Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

NASA's Secret ET Influence


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#91    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:13 AM

ohh look.. posted the same clip in two threads :)

watched em.. cant see anything that looks like aliens..


#92    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:15 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 31 December 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

ohh look.. posted the same clip in two threads :)

watched em.. cant see anything that looks like aliens..

Nor would I expect you to admit it if you did.


#93    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:17 AM

Actually Guff.. thats where your wrong mate.. I am the kind of person who admits when they are wrong.. :D

and in this.. I'm not.. there is nothing on the clips that you posted that shout's ALIEN!!! ..

thing is.. I have yet to see you say you were wrong when its been pointed out a couple of times you have been..


#94    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:28 AM

View PostDingoLingo, on 31 December 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Actually Guff.. thats where your wrong mate.. I am the kind of person who admits when they are wrong.. :D

and in this.. I'm not.. there is nothing on the clips that you posted that shout's ALIEN!!! ..

thing is.. I have yet to see you say you were wrong when its been pointed out a couple of times you have been..


I have admitted many times that I have been wrong or that I don't know something, but the person you're referring to in this case--one of the tedious "skeptics"--is particularly dishonest about what I have actually posted and I never admit anything to him.  He's a very nasty piece of work, even by skeptic standards.


#95    topsecretresearch

topsecretresearch

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 December 2012 - 04:45 AM

I noticed my post about Oberg and alleged misinformation was deleted so I'll post it again:

James Oberg Accused Of Misinformation On UFO UpDates

From: David Rudiak

"Tony retracted this today, blaming it on misinformation provided
by James Oberg. That wouldn't surprise me from my past run-ins
with Oberg, some here on UFO Updates. Oberg is a fountain of UFO
misinformation."

To read more go to this link:
http://ufoupdateslis...c/m22-001.shtml

Edited by topsecretresearch, 31 December 2012 - 04:46 AM.


#96    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 04:50 AM

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 31 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

I noticed my post about Oberg and alleged misinformation was deleted so I'll post it again:

James Oberg Accused Of Misinformation On UFO UpDates

From: David Rudiak

"Tony retracted this today, blaming it on misinformation provided
by James Oberg. That wouldn't surprise me from my past run-ins
with Oberg, some here on UFO Updates. Oberg is a fountain of UFO
misinformation."

To read more go to this link:
http://ufoupdateslis...c/m22-001.shtml


I just caught him doing it on here--again--repeatedly posting something about Clark McClelland which wasn't true at all when I checked it.


#97    Pericynthion

Pericynthion

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 31 December 2012 - 05:09 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

I think people should just watch the video and judge for themselves what Luna Cognita was saying, since he does indeed mention that the camera was manufactured by Westinghouse and that Lockheed was also involved in its installation.

By all means, watch the videos.  But then do the smart thing and independently verify the actual facts.  If you do that, you'll find that LunaCognita isn't being straight with you.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

Of course I hadn't heard about it before, but I found it interesting that NASA prepared a faked-up schematic for this particular piece of equipment.

Sorry, MacGuffin, but you've been duped again.  The schematics LunaCognita shows in his video are accurate.  He's just trying very hard to make you THINK there's something unusual about them even though he never actually comes out and says that.  His exact words are:

... and they even offer up the schematics and the camera's design/operating parameters documentation in their archives as apparent "proof" of this claim.


Do those words actually say that the schematics are fake?  Nope.  Does he show that there's anything at all incorrect about them?  Nope.  He's just playing mind games with you to get you to react in a certain way, and it looks like he succeeded.

For what it's worth, his brief shots of diagrams and tables are taken from this document:  Westinghouse Engineer, March 1968

Here's the first schematic he shows:

Westinghouse Engineer, March 1968, pg. 48
Posted Image



And here's an equivalent figure from the formerly-classified 1965 Westinghouse technical report:

CR-108297, Lunar TV Camera: Technical Summary No. 1, Feb 1965, Fig. 4-2

Posted Image

I've highlighted the fiber optic faceplace in red.  If you compare the two diagrams, you'll see that the simplified one shown by LunaCognita is accurate but just doesn't show any actual design details of the faceplate or photocathode.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

Certainly you and Oberg would never have been forced to admit things like this if I hadn't posted the video, and I tend to agree with Luna Cognita that when it comes to these NASA pictures "you have no idea what you're missing".

