Secret UFO NASA Transmissions - Smoking Gun

[badeskov]

have u been using the correct charge number?

:-) I need to check up on that...bummer, I hate paperwork!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Likely Guy]

I see no 'smoking gun' and declare this thread a 'load of crap' (IMO).

Good day.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Likely Guy

[Hazzard]

I see no 'smoking gun' and declare this thread a 'load of crap' (IMO).

Good day.

It would seem that (once again) the promise falls way short of anything even remotely close.

[Just Dave]

I've tried to summarize and explain many of these truly bizarre factors in my "99 FAQs About Space UFOs" on my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Very nice work! Lots of information and hard data...

[JimOberg]

Very nice work! Lots of information and hard data...

thanks! we can argue over interpretations once we have a realistic common foundation of context and background.

I think it's vitally important to pay attention to anomalous sightings outside spacecraft. Potentially life or death to diagnose them properly.

[bee]

Only if you don't know what's ordinary on space flights, and that's very common, so no shame in it.

You can't judge genuinely unearthly scenes based on earthside experience.

I've tried to summarize and explain many of these truly bizarre factors in my "99 FAQs About Space UFOs" on my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

hi Jim...

I stumbled on this video a couple of days ago and found it very interesting...not least because it could explain 'no stars'

on Apollo images. A subject that has sparked off much discussion...

[media=]

[/media]

So when I saw your link (again )...I had a quick look for any comments about the no stars thing. Not necessarily about the Apollo

images..but in general...

Don't know if there are any more references but I saw this.....

http://www.jamesober...erview_mar.html

On Apollo-16’s return to Earth in 1972, Duke had to walk in space to help retrieve exposed mapping camera film in the aft section of the Apollo. This was, for all practical purposes, interplanetary space, without any planet nearby, and Duke described his vivid impressions.

“It was a real adventure to me, it was a real different impression than doing a walk on the moon in gravity,” he explained. “I floated out of that hatch, and it was a wonder, it was almost euphoria. I could look off to the right, down in the lower right position, like at a 4 o’clock position on a clock, there was the earth. It was a new earth, it was just was thin little sliver of a crescent of blue and white. And I rolled around to the left, and at about the 10 or eleven o’clock, there was the moon, gigantic in size. Earth was 180,000 miles away, the moon was 60, 000, and there was this enormous almost full moon towering over us,

and everywhere else you looked was the blackness of space.”

The glare of the sun drowned out all stars, and Duke was overwhelmed with the feeling of being surrounded by nothingness. “You felt detached, you felt like you were not a participant, but as if you were watching an audience and used the stage as the universe.”

you say..."the glare of the sun drowned out all the stars"

Is this true...or is it because the source of light...ie sun and stars, cannot be seen in the visible spectrum (outside the earth's atmosphere)?

.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bee

[mcrom901]

[JesseCuster]

Is this true...or is it because the source of light...ie sun and stars, cannot be seen in the visible spectrum (outside the earth's atmosphere)?

Why would the sun and stars not be visible outside the earth's atmosphere? Where did you come up with such an odd idea?

The earth's atmosphere doesn't cause the frequency of electromagnetic radiation the sun spurts out to hop up or down into the visible range you know...

Please elaborate.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Archimedes

[bmk1245]

[...]

Is this true...or is it because the source of light...ie sun and stars, cannot be seen in the visible spectrum (outside the earth's atmosphere)?

[...]

I wonder, were you did get this "pearl of wisdom"? From some website crapsite "Wisdom in Wisdom House"?

[bee]

Why would the sun and stars not be visible outside the earth's atmosphere? Where did you come up with such an odd idea?

I wonder, were you did get this "pearl of wisdom"? From some website crapsite "Wisdom in Wisdom House"?

errrrrrrrrrr Peter Lindemann......the video I put in my post 31.....

.

[bmk1245]

errrrrrrrrrr Peter Lindemann......the video I put in my post 31.....

.

Ah, that one (sorry, I avoid YT as much as possible). Either he is high, either I woke up in bizzaro world... "Light is not transmitted in the visible spectrum in outer space"... Thats huge, thats hilarious, thats stupid, and thats utterly moronic..

Boy, all that rant of P.Lindemann just... Hell, I'm struggling to find appropriate words for that... Ah, found it: ignorant-fool-not-to-be-allowed-to-breed...

[bee]

Ah, that one (sorry, I avoid YT as much as possible).

that's like saying...I avoid libraries because I might not agree with what all the books say....

Either he is high, either I woke up in bizzaro world... "Light is not transmitted in the visible spectrum in outer space"... Thats huge, thats hilarious, thats stupid, and thats utterly moronic..

yes...it's huge....

