Re: NASA's great conspiracy

On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:44:54 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message 
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 10:23:50 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 09:22:06 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:58:50 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Malte Runz"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:24:07 +1000, "Andrew W" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Crashed craft retrieval cases have come out hundreds of times. ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now, that's what I call a 'positive claim', and we all know what that
>>>>>>>>entails.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only mainstream media followers and 'authority' followers have never
>>>>>>>heard
>>>>>>>of that. Normies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course I've heard the claims made before. Do you think you're the
>>>>>>only kook on the internet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you call me a kook then you also have to call air force pilots, 
>>>>>senior
>>>>>military officials and investigators etc. kooks too. ...
>>>>
>>>>And I do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have little or no knowledge or qualification to do so. It's you who 
>>>has
>>>no credibility.
>>>Pilots and military officials are highly trained and have a career to look
>>>after. They can't afford to talk crap.
>>
>>And their career will survive after they've been spilling the beans?
>>Think, man. They are, as you claim, revealing some of the deepest
>>secrets kept hidden for generations. How is that going to protect them
>>and their career?
>>>
>
>80% of them ...

A number pulled from where the Sun doesn't shine.

> won't just spill all the beans, only parts.
>And these public talks usually happen decades after the events and when the 
>classification of documents have expired.

So, as long as the classification of the documents have expired, Deep
State is okay with people revealing the secrets?


>>>>Did you see the hearings in the US Congress a while back?
>>>>The airforce (?) guy who claimed that some of his superiors had
>>>>ADMITTED!!!! that they were in the possession of alien crafts? He
>>>>looked so god damned miserable in his chair, when it dawned on him
>>>>that nobody believed him and that he most likely was the butt of a
>>>>joke everyone else was in on. A proper kook, but honestly, I felt
>>>>sorry for the guy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's just your woke emotion based reaction. You've been conditioned 
>>>since
>>>a young age to ridicule such things, and that's because of the CIA 
>>>ridicule
>>>program that's been running for decades, which you also don't know about.
>>>Why do you never ask the obvious question: Why would governments go to so
>>>much trouble to cover this up? I think you're not smart enough to think 
>>>this
>>>far.
>>
>>You're absolutely right. I'm way too dumb to understand these things.
>>Explain, oh wise one, why would the government, who is trying to keep
>>all things 'alien' hidden, allow "Pilots and military officials" to
>>participate in public hearings, where they spill the beans? Yes,
>>explain that one to me.
>>
>
>See above re. docs being declassified and old events.
>And there's a slow gov disclosure happening now because too many people are 
>demanding it and the gov doesn't want an implosion of their narrative when 
>things boil over.

And Deep State is fine with that?


>>And no, I'm not really looking to you for an answer. I'm being fucking
>>ironic, in case you haven't noticed.
>>>
>
>Like a troll.

Trolls feign sincerity. I don't. I'm very open about my 'poking'.

(snip)

>>and despise you for siding
>>with Putin.
>>
>
>That's your blown out imagination. I never sided with Putin. ...

Fuck you! "Putin is not the bad guy", remember? You have expressed
nothing but sympathy and understanding for his war on the Ukrainian
people. You have even supported the potential use of strategic nuclear
weapons in Ukraine. 


> ... I just said 
>that he's a distraction by the deep state who have murdered billions over 
>decades.
>Putin in fact hasn't been proven to murder anyone or even order such. ...

Ask any Russian how it works. They all understand that Putin is behind
the killing of political opponents and critics. His supporters agree
with his methods, and his opponents keep quite. That's how a dictator
operates. But, according to you, Putin is not the bad guy.

> ... He's 
>just another distraction puppet on a stage, and you fell for it.
>It is the Ukraine cabals that are murdering innocent people and blaming 
>Putin.

'It's the Ukrainians who destroy their own country!' 

QED. 

You defend Putin, make him out to be the poor victim, and simply
repeat the dictator's propaganda. 


>>Damn, wouldn't you have been a good little Hitler Jugend
>>boy.
>>>
>
>Hitler used the then German media and rallies to get supporters. It's you 
>who believes and follows the media so you put two and two together to see 
>who would follow Hitler.

"Putin is not the bad guy."

