budgets were continued for planetary probes and space telescopes. Enthusiast interest has always been present---but it was in the very small minority of public concern. Try to prove your point by budget data and you will lose every time.

What UAP technology? (Another bogus government category. It includes mirages. The old UFO term was more direct.) We don't know if they are psychic phenomena or machines (or either, or both). Lots of testimony, but nothing on the table. I have lots of interest, but was initially taken in by George Adamski, who had cross-sectional diagrams and photos. All fake. Lesson learned. When all we have are stories...all we have are plotlines. As much as I am eager and full of anticipation, I draw a sharp distinction between evidence and mere words. I completely believe that Ken Arnold saw what he saw---but I have no idea what he saw (nor does he). I can't explain technology that no one can bring to light (and I don't lose any sleep over it).

In the 50s and 60s, UFO research was regarded as odd, but respectable. There was Project Blue Book, which introduced J. Alan Hynek to the field; he became a UFO proponent after studying enough cases. It brought Maj. Donald Keyhoe to some prominence as a writer of books, who pursued his investigations with scientific standards. I don't understand the slang of "playing grab-ass," but to me it shows only that the Air Force is engaged in a publicity posture and knows nothing, while hinting that it knows something.

Where do you get your perspective? From other enthusiasts, or from the nightly news? You don't have any basis for your beliefs. I have been keeping in touch with the enthusiast groups over the years, and they are a very small subset of the population at large. And it is by no means clear that the enthusiast desires represent prudent policy in light of everything else. Just because something is not happening to the extent and to the schedule you desire, is not evidence of anything being "held back." Do you realize how many start-up space launch companies collapse into dust over a short life? Even big ones, like Virgin Orbit. Lots of ferment and New Kids on the block, but lots of gravestones.

1. We do not even know if UAPs represent technology or phenomena (or both).

2. If it is technology, it fails to conform to any Earth-based technology.

3. If it is alien technology, it is so far advanced we can be only spectators.

In practical terms, UAPs mean nothing to us. We have no knowledge from their observation that would change what we are doing.

We are decades behind what? We can't do all things at once. Some paths turn out to be less than hoped for (e.g., the Space Shuttle). Were they a waste of time? Who could have known? You can't judge where we are by looking in the rear-view mirror and bitching. You have to figure out where to go next, and why, and how. Breakthroughs come from new people who have the ability to make them stick (e.g., Elon Musk). He has revolutionized space launch, to everyone's benefit. The government is, in that regard, happy with him. NASA sees him as a refutation of the bureaucratic approach and begrudge him his success, but they have to acknowledge his ability and depend on it. So, they are happy to ride Dragon capsules to the ISS. The favored government contractor (Boeing) is fumbling and stumbling, and I have some doubts that they will EVER get Starliner flying. SpaceX was picked to make the Lunar Lander as a version of Starship (NASA's preferred option when stuck with making only one contract award). I have strong doubts about the viability of the entire Artemis mission concept and would not be surprised at program failure---but Musk is (as we used to say) "learning on someone else's money."

You are indulging in groundless paranoia about a "dark agenda" over the "lack of space exploration" from the only entity that is budgeting and planning a return to the Moon. There is a lack of polar exploration also, but can you really believe there is a dark agenda to prevent people from going where there is nothing but frozen wasteland? It is paradise compared to the Moon, yet you seem to think teeming masses want to go to the Moon. They would be happier in the Sahara or Namib deserts. Or the lava fields of Iceland. You are not taking this matter seriously enough to learn what the environment is like, or what the logistic constraints are. In short, if there is any reason to go there aside from curiosity...in the face of a lethal environment.

I continue to be disturbed at your implicit acceptance of the idea of forcing all Americans to pay for your preferred sideshow. What else is taxation? Where else does the money come from?

Money means everything. In World War II, technology advanced tremendously (ballistic missiles, atomic weapons, radars, jet aircraft, guidance systems) because there was a huge dedication of national wealth, talent, and labor to its development. Same thing with the Apollo program. It didn't happen spontaneously and it didn't happen by accident.

I am trying to educate you to the historical reality of events. The basic point is that THE PUBLIC DIDN'T CARE, and that was reflected in subsequent budgets. The people who were in a position to influence those budgets were persuaded that further flights to the Moon were too extravagant and directed funding to the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). I would remind you that Musk is (currently) the richest billionaire in the world. That's what it takes to embark on a pet project. Notice that no one is stopping him. If you have the money, you have the key to the door.

The space program has never been "hijacked." It has always been a creature of government preference---and going to the Moon was a Kennedy initiative of an activity that was sponsored from the beginning by Johnson, all of the pre-landing Apollo program in fact. I don't like Johnson for all the right reasons, but being "against" manned space exploration is not one of them. If it hadn't been for Kennedy-Johnson, we wouldn't have gone to the Moon.

