260 replies to this topic

[-M7]

Of course NASA has known of extraterrestrial existence...a while now, but will not disclose that to the public.

Just think, if the Curiosity rover finds evidence of life on Mars, NASA will not make that public announcement, instead that information either be leaked be a someone in NASA and/or be covered up.

Why else would they debunk unidentified objects in footage they captured and was seen by the public?

Just another part of conspiracy.

[JimOberg]

bee, on 18 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Stuff appearing at sunrise...recorded in the Ultra Violet part of the spectrum...?

Whatever part of the spectrum of reflected light from the sun, why shouldn't stuff coming out of Earth's shadow become illuminated and seem to 'appear' from nowhere?

As for ultravioolet, I don't see any evidence for that wavelength, since the cameras used are visible-light cameras, and I have the operating specs that prove that. What contrary evidence is there?

Quote

I don't know...it's hard to know what the hell is going on in that clip...

This is an important step forward. How do you now propose to make yourself better equipped to know what the videos are showing? If you could determine the time the video was taken [a datum that Stubbs is concealing from you] could you find out if it coincided with sunrise? And if it did, would that be a clue as to the identity of the dots?

Quote

From your 99 FAQ....you are saying that it's all down to 'dandruff' and the Fried Egg is an object coming into view...?

No. Where did you read that, where was I unclear? Which number, plesse.

Quote

Do you have the right answers...? You obviously think you do....and I suppose everyone can make their own mind up about it...

Did you make your mind up already, before knowing any important facts or context? Do you consider that to be a prudent way to decide on such momentous claims?

Before reaching any judgment, isn't it important to establish the factual basis of the event, and only then speculate? Or should you avoid facts and stick to speculation alone?


.

[Paxus]

-M7, on 19 December 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

Of course NASA has known of extraterrestrial existence...a while now, but will not disclose that to the public.

Just think, if the Curiosity rover finds evidence of life on Mars, NASA will not make that public announcement, instead that information either be leaked be a someone in NASA and/or be covered up.

Why else would they debunk unidentified objects in footage they captured and was seen by the public?

Just another part of conspiracy.

I've never seen footage that I considered NASA debunking and ET craft..... Either the footage is ambiguous or their explination is sound....
I don't see how you can say they are debunking.... Is there a specific video you are referring to?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 18 December 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

The simplicity of your post is impressive....

And this seems to be the crux of the matter and naturally gives food for thought....

Peter Lindemann is no slouch.....

http://peswiki.com/e...demann#ARTICLES


And he must surely have considered this....when making his informal remarks  about visible light....etc etc.....

IF his 'musings' have merit then it must be to do with the earth's atmosphere creating a different visual affect...


dunno....it's all a bit of a mystery.....

.

I love the way that despite the fact that literally dozens of people have told you the same thing, you still say "IF his 'musings' have merit". You're so indefatigable, or perhaps you just don't listen to what people keep telling you. It's really not a bit of a Mystery; what he says is not true. I don't know how much clearer it can be.

[bmk1245]

747400, on 18 December 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

grism? Sounds a bit unsavoury. I think I'd prefer prating.

Hah, but its longer by 2 letters than grism, and it comes from grating prism, not prisming grating...

bee, on 18 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I'll have to get back to you as well......because basically you seem to be trying to say that it is not JUST reflected light that we humans see.....
[...]

Archi answered this already.
If Lindemann's claim would be true, you would not see reflected light either.

BTW, even in space there is glass/air between source of light and the eye.

bee, on 18 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

[...]
I'm not sure what you're saying about HST....

And mixing the two together isn't helping. [...]

Again, if Lindemann's claim would be true, HST would be "blind" in visible light spectrum.

bee, on 18 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

[...]
and you often seem to throw out complicated technical info that doesn't have much to do with the root of the matter and just confuses everything...

IMO....

Ok, lets start from the beginning...  It’s a warm summer evening, circa 600 BC, you’ve finished your shopping at the local market, or agora, and you look up at the night sky. There you notice some of the stars seem to move, so you name them planetes, or wanderer...

[bee]

Archimedes, on 19 December 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

Why do you think his "musings" have any merit?

I don't know if they have or not....I came across his 'musings' 5 days ago...(post 31, page 3)

and I'm just looking into it. I'm curious to see if they do have any merit....is that a crime...

747400, on 19 December 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

I love the way that despite the fact that literally dozens of people have told you the same thing, you still say "IF his 'musings' have merit".

no....not literally dozens of people.....around half a dozen.


747...

Quote

You're so indefatigable, or perhaps you just don't listen to what people keep telling you. It's really not a bit of a Mystery; what he says is not true. I don't know how much clearer it can be.

