Secret UFO NASA Transmissions - Smoking Gun

[ChrLzs]

Forget photography..

How convenient. You *need* to, of course, to try to push this claim...

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

Using a little common sense:

- does it get darker as you climb a mountain? - if your claim has even a shred of merit, it should, as the amount of atmosphere lessens.

- how could vacuum tubes work, and how can you see the stuff that is inside one?

- can you see satellites (that are obviously in a vacuum) from earth (hint, visit "HeavensAbove" and .. just *look up* before dawn/after dusk)

Then, how do you explain the immense amount of imagery that has come from space (yes, all that stuff you need everyone to 'forget'), from agencies all over the planet - even amateurs using hot air balloons, etc? It's all huge conspiracy? For what purpose?

Finally, by what mechanism does this happen - does the light somehow get 'swallowed' or absorbed in space? Where does it's energy go?

I'm a little puzzled by anyone's willingness to believe this utter claptrap, Bee. It's just beyond ridiculous. Is this all a bit of a game to you, or do you perhaps need to stop and think about the implications of the stuff you are happy to support..?

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

Thing is, dear Martyn didn't give any details of when and where he captured it. Thus (deliberately?) making it impossible, amongst the millions of hours of such footage, to track down.

The ONLY reasons he would do that are:

- he didn't want anyone to be able to track it down, as he knew that the objects would be much easier to identify (in fact he probably already knew what they are)

- he is a complete incompetent, who hasn't the slightest clue about how to research anything properly

I'll go with some of both. Martyn Stubbs lost the right to be taken seriously long ago. UNLESS he provides full provenance for his 'stuff' it (and he) is irrelevant.

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

How the Hades could he, when most of the footage was presented by Stubbs without any information?

Look, you don't seem to be getting this.. IT'S NOT UP TO JIM OR ANYONE TO PROVE THE FOOTAGE IS PUBLIC. IT'S UP TO STUBBS TO SAY WHERE & WHEN & HOW HE GOT IT.

It's called burden of proof. That concept that ufologists like Stubbs hate, because it means they can't peddle their lies.

we can only speculate.

Incorrect speculation is a bad thing.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Chrlzs

[topsecretresearch]

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?

Never mind.

[bee]

Is light visible outside earth's atmosphere?

that's not the question....the question's about the source of visible light.

Reflected light IS visible outside the Earth's atmosphere. (in the visible spectrum)

If it wasn't, then the Hubble Space Telescope would be incapable of taking images in the visible spectrum, which it does.

If what Peter Lindemann says holds true then it must be to do with the lenses that are used.

The International Space Station is outside the earth's atmosphere - are the sun and stars invisible to the astronauts on board?

Lindemann spoke about this point, briefly, but in regards to the Space Shuttle....and said that 'defraction gratings' were used in the windows, but the earlier ones

didn't have it. So presumably if defraction gratings are used in the windows of The International Space Station, then they can see the sun and stars.

But if it wasn't...they couldn't...?

I am just exploring what Lindemann said in the short video extract. I DID think that the sun was a bright white light when seen

outside the Earth's atmosphere...but what he said has made me think about it again.

It's a new idea for me and I'm not saying I have come to any conclusions...but I instinctively feel that what he is saying kinda makes sense...

.

[bee]

How, then, vacuumized photodetectors work?

you tell me....

.

[bee]

How convenient. You *need* to, of course, to try to push this claim...

Chrlzs, Chrlzs, Chrlzs...

I am exploring (not pushing) the claim that Peter Lindemann made in the short video (my post 31, page 3)

So photography WITHIN the earth's atmosphere isn't really relevant...

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post right now....

[Space Commander Travis]

If what Peter Lindemann says holds true

Why do you keep persisting with that? Surely it's been proved abundantly that it doesn't.

[Lilly]

Do not make the discussion personal.

[JesseCuster]

So photography WITHIN the earth's atmosphere isn't really relevant...

The point is that the cameras on the Apollo missions were set for exposure to allow you to see the moon's surface and the astronauts etc.

Setting a camera up that way will inevitably result in things like stars being invisible.

It doesn't matter whether you're on the moon or on earth.

Astronomy photographers need to set their cameras up to allow for different exposures to capture astronomical objects, usually with much longer exposure times than most photography.

The point? There already is a perfectly valid and easy to demonstrate explanation for the lack of stars on Apollo photographs that you refuse to accept in lieu of pseudoscientific nonsense you apparently don't understand.

[badeskov]

that's not the question....the question's about the source of visible light.

The sun?

Reflected light IS visible outside the Earth's atmosphere. (in the visible spectrum)

Indeed it is - very much so!

If what Peter Lindemann says holds true then it must be to do with the lenses that are used.

It isn't.

Lindemann spoke about this point, briefly, but in regards to the Space Shuttle....and said that 'defraction gratings' were used in the windows, but the earlier ones

didn't have it. So presumably if defraction gratings are used in the windows of The International Space Station, then they can see the sun and stars.

But if it wasn't...they couldn't...?

This is utter nonsense. Lenses (defraction or not) does not change the wavelength of the light, that is physically impossible. If it is visible on one side of the lens it is also visible on the other side unless the lens its designed not to let it through, but that is not what is inferred here.

I am just exploring what Lindemann said in the short video extract. I DID think that the sun was a bright white light when seen

outside the Earth's atmosphere...

Yes, indeed it is.

but what he said has made me think about it again.

By all means of respect, but it seems not.

It's a new idea for me and I'm not saying I have come to any conclusions...but I instinctively feel that what he is saying kinda makes sense...