I have worked in the space business for 40 years, so I rather think my view is far more informed by facts, history, and technical understanding than your desire to find plotters under the bed. There is no "normal" in the space program. It has always been a preference---subject to fads among the legislators. If you can't see that, take a hard look. Musk is succeeding because he does not much depend on government funds (though they are a customer).

NASA doesn't launch rockets from Kazakhstan; the Russians do. This is inescapable when we have to travel to the ISS on Soyuz vehicles (thanks to NASA's failure to develop a successor to the Space Shuttle). Now we can get there on SpaceX Dragon capsules. But is is a sheer fact that space travel is hard and expensive. There are too many space enthusiasts in this country for any "too hard" message to ever have made way---and if you think that is a prevalent message, I haven't seen it in my adult life, so you are dreaming it up. Way too much "truther" mythology out there, imagining dragons that don't exist, and not enough clear vision. There is no secret technology being withheld. All of it is out for view, and reflects technology being continuously developed.

The only bullshit in this discussion is what you seem bound and determined to believe, in defiance of the facts. Do you seriously think that the Space Shuttle was an obstacle to space exploration? It was a good objective, but was compromised by budgetary constraints and wishful thinking generally. Yet it did put into orbit tremendous tools of astronomy. Do you seriously think that the probes to Mars were an obstacle to space exploration? They have surveyed where we would go and what we would find there. Do you seriously think that the ISS was an obstacle to space exploration? How else were we to understand the long-term effects of space flight? I am not otherwise impressed by the "science" that it purportedly accomplished, but it did at least give us a medical database, and space medicine is crucial to space exploration. I have no idea what you think "space exploration" would be, since you seem to have no conception of what goes into all this, how much it will cost, and no regard for the risks involved.

I'm not the one with a mistaken view. I've been watching all this since Sputnik first flew in 1957. I've been working in the field from the early 70s to the mid 10s. I've worked with former astronauts. I defer to no one in my criticism of NASA, but you are not close to the truth at all. Learn more and emote less.

I think we are getting down to history and what it shows us. I never liked LBJ, and I was quite surprised upon reading a detailed history of the Apollo program showing that he had been a spaceflight advocate during his time as a Senator. He had taken a lead in advocacy that JFK later adopted as part of his campaign and subsequent administration. What you say about the evils of LBJ are possibly true---but it doesn't erase the fact that LBJ was an Apollo program supporter. The program was not canceled when he was president.

Money "diverted" where and when? LBJ made sure NASA was fully funded through his presidency. Nixon was the one who canceled the final 3 planned Moon landings---in order to free up funds for Skylab and the development of the Space Shuttle. So, money was not "diverted" from space exploration, just reallocated among space exploration projects. (The federal budgeting process is a fight over every dollar, and the formation of a particular budget is not "diversion." The only untouchable allocations are the mandatory ones, like Social Security, etc.)

Nixon was president after LBJ, 1969 to 1974. All lunar landings were made during his presidency. The financial support for the program slumped after the first landing---which was the driving pressure behind the Space Race. We won the race, and there were other priorities for the federal budget. You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that (1) the nation had no Constitutional duty to go to the Moon, (2) the public interest had waned, and (3) other issues had higher financial priority. There was absolutely no popular interest in leaving the planet (and there still isn't). The Apollo project itself, for all it did, cost $20.2 billion in then-year dollars, or about $176 billion in 2022 dollars. Somehow, I think a GoFundMe campaign would have a hard time scraping up that kind of money...and I don't agree that the government should be spending taxes on space exploration (other than necessary to support military operations). The "establishment" simply doesn't care; they have other fish to fry. The problem is so challenging, there is no need to "prevent" anyone from doing anything. The difficulty of the problem is a sufficient barrier. If you think you have a cheap way of doing it, there is a whole industry that is ears open, but you seem to want the government to spend unlimited $100s of billions on such an effort. I've been a space enthusiast ever since I could read, but not at any cost.

Nobody has an obligation to promote space exploration. You want a voice like that in Congress? Run for office. Absolutely no one in the government is promoting the "space flight is impossible" nonsense. I have only seen that ridiculous ignorance and denialism on these pages. Meanwhile, the government tolerates Elon Musk's ambitions, plans, and activities with only minor regulation. You seem to be oblivious to the way in which he is pushing forward on the road into space, making massive breakthroughs in cost and capability. I should think you would be encouraged. I am encouraged. (I also think he is underestimating the challenge and costs of colonizing the Moon or Mars, but that is another matter. For example, building and maintaining the International Space Station for 25 years has taken $150 billion. Hard for me to think of that as "not supporting" space exploration.)

We may agree to disagree, but in my case, I have been in the industry for 40 years. I understand what happened and how we got where we are. There is no need to dream up an adversary that really doesn't exist, when the main obstacles are money and time.