CP Text: The United States federal government should announce its intention to, and use supporting evidence

to substantially increase the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence program to include displays of nonhuman sapience. However secretly hoax actual implementation of the plan. Observation One Competition Any permutation severs the genuine nature of the plan Net Benefit: Alien Contact The cp may involve various methods of advertising/propaganda, but we dont actually search for extra-terrestrial life. Solves all of your impacts: All of your internal links are perception based whether you like it or not-no one would actually know if we faked implementation Next: Your plan doesnt even assume we find aliens, nor does it assume that there are any net benefits to the actual implementation of the plan, which means we solve all your aff while avoiding extinction from the aliens that SETI might find. Empirical Solvency - We never landed on the moon-another USFG hoax Cosnette, International Director of UFO Research Center, 09
[David, International Director of UFORC, UFO-Aliens, The faked Apollo landings 2/10/09, http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html, accessed 6/21/11, HK]
Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon. However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or so we have been led to believe. I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years. I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!! But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask? Please read on
and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going? David Percy is an award winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers' (ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?', a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or not the

original film that was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the

cover-up. He has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live at all. The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from the 1972 Apollo 16 Mission. There

is a major discrepancy between the still photograph taken with a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera and the TV coverage film which was shot from a stationary movie camera placed behind the astronauts. The movie sequence (that is viewable by clicking the picture to the left) shows one of the astronauts making a jump salute whilst another astronaut takes a still photo with the Hasselblad camera. On the still photo (that is pictured left) we see a flap of triangular fabric that has come loose and flapped up behind the astronauts head. However the TV film which was shot from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap? Why not? Another example that appears to
be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence? But no, we see the window frame come into view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was. Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth. But the biggest shock is yet to come! The camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards

the left hand side of the Apollo 11, and what do we see out of the left window??? We see what appears to be another Earth... Go on, watch the video by clicking the picture above and you'll see it with your own eyes! It must also be noted that the Apollo 11 at this point of the mission was supposedly half way to the Moon. The time elapsed was 34 hours and 16 minutes, but from the view of Earth in the right hand window, we can say that in fact they were not in deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit! look at the blue sky outside. That would also
explain why they would be filming an exposure of the Earth that was far away, to give the impression that they

Next is the Net Benefit Destroy Them with Lasers!!!!

A) Offensive Realism Proves Austin 10

(Peter, Man, the State, and Aliens an Investigation of Unifying Threats in Structural Realism 4/26/10 Claremont McKenna)
all states strive to maximize power into a guideline that covers all the organizing units of any form of life. John J. Mearsheimer addresses the question of power seeking beyond states in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: Even if the state disappeared, however, that would not necessarily mean the end of security competition and war. After all, Thucydides and Machiavelli wrote long before the birth of the state system. Realism merely requires anarchy; it does not matter what kind of political units make up the system. They could be states, city-states, cults, empires, tribes, gangs, feudal principalities, or whatever . Any intelligent group will organize themselves, even if their organizing principle is anarchy. An anarchic system of organization would
The paper also expands the assumption of offensive realism that

simply make all extraterrestrial individuals their own "state," and though this would certainly complicate matters, it would not invalidate a realist approach. Even animals seek their own security, and it is safe to assume that this desire will be shared by whatever extraterrestrial species humanity encounters, if only because it is present through all aspects of nature yet discovered.

B) History proves
Shuch 11
[Paul, Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, A retired professor of physics, astronomy, and engineering, H. Paul Shuch is credited with the design of the first commercial home satellite TV receiver. Executive director (now emeritus) of the grassroots nonprofit SETI League since 1994. p.434]
Interstellar space may hold only the wise, grandfather types predicted by Cornell-based SETI founders Frank Drake and Carl Sagan. Kindly ancient ones may welcome us into their

On the other hand, consider our own practical experience over the last 6000 years, when various human cultures have collided with each other here on Earth. In history, first contact has seldom been gentle and benig n. At best, cultural values were shaken, requiring painful readjustments. At worst, the outcome was often genocide. In other words, altruism appears to have been as rare
advanced, pacific civilization.

for intra-human first contact experiences as it is between animal species. Yes, that may change. We may yet become a civilization that lives
and works under codes such as the famous Prime Directive. Even if this is not now in our nature, we may choose to change that nature, turning ourselves into truly noble beings. This is our ambition and hope for the future. Still, Phil Morrison said:

it is wise to remember our context and our past. Bearing this history in mind, SETI pioneer I share the idea of caution before any reply.