It doesn't.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[g00dfella]

i gotta stop wasting my time reading some of these threads...

[DingoLingo]

ok I am watching the vid bee..

so basically what he is saying.. if you go into space.. you will not see the sun at all.. because it is invisible? because you cannot see visible light in space..

please excuse me.. I am just going to go to the toilet.. before I wet myself laughing..

[DBunker]

bee is the woo woo queen in this forum..... if you have missed that obvious fact.

[bmk1245]

Do not make the discussion personal.

That was friendly punch, cause Lindemann's claims are simply stupid.

Anyway you deleted not "personal" related sentences as well...

Wait a sec, maybe we have Lindemann in person here?!

[bee]

ok I am watching the vid bee..

so basically what he is saying.. if you go into space.. you will not see the sun at all.. because it is invisible? because you cannot see visible light in space..

please excuse me.. I am just going to go to the toilet.. before I wet myself laughing..

but that's not what he said...the...because you cannot see visible light in space...bit.

When you have finished in the toilet go back to my post 31, page 3.....and try and understand what he's saying....

(if you want to, which I suspect you won't..... )

Anyway I can't be bothered to argue about it all at the moment...tis the season to be jolly....

I'm just quietly doing a bit of research on the subject here and there when it takes my fancy.

.

[bee]

.

more on topic...

Martyn Stubbs reveals secret NASA tape of a giant Flying Fried Egg....floating in space....

Appears at 2:43....

.

[bmk1245]

Ok, bee, explain to us how come HST takes images of the stars in various visible spectrum bands, for example, taken with the 502 nm (green) filter?

[topsecretresearch]

Please do. But please be specific.

It has to do with how our space program reflects what people observe in CE3s.

Edited December 18, 2012 by topsecretresearch

[topsecretresearch]

NASA's Secret ET Influence

[bee]

Ok, bee, explain to us how come HST takes images of the stars in various visible spectrum bands, for example, taken with the 502 nm (green) filter?

taking images of stars with filters and gratings is different from looking at stars with the naked eye (outside earth's atmosphere)....

Peter Lindemann is saying that humans can, with the naked eye, see reflected light, outside earth's atmosphere...but not the source

of light...ie sun and stars....(as that is not reflected light...but the source of all the different wavelengths of light in the electromagnetic spectrum)....

a link from your link...

http://archive.stsci.edu/proposal_search.php?mission=hst&id=5210

.

[topsecretresearch]

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?

I'm not saying McKinnon had anything to do with Ed Mitchell's UFO forum the funny thing is though when the story borke James/ Jim Oberg was on Ed Mitchells forum. McKinnon claimed he saw what looked like something not of this world where they were airbrushing out UFOs in space. Johnson Space Center is where James/ Jim Oberg worked and he focuses on debunking space based UFOs. Shortly after the story borke Ed Mitchell's UFO forum suddenly crahsed. There were also Phil Plait Bad Astrony Forum debunkers on there.

Here's the funny part. When I Emailed the admin about it sometime later I was told someone started flooding the site with porn. It was intentional. It wasn't like a spammer but the forum and web site was being flooded. Ed Mitchell's forum stayed down for the longest time. It eventually went back up some years later with little traffic. It was hard to create an account in order to post.

This was before Ed Mitchell suddenly found himself in the news. What he was saying about UFOs and his belief some UFOs are ET and it's been covered up was nothing new bit suddenly the media switched on a light and it became viral.

What I am posting is only circumstantial but you have a debunker focused on Astronaut UFO testimony and debunking space based UFOs who worked at the same place where Garry McKinnon claimed they were airbrushing out images. A former astronaut who apoke out about ET's and UFOs had a forum dedicated to the subject matter that was crawling with debunkers including Oberg who had a problem with it and the forum was flooded and crashed shortly after the story broke.

It seems a little too coincidental.

Edited December 18, 2012 by topsecretresearch

[bee]

.

musical interlude....

love this Gangnam Style Parody......

.

[Lilly]

Bee, my son showed me this video just last night...I think it's absolutely wonderful.

I just love a musical interlude!

[bmk1245]

taking images of stars with filters and gratings is different from looking at stars with the naked eye (outside earth's atmosphere)....

[...]

Human eye (cornea, aqueous humor, etc) is the filter, though wideband -> link (see graphs in appendix; eye transmittance of our little brothers, but human wouldn't differ much)

[...]Peter Lindemann is saying that humans can, with the naked eye, see reflected light, outside earth's atmosphere...but not the source

of light...ie sun and stars....(as that is not reflected light...but the source of all the different wavelengths of light in the electromagnetic spectrum)....

[...]

If visible light can't be transmitted in vacuum, then astronauts would not be able to see city lights on Earth, as those lights are sources.

[...]

a link from your link...

http://archive.stsci...ion=hst&id=5210

So?

[JimOberg]

.

more on topic...

Martyn Stubbs reveals secret NASA tape of a giant Flying Fried Egg....floating in space....

Appears at 2:43....

Unearthly scene, but pretty common on shuttle video feed.

I discussed the prosaic nature of such views in my '99 FAQs", What is it about my explanation of stuff appearing at sunrise that you are unwilling to believe? You do realize the video was taken at orbital sunrise, don't you? Can you agree to that fact?

Which mission was that scene from, by the way? You should be able to figure it out, there are enough clues.

[JimOberg]

...McKinnon claimed he saw what looked like something not of this world where they were airbrushing out UFOs in space. ......

Is that a highly garbled version of Donna Hare's airbrushing story? I'm unaware that McKinnon made any claims HE observed airbrushing going on at JSC. Can you show me a link to where HE was making such as claim, please?