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.


* * * - - 4 votes

More NASA UFO's?

ufo nasa

  • Please log in to reply
1528 replies to this topic

Poll: Are these UFO's? (51 member(s) have cast votes)

Do these videos contain images of UFO's?

  1. Yes (22 votes [43.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

  2. No (29 votes [56.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1426    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:09 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Agreed.

Posted Image

Hoagwash.
I can't believe CNN would give him airtime.
Same guy who provides proof of massive structures built within the rings of Saturn.
People take this man seriously!


Edited by synchronomy, 21 November 2012 - 05:11 AM.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#1427    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 29,823 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:11 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 21 November 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

That's what got me involved in checking up on the guy's claims, since I knew and worked with Thornton Page, Mike Duke, and other astronomers and geologists at JSC for many years. More dedicated scientists and truth-tellers are not to be found on this planet. For some guy to smear them as liars and falsifiers, to boost his own prestige, is offensive to me.


One has to admit, that seems a very reasonable position. It would prompt most people to do the same I would think.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#1428    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:12 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 21 November 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

is that the silicone skyscraper or the plasma plume from an invisible et craft?



I'm going to keep looking but it seems to me that Johnston's main assertion is that these lights, flares and blobs are mostly structures on the moon rather than UFOs.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 21 November 2012 - 05:12 AM.


#1429    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:13 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

Thank you, but while Peri was posting that comment I was also looking up that picture as requested and have posted the exact same thing below--well, actually it's above now.

I only have two hands, Boon, and can't answer every single question at once.

Okay?

I wasn't really talking about Peri's correction there.  I was more talking about your line of posts in general this evening.  Between your blatant, rude, and downright petty personal attacks against Jim and your clinging to an obvious fraud (Ken Johnston), I don't see any better descriptive for it.


#1430    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:14 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Agreed.


There was once an interesting X-Files episode about the "Face of Mars", but I never gave it much thought beyond that.


#1431    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:15 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Johnston was in the Marines, just as he said.

Johnston states he 'learned to fly' in the Marines, and Hoagwash/Bara describe him as a jet fighter pilot in Vietnam.

Johnston describes himself as a 'test pilot' for Grumman during the LM development.

His military records show NO pilot certificates or school completions, Zero.

Grumman Public Affairs Office confirms to me -- and they will to anyone else who asks -- that there is no record of a 'Ken Johnston' as a LM test pilot or any other pilot related job.

Go check yourself.

You know people have already done so, hoping to catch me wrong. And you can guess why they have withheld what they found, since they would have found my statements were accurate.


#1432    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:17 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I wasn't really talking about Peri's correction there.  I was more talking about your line of posts in general this evening.  Between your blatant, rude, and downright petty personal attacks against Jim and your clinging to an obvious fraud (Ken Johnston), I don't see any better descriptive for it.


I don't give a damn about "Jim".  Period.

As for the rest, I said earlier that I was going to look up information about Ken Johnston and that's what I'm going to do, come hell or high water.

This is a subject that was unfamiliar to me so I wanted to find out more about it.  Is that all right with you?


#1433    Pericynthion

Pericynthion

    Paranormal Investigator

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:21 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Yes, well I noticed that too at the same time, but it doesn't seen to count in my case.  Naturally not.

Not a problem as far as I'm concerned.  Glad you sorted it out.


#1434    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:23 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

I don't give a damn about "Jim".  Period.

All evidence to the contrary.


View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

As for the rest, I said earlier that I was going to look up information about Ken Johnston and that's what I'm going to do, come hell or high water.

This is a subject that was unfamiliar to me so I wanted to find out more about it.  Is that all right with you?

So this was just you sharing information that you found and not you saying that you support the conclusions that were reached?  Feel free, but you may want to make the distinction in the future lest you unintentionally represent yourself as agreeing with the information that you are sharing.


#1435    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:23 AM

View PostPericynthion, on 21 November 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Ok, I listened to that interview.  He's talking about this image:

If this blue light is a reflection off of a massive crystal structure, why isn't it there a few seconds later in frame 9302?

And what about these images that we've already discussed where the blue flares show up on top of foreground objects?

All of these blue flares look similar to each other.  Do you really honestly believe that they're reflections off of some nearly-invisible massive crystal structure?  Or are they just simple photo defects?



All right, I listened to it as well and looked up a great deal of information about Ken Johnston, just as I said I was going to do.

Do I agree with him that these are pictures of giant "structures" on the moon?

No, I do not.  That's my honest conclusion.  It just took me time to arrive at that conclusion, but I made up my mind that I was going to look into this as much as I needed to and that's what I did.

No, I don't agree with his theory about these various Apollo pictures.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 21 November 2012 - 05:29 AM.


#1436    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 29,823 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:25 AM

View Postsynchronomy, on 21 November 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

Hoagwash.
I can't believe CNN would give him airtime.
Same guy who provides proof of massive structures built within the rings of Saturn.
People take this man seriously!

Stephen Greer and Roger Lier are physicians.

Figure that one out! :w00t:

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#1437    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:26 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

All evidence to the contrary.

So this was just you sharing information that you found and not you saying that you support the conclusions that were reached?  Feel free, but you may want to make the distinction in the future lest you unintentionally represent yourself as agreeing with the information that you are sharing.


I told Peri what my conclusions were and I do not agree with Ken Johnston about the Apollo missions taking pictures of giant "structures" on the moon.

That I can say for sure, after carefully weighing all the evidence I could locate today.  I think I was very thorough about it before arriving at a conclusion, but first I had to understand just what he was trying to say.


#1438    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:26 AM

Let's look at the pattern here.

I get accused of 'attacking' people trying to 'out' NASA's UFO secrets, but I think a more accurate accusation would be that I check their own claims for credentials and professional status, and find them inconsistent with existing records and with recollections of contemporaries, as well as contradictory to known physical limits [such as how good a photo can be, of Earth's surface. taken from space]

The pattern is -- people who have been shown to present falsified vitae and experiences are the ones making the claims of whistle-blowing on NASA 'UFO secrets'. They are consistently imaginatyive and creative in their descriptions of both their own careers, and their UFO 'insider knowledge'.

They seem to be the ones, and the only ones, providing such purported evidence.

Now Schuessler has the real credentials, and he tells interesting tales that are subject to analysis and debate -- and are worthy of the attention. But is there really anybody else who has BOTH genuine credentials, technical competence,  AND interesting and suggestive UFO-related claims?

Not Clark McClelland.

Not Ken Johnston.

Not Donna Hare.

Not Maurice Chatelain.

Who else??


#1439    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:26 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

All right, I listened to it as well and looked up a great deal of information about Ken Johnston, just as I said i was going to do.

Do I agree with him that these are pictures of giant "structures" on the moon?

No, I do not.  That's my honest conclusion.  It just took me time to arrive at that conclusion, but I made up my mind that I was going to look into this as much as I needed to and that's what I did.

No, I don't agree with his theory about these various Apollo pictures.

You have no idea how comforting it is to see you say that.

Cheers.


#1440    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,414 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:32 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 21 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

I told Peri what my conclusions were and I do not agree with Ken Johnston about the Apollo missions taking pictures of giant "structures" on the moon.

That I can say for sure, after carefully weighing all the evidence I could locate today.  I think I was very thorough about it before arriving at a conclusion, but first I had to understand just what he was trying to say.

Nobody can fault you for that Mac. :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users