Boy, all that rant of P.Lindemann just... Hell, I'm struggling to find appropriate words for that... Ah, found it: ignorant-fool-not-to-be-allowed-to-breed...

but is he right?............about light?

.

[Space Commander Travis]

but is he right?............about light?

.

I think probably the answer to that is "No".

[JesseCuster]

I watched the first 2 minutes of that video. He hasn't an utter clue what he is talking about. This guy is an idiot and he sounds high as a kite.

Light isn't transmitted in the visible spectrum in outer space? Utter nonsense.

So far he has it absolutely backward. You do see light. You only "see" things indirectly because they are either reflecting or emitting light. He's saying that you can't see light, you can only see things that light reflects off. Wrong! The reason you can't see a laser pointer beam isn't because you can't see light, it's because it's a focused beam of light that doesn't enter your eye. Point that thing into your eye and you'll see it. Probably burn a hole in your retina and give you permanent eye damage you'll see it so intensely. Safety note: Do not point a laser pointer in your own or anybody else's eye. That would be bad.

And when you point a laser pointer through smoke or steam, you can't directly see the smoke or steam, you can in fact see the light that reflects off them, thus allowing you to indirectly see the smoke. He has it entirely backward.

No offense, but anyone with even a high-school science background should recognise that for the idiocy it is. Yet people regularly fall for this kind of thing because it sounds scientific and sound knowledgable and they lack the critical thinking skills and basic science knowledge to see it for what it is.

but is he right?............about light?

He's about as wrong as he possibly could.

[bmk1245]

that's like saying...I avoid libraries because I might not agree with what all the books say...

[...]

There is good stuff on YT, but when link come from believers, I tend to avoid.

[...]

but is he right?............about light?

[...]

No, he is not right, he is wrong.

[JesseCuster]

that's like saying...I avoid libraries because I might not agree with what all the books say....

It's more like saying that random YouTube links on an Internet forum are the worst way of educating yourself about the world. There are great resources on YouTube, I subscribe to a whole bunch of channels on science, history, language, etc. that give me some daily viewing and new info on various subjects, but you really need to be able to sort the chaff from the wheat, otherwise you'll end up falling for all sorts of dubious stuff from cranks that happens to conform to your worldview.

If you really want to learn about a subject, despite what some people insist otherwise, you really should read a good book on the subject (or take a good course). YouTube vidoes like yours above, are short, gloss over the details, lack any reference that allow you to check or verify it, etc. A good book will get really into the meat of a subject and give you all the backup sources and references that allow you dig further into the subject.

There's a common meme amongst true believers in all sorts of ideas that YouTube is some grand repository of wisdom because it is outside the control of scientists and historians who want to control our view of the world. Therefore they believe all sorts of hilariously wrong nonsense that they find there.

You can't learn about electromagnetic radiation by listening to a random nut on YouTube rambling on for 7 minutes on the subject. Especially when you lack the basics that immediately flags him as a pseudo-scientific nut within a minute of listening to him speak.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Archimedes

[JimOberg]

hi Jim...

I stumbled on this video a couple of days ago and found it very interesting...not least because it could explain 'no stars'

on Apollo images. A subject that has sparked off much discussion...

[media=]

[/media]

So when I saw your link (again )...I had a quick look for any comments about the no stars thing. Not necessarily about the Apollo

images..but in general...

Don't know if there are any more references but I saw this.....

http://www.jamesober...erview_mar.html

you say..."the glare of the sun drowned out all the stars"

Is this true...or is it because the source of light...ie sun and stars, cannot be seen in the visible spectrum (outside the earth's atmosphere)?

Focus on the question at hand. Regarding seeing stars in space, I don't really care how much or how little you understand it.

[topsecretresearch]

What's funny about debunker James/Jim Oberg is he used to work at Johnson Space Center. The same place UFO Hacker Gary McKinnon claimed they were airbrushing out images of UFO craft in space. He's very adamant about debunking space UFOs or astronaut sightings. I also remember James/Jim Oberg on Ed Mitchell's UFO forum before it was taken down under suspicious circumstances. He seems to have made the rounds on various UFO forums.

That being said I may start a thread about NASA's secret ET Influence.

[ChrLzs]

What's funny about debunker James/Jim Oberg is he used to work at Johnson Space Center.

Funny? Why?

The same place UFO Hacker Gary McKinnon claimed ..

Ah, someone claimed something. Gee. That's so convincing.

.. they were airbrushing out images of UFO craft in space.

Now, how about you be specific and tell us exactly what was airbrushed, and what evidence he presented?

He's very adamant about debunking space UFOs or astronaut sightings.