I'm sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around your posts here, and nobody has been 'forced' to admit anything.  This interesting little bit of Apollo trivia has been publically available in a nice, easy-to-access format on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for more than seven years now.  The technical reports showing that the camera once contained a bit of classified technology have been available for more than 40 years for those willing to do the actual research.  The fact that you were unaware of this is completely irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

And yes indeed, you really do have no idea what you're missing.  Apollo is probably the best-documented major undertaking in human history.  If you choose to put the effort into some actual research, you don't have to rely on belief, speculation, or fantasy.  You can KNOW what these images and documents really show.  It's completely up to you.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

By the way, Peri is very careful and selective about the things he responded to in the videos, and tended to ignore or dance around the questions he'd really rather not discuss.

The simple fact is that you copy/paste more YouTube links and chunks of UFO web sites in a handful of posts than I could possibly address in a month.  I simply pick a few of the cases where I think I might be able to make a difference and focus on those.  Even then, I end up spending more time than I ought to on this stuff.  At this point, I've easily spent 8-10 hours on this silly camera discussion.

If there's one topic you'd really like to discuss, post it and then stay on subject.  It's pretty annoying to spend a couple hours on a post only to have you essentially ignore my response and pump out another couple semi-random YouTube links.


#98    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,380 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 31 December 2012 - 05:50 AM

View PostPericynthion, on 31 December 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:



By all means, watch the videos.  But then do the smart thing and independently verify the actual facts.  If you do that, you'll find that LunaCognita isn't being straight with you.




Sorry, MacGuffin, but you've been duped again.  The schematics LunaCognita shows in his video are accurate.  He's just trying very hard to make you THINK there's something unusual about them even though he never actually comes out and says that.  His exact words are:

... and they even offer up the schematics and the camera's design/operating parameters documentation in their archives as apparent "proof" of this claim.


Do those words actually say that the schematics are fake?  Nope.  Does he show that there's anything at all incorrect about them?  Nope.  He's just playing mind games with you to get you to react in a certain way, and it looks like he succeeded.

For what it's worth, his brief shots of diagrams and tables are taken from this document:  Westinghouse Engineer, March 1968

Here's the first schematic he shows:

Westinghouse Engineer, March 1968, pg. 48
Posted Image



And here's an equivalent figure from the formerly-classified 1965 Westinghouse technical report:

CR-108297, Lunar TV Camera: Technical Summary No. 1, Feb 1965, Fig. 4-2

Posted Image

I've highlighted the fiber optic faceplace in red.  If you compare the two diagrams, you'll see that the simplified one shown by LunaCognita is accurate but just doesn't show any actual design details of the faceplate or photocathode.




I'm sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around your posts here, and nobody has been 'forced' to admit anything.  This interesting little bit of Apollo trivia has been publically available in a nice, easy-to-access format on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for more than seven years now.  The technical reports showing that the camera once contained a bit of classified technology have been available for more than 40 years for those willing to do the actual research.  The fact that you were unaware of this is completely irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

And yes indeed, you really do have no idea what you're missing.  Apollo is probably the best-documented major undertaking in human history.  If you choose to put the effort into some actual research, you don't have to rely on belief, speculation, or fantasy.  You can KNOW what these images and documents really show.  It's completely up to you.




The simple fact is that you copy/paste more YouTube links and chunks of UFO web sites in a handful of posts than I could possibly address in a month.  I simply pick a few of the cases where I think I might be able to make a difference and focus on those.  Even then, I end up spending more time than I ought to on this stuff.  At this point, I've easily spent 8-10 hours on this silly camera discussion.

If there's one topic you'd really like to discuss, post it and then stay on subject.  It's pretty annoying to spend a couple hours on a post only to have you essentially ignore my response and pump out another couple semi-random YouTube links.