(snip)

>>> ... There are actually curious people in this world who
>>>want to hear other than gov/media perspectives and narratives.
>>>IOW my posts are not for your type. ...
>>
>>Then stop responding to my posts. You're not obligated to waste time
>>on a lost case like me.
>>
>
>Why do you respond to my posts? Look at that reason first.

Why don't you understand? I've said it a million times. You're piece
of shit, and I like to make fun of you.
>
>>
>>> ... But I do like a challenge, and sometimes
>>>people's minds are actually opened.
>>
>>So you want a challenge, eh? Lemme think...
>>
>>Show me an image of a UFO or alien being you believe is the real deal.
>>(You won't, of course. Instead you will blame me for not having found
>>it myself.)
>>

Right again. 

>Be more mature.

Are you telling me that you do have images of UFOs and aliens that you
believe are real, but that you won't show them to me, because I'm not
mature enough?


(snip)

>>In your world they are the highest level possible. You believe what
>>they say 'unseen'. Remember, you once ADMITTED!!! that you yourself
>>never have seen a bona fide alien, 'negative' or otherwise, but you
>>are sure they do exist... here on Earth. It's basically a question of
>>faith.
>>>
>
>Just another brain fart of yours. ...

Do I really need to go back and find the post where you said that you
have not seen an alien yourself, but you have met a person who has,
and that you believed them?

(snip)

>>> ... and inform them of the gov psyops and narrative programs that
>>>>have been in place for decades.
>>
>>Millennia! Who do you think build the Pyramids?
>>
>
>Humans with advanced tech.

Alien tech, right? Did that involve levitation of huge rocks? Maybe
something like this?

https://youtube.com/shorts/Bb4O3T-Mcf8?si=JiASlas1ePFtuTcd


>>>>>>> ... but you will never search for yourself and switch. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can find hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same shit
>>>>>>you do,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Military officials talk shit? Ok smarty.
>>>>
>>>>Another appeal to authorities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Diversion
>>
>>Au contraire. It's a direct attack on the quality of your argument.
>>You're saying that I, just like you do, should believe the claims,
>>because they are also made by "military officials", and people in that
>>position would not "talk shit".
>>>
>
>The difference is I look at decades of info and documented evidence and 
>research. ...

Documented evidence that you refuse to present here. 'Oh, I don't have
it anymore. I can't possibly show you everything. Do your own
research!'

>... I don't just believe one or two officials. You're the believer 
>type here.

I'm the 'not believer'.

>>>Of course not.
>>>Have you checked them out at all?
>>>And do you just believe the gov and media narratives?
>>
>>"Just", as in 'only', or 'unquestioningly'? In either case, no.
>>
>
>You dodged the first question.

I've read and seen my fair share of reports of 'alien encounters'. 

>You don't go far enough with questioning them. ...

You bet I questioned them. 

(snip)

>>>Do you want some? ...
>>
>>Whatever gave you that idea?
>>
>>
>>> ... First you have to convince me that you're sincere and open
>>>minded and not just a sheep, clown and troll.
>>
>>And I would rip every- and anything you'd post to pieces. You know it.
>>
>
>Without even any info on the subject? Haha. Loser.

Try me. Or are you afraid I'll hurt your feelings?


>>If you trusted your sources, your ideas, and your arguments, you would
>>bury me under them.
>>
>
>I trust no one. ...

Not even the guy who told he'd seen an alien?

>... And I don't trust you.

Why? I have never lied to you.

(snip)