C) Theyll Kill us for Resources

Moskowitz 10
[Clara, Space.com senior staff writer, Do We Dare Let Aliens Know We're Here?, Scientist Says, http://www.space.com/8955-aliens.html] SANTA CLARA, Calif. ? Even if humanity could reach out to an intelligent alien civilization, scientists are polarized over whether we should. Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has argued that the extraterrestrials we contacted would be likely to harm us, a view that divided the experts here at the SETIcon convention. "No one can say that there is no risk to transmitting," John Billingham, former chairman of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Committee of the International Academy of Astronautics, said via a statement read at the convention Sunday. "Personally, I agree with Hawking and think it
may be unwise to transmit." However, Douglas Vakoch, director of interstellar message composition at the SETI Institute, said of aliens: "Even if they tend to be hateful, awful folks, can they do us any harm at interstellar distances?"? Up to now, the efforts of SETI have concentrated on receiving and recognizing signals from non-natural sources in space. Hawking, 68, claimed

any civilization with which humanity could communicate is likely to be much older and more technologically advanced than ours. So they would probably have the ability, and possibly the motive, to eradicate humanity and strip-mine our planet for parts. It would
that be safer not to actively broadcast our presence, he said.

D) Stephen (Badass) Hawking says so

Ohlund 11 (Phillip, Stephen Hawking: UFO Sightings Warn Of Alien Invasion 5/30/11 http://ohlundonline.blogspot.com/2011/05/stephen-hawking-ufo-sightings-warn-of.html)
Stephen Hawking is convinced "that other higher life forms do exist in the galaxies and would more likely raid Earth for its resources and move on". Both the British govenment and the FBI have documents "that also confirms that UFO sightings have been based on real events and facts that were previously put under lock and key to protect the public". "In the past 10 years we have found that hundreds of planets orbit distant suns not too different from our own and can reasonably infer that billions more exist", writes Marc Kaufman.
Huliq reports British scientist Kaufman is national editor for The Washington Post, and in his new book "First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth", he does not dispute alien life

We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldnt want to meet". Hawking explains: "I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach. If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didnt turn out very well for the Native Americans". Professor Hawking is also quoted in Londons "The Guardian" newspaper May 16 saying, "the notion of alien life is real, but dangerous". The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), is an excellent project, but I agree with Hawking and Kaufman that contact with possible intelligent life out there is risky and dangerous. But the question is: Do we have any choice? The aliens are already here. Who can say who we are, or where we came from? Maybe they planted us here long ago as back-up or raw material? Alien life has been found both outside and on the Earth. We might be the food they need, or the workers they need. No one knows what they might want. But all the abductions indicate we humans are the resources the aliens want.
but, instead, fears it. Hawking says: "

Case Frontline: 1NC

1. Their notion of ontological difference is a fraud. Ontological inquiry merely serves to reaffirm the way things are and the way things will be in the end. This is terminal defense to the entire affirmative. They merely expand the coordinates of human imposition by arbitrarily determining alien life is nothing more than an affirmation of status quo structures of power.
Carsten Strathausen, Associate Professor of German and English, University of Missouri at Columbia, A Critique of Neo-Left Ontology, POSTMODERN CULTURE, v 16 n 3, 2006, Project Muse. //uo-schally
Ontological argument is static, undialectical, and unhistorical. It apodictically posits a truth that, following Adorno, can only be thought in and through a continuous process of self-critical reflection. The truth about ontology, therefore, is its untruth and philosophical sterility. Ontology begets ideology, because it refuses to think through and beyond contradiction the way dialectics does. Instead, Heidegger allegedly praises the mere existence of paradox as if it were truth itself. In doing so, ontology succumbs to the apologetic "affirmation of power" (136), and Adorno spends numerous pages on Heidegger's use of the predicate "is" to substantiate this claim.5 The brute fact that the world exists and that Being "is," so Adorno, seduces Heidegger to abandon dialectical reflection in favor of mere tautologies that refuse to mediate between the constitutive poles of subject and object, Being and beings. Instead, ontology ultimately collapses the two into one. "The whole construction of [Heidegger's] ontological difference is a Potemkin Village" (122), Adorno concludes, because this alleged difference only serves to advocate the self-identity and self-righteousness of the way things always already are in the beginning and will have been in the end. In Heidegger, "mediation [succumbs] to
the unmediated identity of what mediates and what is being mediated" (Adorno 493).