I have listened to what people are telling me...but I don't automatically believe what they say....

Anonymous people are saying things on a forum....and Peter Lindemann is saying what he's saying.

It's quite a complex subject, as I am finding out (in just 5 days)....At the moment I don't know who to believe...

So I'm suspending judgement.

I'm getting on with other things like work and Christmas preparations....so I am taking my time to look into a bit.

If that's ok with you....


@ bmk.....hummmmm.....I always have the feeling you are trying to tie me into knots with your posts.

Sorry if you actually ARE trying to help and I'm just not getting you...


.

[bee]

JimOberg, on 19 December 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

No. Where did you read that, where was I unclear? Which number, plesse.

That's the impression I got from the numbers you gave me...49, 50 and 66...


Perhaps it would make things much clearer if you talked us through the video and said what you think is happening

and what the different things were on this actual video...???...(and what cameras/electromagnetic spectrum were used at what time)





it's up to you of course if you want to...

Quote

Did you make your mind up already, before knowing any important facts or context?

I haven't made my mind up about any of it....


.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 19 December 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

I don't know if they have or not....I came across his 'musings' 5 days ago...(post 31, page 3)

and I'm just looking into it. I'm curious to see if they do have any merit....is that a crime...





no....not literally dozens of people.....around half a dozen.


747...



I have listened to what people are telling me...but I don't automatically believe what they say....

Anonymous people are saying things on a forum....and Peter Lindemann is saying what he's saying.

It's quite a complex subject, as I am finding out (in just 5 days)....At the moment I don't know who to believe...

So I'm suspending judgement.

I'm getting on with other things like work and Christmas preparations....so I am taking my time to look into a bit.

If that's ok with you....


@ bmk.....hummmmm.....I always have the feeling you are trying to tie me into knots with your posts.

Sorry if you actually ARE trying to help and I'm just not getting you...


.

This is another thing that you always do, assume that because someone says something on a Web site somewhere, or on a video on YoTube, then he must be an expert. Why do you choose to disregard the words of Anonynous people on a forum, but assume that there must be something in what this Peter Lindeman person (Lindeperson?) says, because he says something on a Web site, or on You tube?

[bee]

747400, on 19 December 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

This is another thing that you always do, assume that because someone says something on a Web site somewhere, or on a video on YoTube, then he must be an expert.

no that's not what I assume

Quote

Why do you choose to disregard the words of Anonynous people on a forum,

wrong again....I said I don't automatically believe them

Quote

but assume that there must be something in what this Peter Lindeman person (Lindeperson?) says, because he says something on a Web site, or on You tube?

oh dear...you're wrong AGAIN.....I don't automatically believe him either....




.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Oh dear, I'm sorry to be so Wrong, but why do you think there might be something in what he says, rather than anynynous people on a Fourm? Might these anynonynous people on a Fourm actually know just as much about it, particularly about such a basic question as whether Light can be seen outside of an Atmosphere, as he does?

[bee]

747400, on 19 December 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Oh dear, I'm sorry to be so Wrong, but why do you think there might be something in what he says, rather than anynynous people on a Fourm? Might these anynonynous people on a Fourm actually know just as much about it, particularly about such a basic question as whether Light can be seen outside of an Atmosphere, as he does?

that should be

....whether the source of light (sun and stars) can be seen with the naked eye outside earth's atmosphere....

.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 19 December 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

that should be

....whether the source of light (sun and stars) can be seen with the naked eye outside earth's atmosphere....

.

No, it shouldn't, because it's patently obvious that it can. Unless of course we're now going to cleverly argue that no one has been able to prove it yet, since everyone has only ever looked at things outside of the atmosphere through windows of spacecraft or visors of Spacesuits, in which case I'm not going to bother arguing anymore.

[JimOberg]

bee, on 19 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Perhaps it would make things much clearer if you talked us through the video and said what you think is happening
.

Do you understand my FAQ's point that on shuttle camera views, dots can appear in mid-screen, seemingly 'out of nowhere'?

Does the suggested prosaic cause of such strange-looking scenes seem plausible, in general, to you?

Could it happen? Under specific conditions of illumination?

[Amerix]

Quote

Of course NASA has known of extraterrestrial existence...a while now, but will not disclose that to the public.

If they didn't disclose the existence, how do you even know WHAT they know?

[badeskov]

bee, on 19 December 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

that should be

....whether the source of light (sun and stars) can be seen with the naked eye outside earth's atmosphere....

.

Seriously Bee, this is very, very basic physics. Yes, a source of light in the visible range of the spectrum (from the sun and the stars) can be observed in vacuum (i.e., outside Earth's atmosphere). This is done all the time here on Earth in vacuum chambers.

Cheers,
Badeskov