>>>>>They put strict laws in place. Find out why and then come back.
>>>>
>>>>Name one law They have put in place.
>>>>'§1: Keep the alien spaceships hidden from the gullible masses.'
>>>>
>>>
>>>In 1969, NASA passed a federal regulation dealing with ‘Extra-terrestrial
>>>Exposure’. The “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law” offers a legal precedent 
>>>for
>>>the detention and indefinite imprisonment of any individual who comes into
>>>contact with extraterrestrials.
>>
>>What kind of extraterrestrial 'material' do you believe it was thought
>>someone could be exposed to?
>>
>>I've never heard of this, so I'll do some digging.
>>
>>Before I start, I think it is about procedure in case of the Apollo 11
>>crew's and future astronauts' exposure to something
>>'extraterrestrial'. Keeping us all safe from E.T. But we'll see. I'll
>>start by 'researching' “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law”.
>>
>>[clickity clickity]
>>
>>https://tinyurl.com/54jchbte
>>
>>This is what you are talking about, right? Easy peasy.
>>
>>By the way, it's not a law per se.
>>***
>>PART 1211-EXTRATERRESTRIAL
>>EXPOSURE
>>
>>§ 1211.100 Scope.
>>This part establishes: (a) NASA
>>policy, responsibility and authority to
>>guard the Earth against any harmful
>>contamination or adverse changes in its
>>environment resulting from personnel,
>>spacecraft and other property returning
>>to the Earth after landing on or coming within the atmospheric
>>envelope of a celestial body; and (b) security requirements,
>>restrictions and safeguards that are necessary in the interest of the
>>national security.
>>[...]
>>***
>>
>
>There's never been any evidence of any contamination. Why make a document 
>like that? ...

Really? You have no idea why NASA would have a protocol in place in
the case that the first humans to walk on the Moon should return with
something 'extraterrestrial'?

>... People have been arrested.

I call bullshit. Arrested for what? Names, dates, and context, please.
Your inevitable refusal to deliver will come as no surprise.


>>Told ya!
>>
>>It's an easy read, and as expected, it is nothing like you described
>>it. Prove me wrong. Quotes from the link is a must. Think of it as "an
>>interesting challenge". You like challenges, remember.
>>
>
>If it was easy and quick then it wasn't a challenge. You did practically 
>nothing and then gloated.

I found the original document, which is more than you ever did. Of
course it turned out that you had the title wrong, and that you
misrepresented the content. 

I can imagine it's part of the 'Kook's Canon of All Things They' and
you never bothered to fact check it.


>>I can start and show you what I mean. You stated that
>>
>>"The “Extraterrestrial Exposure Law” offers a legal precedent for
>>the detention and indefinite imprisonment of any individual who comes
>>into contact with extraterrestrials."
>>
>>Where in the text do they talk about potential "indefinite
>>imprisonment"? The Apollo 11 crew spent three weeks in quarantine
>>AFAIR.
>>
>>And where do they use the precise term "extraterrestrials".

Oops! That little innocent looking plural 's' makes all the
difference.


>>I am convinced that you never have read full text before. If you had,
>>you wouldn't have misquoted the name of the text. Also, I'm sure you
>>copy pasted your paragraph about the wrongly named “Extraterrestrial
>>Exposure Law” and that it is all you know about [it].
>>>
>
>You're out of your depth.

Of course I was right... again.


>>>>>>Understand that I'm interested in learning what /you/ have found and
>>>>>>where you found it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes you're obsessed about that. I get it. ...
>>>>
>>>>I really don't think you do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you're a very seasoned troll? Professional perhaps?
>>
>>I don't troll. I poke.
>>
>
>You have no good reason.

"Putin is not the bad guy." All the reason I need.

(snip)

>>>>>>>>My sole point is to expose you as a liar, and every time you fail to
>>>>>>>>provide a source for your claims my point is proven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. Did you, or didn't you, provide a source?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do I have to? You'll just jerk off like always.
>>>>
>>>>If I had made a claim and was asked to provide evidence I'd be happy
>>>>to do so. You, on the other hand, react like it is a personal attack
>>>>when people ask for your sources.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your wokeness, trolling and clown behaviour is an offense to every 
>>>sensible
>>>mature person.
>>
>>Ignore me, or stop whining.
>>>
>
>It's you who whines about 'kooks'.

I don't whine, or complain, about you being a kook. Now when I think
about it, it's the only reason I reply to you.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You didn't. Instead you
>>>>>>evaded my questions exactly the way I predicted you would.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not a courtroom prosecutor so quit acting like one.
>>>>
>>>>Not going to happen. As long as you do your thing, I'll do mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are sick.
>>
>>Again, I can only suggest that you ignore me.
>>
>
>It's sometimes fun putting trolls in their places.

By regularly refusing to back up your claims with evidence? By
complaining about my expected reaction to the material you choose not
to present? 

(snip)

-- 
Malte Runz