Good info, Peri! Thanks for taking the time. Reminds me to some extent of a certain other, very prolific poster ;-)

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#99    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 31 December 2012 - 06:35 AM

View Posttopsecretresearch, on 31 December 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

I noticed my post about Oberg and alleged misinformation was deleted so I'll post it again:

James Oberg Accused Of Misinformation On UFO UpDates

From: David Rudiak

"Tony retracted this today, blaming it on misinformation provided
by James Oberg. That wouldn't surprise me from my past run-ins
with Oberg, some here on UFO Updates. Oberg is a fountain of UFO
misinformation."

Thanks for publishing the link, I hadn't seen Rudiak's comments.

As mentioned elsewhere -- but needs repeating -- I seem to have misinterpreted
the provenance of the photo that was posted alongside the UFO photos in the
Life archives. I stand corrected.

But Rudiak's comment has an interesting flaw -- he doesn't seem to comprehend
the possibility that any hypothetical suspension wire [or two] could be tossed over the
overhead wire, and that a ladder might only have been needed to position the\
model properly.

And Maccabee's comment is a classic shoot-the-arrow-and-paint-the-bulls-eye-later
fallacy. The chances of any single photo-spoofer 'getting it right' may not be high,
but if there are enough of them, a non-zero subset is likely to emerge after all the
others have been exposed or confessed. That low priority cannot logically be used
to a priori dismiss EVERY spoofer.


#100    topsecretresearch

topsecretresearch

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:04 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 30 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Oberth's views, which he developed in the 1950s, are accurately described here. Apparently he came to these views based on what he read in the newspapers at the time.


There's a story in one of Timothy Good's books about UFOs flying around V2 rockets. Also the Foo Fighters. Herman Oberth seemed to be aware of a number of UFO cases that pre-date the war.

My theory looking at UFO patterns and the research of Robert Hastings has done  is that it is concievable that ETs could have been curious about are developments in areas such as avaiation, rocketry, atomic test, the atom bomb and of course space flight.

Humans were becoming more advanced and now had the power to destroy life on this planet and also venture into outer space.

A lot of people don't realize this but Roswell, NM was the site of where Robert H. Goddard tested rockets. I think Hermann Oberth and Goddard did communicate at one point. This would have been before 1947.

View PostJimOberg, on 30 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Von Keviczky was a sweet old man on a personal crusade, he never 'led' any UN anything, he talked about UFO invasions to any audience he had access to.


He [Colman von Keviczky] worked himself at the UN Public


Information Office in the 1960's, where he was the very first to


attempt to bring the UFO issue to the United Nations.


Secretary-General U Thant, was actually favorably disposed


toward the subject.


Read more:http://mutualufonetw...1#ixzz2GbZdMZjZ


View PostJimOberg, on 30 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Rosin's stories are puzzling in how differently she portrays von Braun's 'secret feelings' from what he told everybody else who knew him. Either she was the only person on Earth von Braun revealed his innermost secrets to, or she is exploiting her brfief clerking internship with him to validate ideas she had already developed and wanted to promote.

None of these three people seem to have had any influence on NASA's relationship with the UFO phenomenon.


Not true there was Donald Rumsfled who had a UFO connection and was introduced to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics by Wernher von Braun duing the 1960s.

Clark C Mclelland.

Hermann Oberth spoke about UFOs and favored the ETH.

I think Rosin stated Wernher von Braun for obvious reason was afraid to get into the ET subject matter because of threats to his own familiy. He chose her because they were less likely to hurt a woman.  

In one of Timmothy Good's books there is a report of UFOs flying around V-2 rockets.

You also have to look at Carol Rosin's predictions. According to Rosin he stated emphasis would be put on an asteroid threat. Asteroids or NEO's have been rammped up in the news during the past 10 years or so. What she stated some time ago seems to becoming true.


#101    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:13 AM

This is what Luna Cognita has said about the NASA cover up of UFOs, including the altered, edited and "missing" pictures and films.


NASA's Apollo TV Lies Revealed
PART 3 - The cropping games continue
March 17, 2009
This is Part 3 of a multi-part series - be sure to watch Part 1 and Part 2 first!