2. TurnFocus on ontology feeds fuels the narcissistic society and obscures the horrors of transnational capitalismleads to slavery, mass slaughter and environmental destruction
Philip Graham, School of Communication, Queensland University of Technology, Heidegger's hippies: A dissenting voice on the problem of the subject, PAPER PRESENTED TO THE IDENTITIES IN ACTION CONFERENCE, December 12, 1999, p. 11-12 http://www.philgraham.net/HH_conf.pdf. //uo-schally
Giddens's claims that 'humans live in circumstances of ... existential contradiction', and that 'subjective death* and 'biological death1 are somehow unrelated, is a an ultimately repressive abstraction: from that perspective, life is merely a series of subjective deaths, as if death were the ultimate motor of life itself (cf. Adomo 1964/1973). History is, in fact, the simple and straightforward answer to the "problem of the subject". "The problem" is also a handy device for confusingentertaining, and selling trash to the masses. By emphasising the problem of the 'ontological self (Giddens 1991: 49). informationalism and 'consumerism confines the navel-gazing, 'narcissistic masses to a permanent present which they self-consciously sacrifice for a Utopian future (cf. Adomo 1973: 303; Hitchens 1999: Lasch 1984: 25-59). Meanwhile transnational businesses go about their work, raping the

environment; swindling each other and whole nations: and inflicting populations with declining wages, declining working conditions, and declining social security. Slavery is once again on the increase (Castells, 1998; Graham. 1999; ILO, 1998). There is no "problem of the subject", just as there is no "global society": there is only the mass amnesia of Utopian propaganda, the strains of which have historically accompanied revolutions in communication technologies. Each person's identity is. quite simply, their subjective account of a unique and objective history of interactions within the objective social and material
environments they inhabit, create, and inherit. The identity of each person is their most intimate historical information, and they are its material expression: each person is a record of their own history at any given time. Thus, each person is a recognisably material, identifiable entity: an identity. This is their condition. People are not theoretical entities; they are people. As such, they have an intrinsic identity with an intrinsic value. No amount of theory or propaganda will make it go away. The widespread multilateral attempts to prop up consumer society and hypercapitalism as a valid and useful means of sustainable growth, indeed, as the path to an inevitable, international democratic Utopia, are already showing their disastrous cracks. The "problem" of subjective death threatens to give way. once again, to unprecedented mass slaughter. The numbed condition of a narcissistic society, rooted in a permanent "now", a blissful state of Heideggerian Dasein threatens to wake up to a world in which

"subjective death" and ontology are the least of all worries.

No extinctiontheir Edelman evidence is specific to reproductive futurism; guarding an idealized image of the child, NOTHING to do with Western metaphysics. Disregard their value to life impact:

A. Their Zimmerman evidence is cut out of context- he is restating an argument made by Heidegger which he explicitly disagrees with. Furthermore it is warrant-less and logically incoherentwe will assert the conversenuclear war outweighs loss of being because if humanity survives a crisis of being only to be obliterated by a nuclear war there would be no clever contented animals left B. Nuclear war outweighs daseintheir ev is anthropocentric and stupid, turns the affirmative
David Macauley, MINDING NATURE: THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ECOLOGY, 1996, p. 74. //uo-schally
We may approach the issue of what Heidegger may teach todays radical environmentalists by examining an issue about which they and Heidegger would profoundly disagree. Heidegger claimed that there is a greater danger than the destruction of all life on earth by nuclear war.40 For radical environmentalists, it is hard to imagine anything more dangerous than the total destruction of the biosphere! Heidegger argued, however, that worse than such annihilation would he the totally technologized world in which material happiness for everyone is achieved, but in which humanity would be left with a radically constricted capacity for encountering the being of entities. This apparently exorbitant claim may be partially mitigated by the following consideration. If human existence lost all relationship to transcendent being,

entities could no longer show themselves at all, and in this sense would no longer be. Who needs nuclear war, Heidegger asked rhetorically, if entities have already ceased to be? For many environmentalists, such a question reveals the extent to which Heidegger remained part of the human-centered tradition that he wanted to overcome. By estimating so highly human Daseins contribution to the manifesting of things, Heidegger may well have underestimated the contribution made by many other forms of life, for which the extinction of humankinds ontological awareness would be far preferable to their own extinction in nuclear war!

