Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
topsecretresearch

NASA's Secret ET Influence

112 posts in this topic

Yeah, I've been shaking my head over that one for the past few days. What an amazing story LunaCognita managed to concoct from what was clearly a dumb mistake by an author who wasn't too familiar with the missions. The whole report was basically just a simple literature survey using the mission reports and crew debriefings. I saw your earlier posts on ATS about this. I assume you never got a response when you tried to email the author?

I've been planning on writing a longer post on this one, but first I'd like to ask TheMacGuffin a couple simple questions:

LunaCognita says that the SEVA was done to give the crew a slightly higher look at the local landscape so they could better figure out where they really were. As Jim mentioned above, what possible reason could anyone have for wanting to keep that secret???

LunaCognita also claims that the photos supposedly taken during this secret SEVA are still classified TOP SECRET. Why would they be classified at all (assuming they even exist)? They'd be essentially identical to the hundreds of published photos taken during the two actual EVAs.

No, what he really says is that many of the pictures taken on these Apollo missions--and many other missions--were never publicly acknowledged or revealed at all. I think that is still going on today, including with the Mars missions.

That was the real point I was trying to make.

That's why people should watch the actual videos rather than simply relaying on summaries and "explanations" from people like you and Oberg. Luna Cognita had proof of this from the Apollo 12 mission, for example, that many pictures were simply "missing".

As I said, people should just watch the videos for themselves rather than taking your word for these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In nay case, I think Luna Cognita's real point was that the fiber optic camera was classified for many years, and at the time NASA just claimed it was built from off-the-shelf components. This was not true.

Now correct me if I am wrong.. this was at the height of the cold war?

Dont you think that just might explain the reason why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now correct me if I am wrong.. this was at the height of the cold war?

Dont you think that just might explain the reason why?

There's nothing that anyone on here can tell me about the Cold War since I was in it for many years.

I think the point Luna Cognita was making is that high quality images from the lunar surface--and of UFOs--was not made available to the public at that time or indeed at any time.

He's got proof of this, too, which anyone can watch on these Luna Cognita videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that anyone on here can tell me about the Cold War since I was in it for many years.

I think the point Luna Cognita was making is that high quality images from the lunar surface--and of UFOs--was not made available to the public at that time or indeed at any time.

He's got proof of this, too, which anyone can watch on these Luna Cognita videos.

ok.. its a fair call.. if there are high quality pics you would think they would be released today.. but I can understand why they were not at the time.. cold war and all that ..

my uncle had a bit to do during the cold war.. he worked at Woomera :D was working there during the moon landings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of this information before I saw his video, and certainly it's not something that you have ever "shared" on here. No one would even have known about it at all had I not posted it.

So if you don't know about something, haven't bothered to research it, and haven't been spoon fed the data by someone else, then there must be a secret government conspiracy in place to withold that information from the world. That about right? That's what seem to be saying here about the camera.

In any case, I think Luna Cognita's real point was that the fiber optic camera was classified for many years, and at the time NASA just claimed it was built from off-the-shelf components. This was not true.

To put it bluntly, LunaCognita is trying to dupe you. Don't blindly accept everything he tells you. He just made up the bit about NASA claiming the camera was "off the shelf." The camera was specially designed to be small, rugged, low-power, and able to work in low light levels. Here's a newspaper article from Eugene, Oregon, dated 22 July 1969. Does this sound like an "off the shelf" standard camera?

EugeneRegister.jpg

And nobody lied about the camera design, either. The specific technical details of one internal component were classified at a very low level because that part design was being used in military night vision equipment. And so those specific details just weren't mentioned in public. The overall camera design, though, was described in great detail. Here's another newspaper article, this one from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, dated 18 September 1969:

http://news.google.c...5,4605488&hl=en

Take a look at both articles on this page and on page 24. They go into a huge amount of detail on the workings of the SEC tube camera design, more than you'd EVER see in a newspaper today. They just don't mention the one particular design detail that was classified at the time. On page 24, though, the author may actually imply that parts of the Apollo camera design were classified when he writes:

The Apollo moon camera and various types of military cameras and TV systems for defense of the nation are designed and built by the Westinghouse Defense and Space Center, Baltimore, Md. Details of the construction and performance of this military equipment is classified.

The Company's Specialty Electronics Division, Pittsburgh, Pa., has adapted the ultrasensitive performance of the SEC family of image tubes to a variety of cameras and closed-circuit television systems for non-military uses.

At the very least, the article makes it clear that the Apollo camera was manufactured by the defense division of the company that was also making classified military equipment, not by the commercial division that made non-military products.

And, no, this camera wasn't classified for "many years." One part of the camera was classified Confidential for maybe 5-6 years during its development. By 1971, even that part had been declassified and the entire camera design was discussed openly in NASA reports.

Another point he makes repeatedly is that the image quality shown to the public was often deliberately degraded by NASA, which Jeff Challender also noted in all the space shuttle missions that involved UFO sightings.