This third segment of "The Truth Behind The Tones" begins to examine the various editing techniques that were used to disguise, obfuscate, and erase many of the quindar tones in the Apollo GCTA lunar surface television footage. Appreciating this component of the cover-up is vital to your understanding of the depth and magnitude of the Apollo TV lies. Back in Part 2, I conclusively demonstrated that NASA has indeed LIED to the world about the true purposes of the quindar tones you hear in the GCTA footage, and in Part 3 you will see examples showing the various editing techniques they exploited in order to erase or cover up the majority of the quindar tones that were actually being created by the digital editing system.

The Truth Behind The Tones - this multi-part series will break down and present the truth about the incredible levels of manipulation and fakery that the Apollo lunar landing program TV footage was subjected to prior to being seen by public eyes.

This is some rather complex subject matter, and cannot be even close to adequately explained in a brief 10 minute video. Because of this, I think the best way to present proof of this magnitude is to do so methodically, explaining various primary facets of the manipulation in parts. This and other presentations will cover many facets of the TV coverup, revealing not only how they did it, but why.

To the skeptics - I am NOT cherry-picking scenes here, and am NOT showing you only a few coincidentals from the hours of footage available. I have THOUSANDS of examples cataloged, and can and will back up what I am showing over and over and over again as I dissect this television portion of the Apollo lie further. I will say right now that you have NO idea how deep the lies go, and you have NO idea what NASAs true technological capabilities REALLY were back then - let alone today. I have researched this subject matter for years, I have personally interviewed an individual directly involved in this coverup, and I can back up what I am saying and showing here with countless examples that conclusively demonstrate the validity of my claims. My intention is to show and tell you what is really going on so that you can begin to analyze the TV footage for yourself. This is as REAL (and FAKE, if you get my drift) as it gets!


http://www.theliving...led_PART_3.html





#102    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:17 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 31 December 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Thanks for publishing the link, I hadn't seen Rudiak's comments.

As mentioned elsewhere -- but needs repeating -- I seem to have misinterpreted
the provenance of the photo that was posted alongside the UFO photos in the
Life archives. I stand corrected.

But Rudiak's comment has an interesting flaw -- he doesn't seem to comprehend
the possibility that any hypothetical suspension wire [or two] could be tossed over the
overhead wire, and that a ladder might only have been needed to position the\
model properly.

And Maccabee's comment is a classic shoot-the-arrow-and-paint-the-bulls-eye-later
fallacy. The chances of any single photo-spoofer 'getting it right' may not be high,
but if there are enough of them, a non-zero subset is likely to emerge after all the
others have been exposed or confessed. That low priority cannot logically be used
to a priori dismiss EVERY spoofer.


And you have no proof for any of that.  You just made it up out of thin air.


#103    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:22 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 31 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

And you have no proof for any of that.  You just made it up out of thin air.

damn.. you know.. that sounds so much like what I say about the whole Alien UFO thing.. Hi again Mr Pot..


#104    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:23 AM

As Luna Cognita puts it: "This second segment is an answer to some skeptics who have claimed that in Part One, all I did was cherrypick a few lucky coincidental examples that appeared to coincide with the quindar tones. The only way to adequately respond to that ridiculous charge is to demonstrate over and over and over again that the quindar tones CLEARLY are related to the video footage - directly contradicting NASA's official claims (outlined in Part One).

I could easily have made this second segment far longer and shown MANY more basic astronaut recognition examples from the Apollo 17 mission alone, but YouTube time constraints have limited me here to 10 minutes. Still, I believe the point will be well made."




#105    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 31 December 2012 - 07:37 AM

NASA: PROOF of image tampering
November 06, 2008

Since the dawn of the space age, NASA (in conjunction with the Department of Defense and elements attached to the Central Intelligence Agency) have been manipulating and even manufacturing the space imagery they show you. Here is just a bit of the proof that is available out there to demonstrate the fact that you are not being shown anything close to "everything" there was to see up there during the Apollo missions.








0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users