Ontology Ans: Capitalism Turn 1AR

Focus on the ontological self is a narcissistic exercise that puts society in a state of delusion, which primes individuals to accept the self-centered nature of capitalism and provides a distraction while corporations rape and pillage the earth. This mass amnesia ultimately ends in slavery, environmental destruction, and mass slaughterthats Graham 99. And, capitalism reduces all of humanity to their ability to produce monetary value, making genocide inevitable. Kovel 02 (Joel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature, p. 140-141)
The precondition of an ecologically rational attitude toward nature is the recognition that nature far surpasses us and has its own intrinsic value, irreducible to our practice. Thus we achieve
differentiation from nature. It is in this light that we would approach the question of transforming practice ecologically or, as we now recognize to be the same thing, dialectically. The monster that now bestrides the world was born

of the conjugation of value and dominated labour. From the former arose the quantification of reality, and, with this, the loss of the
differentiated recognition essential for ecosystemic integrity; from the latter emerged a kind of selfhood that could swim in these icy waters. From this standpoint one might call capitalism a regime of the ego, meaning that under its auspices a kind of estranged self emerges as the mode of capitals reproduction. This self is not merely prideful the ordinary connotation of egotistical more fully, it is the ensemble of those relations that embody the domination of nature from one side, and, from the other, ensure the reproduction of capital. This ego is the latest version of the purified male principle, emerging aeons after the initial gendered domination became absorbed and rationalized as profitability and self-maximization (allowing suitable power-women to join the dance). It is a pure culture of splitting and nonrecognition: of itself, of the otherness of nature and of the nature of others. In terms of the preceding discussion, it is the elevation of the merely individual and

Capital produces egotistic relations, which reproduce capital. The isolated selves of the capitalist order can choose to become personifications of capital, or may have the role thrust upon them. In either case, they embark upon a pattern of non-recognition mandated by the fact that the almighty dollar interposes itself between all elements of experience: all things in the world, all other
isolated mind-as-ego into a reigning principle.

persons, and between the self and its world: nothing really exists except in and through monetization. This set-up provides an ideal culture medium for the bacillus of competition and ruthless self-maximization. Because money is all that counts, a peculiar heartlessness characterizes capitalists, a tough-minded and cold abstraction that will sacrifice species, whole continents (viz. Africa) or inconvenient sub-sets of the population (viz. black urban males) who add too little to the great march of surplus value or may be seen as standing in its way. The

presence of value screens out genuine fellow-feeling or compassion, replacing it with the calculus of profit-expansion. Never has a holocaust been carried out so impersonally. When the Nazis killed their victims, the crimes were accompanied by a racist drumbeat; for global capital, the losses are regrettable necessities.

Ontology Ans: Levinas 2AC

Its impossible to determine an answer to being ontological questioning results in an infinite regress and total paralysis.
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, and Philippe Nemo, professor of new philosophy, ETHICS AND INFINITY, 1985, p. 6-7.
Are we not in need of still more precautions? Must we not step back from this question to raise another, to recognize the obvious circularity of asking what is the What is . .? question? It seems to beg the question. Is our new suspicion, then, that Heidegger begs the question of metaphysics when he asks What is poetry? or What is thinking?? Yet his thought is insistently anti-metaphysical. Why, then, does he retain the metaphysical question par excellence? Aware of just such an objection, he proposes, against the vicious circle of the petitio principi, an alternative, productive circularity: hermeneutic questioning. To ask What is. . .? does not partake of onto-theo-logy if one acknowledges (1) that the answer can never be fixed absolutely, but calls essentially, endlessly, for additional What is . . .? questions. Dialectical refinement here replaces vicious circularity. Further, beyond the openmindedness called for by dialectical refinement, hermeneutic questioning (2) insists on avoiding subjective impositions, on avoiding reading into rather than harkening to things. One must harken to the things themselves, ultimately to being, in a careful attunement to what is. But do the refinement and care of the hermeneutic question which succeed in avoiding ontotheo-logy succeed in avoiding all viciousness? Certainly they convert a simple fallacy into a productive inquiry, they open a path for thought. But is it not

the case that however much refinement and care one brings to bear, to ask what something is leads to asking what something else is, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum? What is disturbing in this
is not so much the infinity of interpretive depth, which has the virtue of escaping onto-theo-logy and remaining true to the way things are, to the phenomena, the coming to be and passing away of being. Rather, the problem lies

in the influence the endlessly open horizon of such thinking exerts on the way of such thought.

That is, the problem lies in what seems to be the very virtue of hermeneutic thought, namely, the doggedness of the What is . . .? question, in its inability to escape itself, to escape being and essence.