And Nancy Lieder is adamant that we will be hit by a planet, any day now.. (and has been for many, many years..) Your point is?

I also remember James/Jim Oberg on Ed Mitchell's UFO forum before it was taken down under suspicious circumstances.

What circumstances, and what is your point?

He seems to have made the rounds on various UFO forums.

Gee. A knowledgeable person discussing ufo's on nasa footage? Very, very suspicious. Inexplicable. ...

That being said I may start a thread about NASA's secret ET Influence.

Please do. But please be specific.

Indeed, did you have anything specific to discuss about the video posted by the OP? It has been debunked comprehensively elsewhere, so what part/s did you find convincing and why? You're not Martyn Stubbs, aka seceretnasaman, are you?

[Space Commander Travis]

What's funny about debunker James/Jim Oberg is he used to work at Johnson Space Center.

At least you do acknowledge that he did, which is more than some, anyway. Anyway, what's that got to do with that nut McKinnon? And he had something to do the suspicious Circumstances sourrounding Ed Mitchells' UFO forum, you're saying?

[ChrLzs]

To Bee, and anyone else who thinks there could be something to the ridiculous claims about visibility of stars, I'd simply suggest you do two simple experiments:

1. Using a MANUAL camera that is set to expose properly for a daylight scene (eg about f5.6, 1/250, ISO100), take a picture of the night sky. Then tell us if your image contains any stars.. Please post the image here, including exif data, if you got any... If asked nicely, I'll do this experiment for you ...

2. Go to a big sports event, in a well-lit, but open-roof stadium on a clear night. Look up and see how many stars you can see..

In the second experiment, you *might* just see a couple of the very brightest stars/planets - eg Venus, Jupiter, Sirius. But bear in mind that those lighting conditions are many orders of magnitude *less* than daylight on the Moon, or the light given off by the sunlit Earth. If either of those were affecting your eyes, then you will not see stars, no mattter how black is the sky...

This is really, really basic photography and eye physiology. I'm happy to expound with numbers and examples and more information in simple terms if necessary, but seriously, folks - this is possibly the lamest 'evidence' of some sort of conspiracy ever. If you are taken in by that sort of claptrap, you might want to choose a different interest/hobby..

ADDED: By the way, in regard to the OP... - the title of that video is a blatant lie. These transmissions were NEVER secret, never hidden - they are simply some of the many hours of video transmissions that were and are freely available from NASA. It is noteworthy that Martyn Stubbs (aka secretnasaman) had a habit of NOT providing any details of what mission, or the dates and times, of his 'secret' videos. A highly cynical person might suggest that was to make it difficult or impossible to get enough information to actually identify known objects (eg the Moon, Sirius, etc), let alone to look at mission information to consider what might be debris, ice particles from waste disposal, etc.. Wouldn't want to actually investigate these, would we...

Edited December 15, 2012 by Chrlzs

[bee]

Focus on the question at hand. Regarding seeing stars in space, I don't really care how much or how little you understand it.

thanks....

very evasive....makes me think Peter Lindemann could be on to something...

.

[bee]

To Bee, and anyone else who thinks there could be something to the ridiculous claims about visibility of stars, I'd simply suggest you do two simple experiments:

Forget photography from within the earth's atmosphere for a minute....

Can the source of light..ie sun and stars...be seen in the visible spectrum, outside earth's atmosphere?

ADDED: By the way, in regard to the OP... - the title of that video is a blatant lie. These transmissions were NEVER secret, never hidden - they are simply some of the many hours of video transmissions that were and are freely available from NASA.

this came up on the other NASA thread...and the broad conclusion was that the live feed to NASA TV...(that Martyn Stubbs 'captured')

was for NASA employees. Jim Oberg tried to argue that it was a live TV feed available to the general public...but was unable to prove that point.

After the live feed some organisations could request some of the footage, if I remember right.

Whether the public would ever have got to see the majority of the footage that Martyn Stubbs put in the public domain is doubtful, IMO.

But as he made it 'not secret'.....we can only speculate.

.

[JesseCuster]

Can the source of light..ie sun and stars...be seen in the visible spectrum, outside earth's atmosphere?

Is light visible outside earth's atmosphere?

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

If it wasn't, then the Hubble Space Telescope would be incapable of taking images in the visible spectrum, which it does. The International Space Station is outside the earth's atmosphere - are the sun and stars invisible to the astronauts on board?

Can you explain why the sun and stars wouldn't be visible outside the earth's atmosphere and what the earth's atmosphere has to do with the visibility of the sun?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Archimedes

[bmk1245]

thanks....

very evasive....makes me think Peter Lindemann could be on to something...

.

How, then, vacuumized photodetectors work?