This is a topic for an entirely different post. Suffice it to say that you're not getting a straight story from either LunaCognita or Jeff Challender. Vivid imaginations and conspiracy theories are no substitute for a good understanding of the technical details of Apollo photography and/or shuttle video.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what he really says is that many of the pictures taken on these Apollo missions--and many other missions--were never publicly acknowledged or revealed at all. I think that is still going on today, including with the Mars missions.

That was the real point I was trying to make.

When I first got to Houston in 1975, I visited the Lunar and Planetary Science Institute in the old 'Silver Dollar' West mansion on NASA Rd 1, just east of the main Johnson Space Center campus.

There I found every single Apollo photograph in 8x10 print form in row after row of binders. It filled a small room. where image curator Fran Waranius worked to make any image available to any researcher.

Did anybody blathering about 'secret archives' visit that facility, or even know about its existence?

No.

They just spouted imaginary nonsense about which they knew nothing, and so were very popular with the rest of the know-nothing crowd.

The institute has new offices on Bay Area Blvd, and the archives have grown with subsequent missions, but the images are still there, all of them, all available to visiting investigators and researchers and -- yes! -- reporters. Even UFO newsletter and website producers.

Accusing others of lying is one of the vilest sins of the true liars. And an insult to the generations of archivists who have collected, catalogued, and freely distributed such imagery. Like Fran, and her successors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point he [Luna Cognita] makes repeatedly is that the image quality shown to the public was often deliberately degraded by NASA, which Jeff Challender also noted in all the space shuttle missions that involved UFO sightings.

So now Jeff Challender is another 'space expert' you rely on? Jeff's enthusiasm for spotting UFOs was the force that kept him going against terrible hardships, but his knowledge of spaceflight -- and his illusions about what he thought MUST be true -- were many. It's no wonder your own conclusions are so daffy if you choose your sources so imprudently. You can do better. Read more widely and see how so much of what you think you know about spaceflight is myth and misperception. Then you can earn the right to offer opinions worth paying attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Jeff Challender is another 'space expert' you rely on? Jeff's enthusiasm for spotting UFOs was the force that kept him going against terrible hardships, but his knowledge of spaceflight -- and his illusions about what he thought MUST be true -- were many. It's no wonder your own conclusions are so daffy if you choose your sources so imprudently.

I take it as a given that you will say the same things about everyone who disagrees with you on UFOs, and have never doubted for a minute that was your job.

It just doesn't wash with me, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first got to Houston in 1975, I visited the Lunar and Planetary Science Institute in the old 'Silver Dollar' West mansion on NASA Rd 1, just east of the main Johnson Space Center campus.

There I found every single Apollo photograph in 8x10 print form in row after row of binders. It filled a small room. where image curator Fran Waranius worked to make any image available to any researcher.

Did anybody blathering about 'secret archives' visit that facility, or even know about its existence?

Just let people watch the videos rather than listening to your spin and deception on this subject, since Luna Cognita found quite definite proof that numerous NASA pictures were not even listed at all and certainly were not released to the public--which was hardly even aware of their existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let people watch the videos rather than listening to your spin and deception on this subject, since Luna Cognita found quite definite proof that numerous NASA pictures were not even listed at all and certainly were not released to the public--which was hardly even aware of their existence.

Hmmm and Luna Cognita was correct about the camera ?

it seems that Pericynthion has kind of shot that down in flames.. and in one simple post..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you don't know about something, haven't bothered to research it, and haven't been spoon fed the data by someone else, then there must be a secret government conspiracy in place to withold that information from the world. That about right? That's what seem to be saying here about the camera.

To put it bluntly, LunaCognita is trying to dupe you. Don't blindly accept everything he tells you. He just made up the bit about NASA claiming the camera was "off the shelf." The camera was specially designed to be small, rugged, low-power, and able to work in low light levels. Here's a newspaper article from Eugene, Oregon, dated 22 July 1969. Does this sound like an "off the shelf" standard camera?

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.

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.

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".

How long were you employed by NASA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm and Luna Cognita was correct about the camera ?

it seems that Pericynthion has kind of shot that down in flames.. and in one simple post..

He didn't shoot down anything, but merely repeated the same information that Luna Cognita had in his own video. You wouldn't have heard a word about it if I hadn't posted that particular video, or the one that showed them using stop-action methods to get rid of some annoying UFO pictures, or the one that showed whole rolls of film from the Apollo missions are "missing".

Peri only shows up here when the skeptics start getting shaky and jumpy about the things I post, so he has to take charge and pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Most people don't believe Oberg any more because he's been caught offering phony "explanations" for UFOs a few too many times.

Peri is also very reluctant to answer questions about how long he was employed by NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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's really rather not discuss.

Yeah.. a few people on here do that as well :D

you could call it.. selective arguments I suppose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the officially released NASA pictures, they are plenty of UFOs and other anomalies, although they tended to get cropped, airbrushed or otherwise concealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

WestinghouseEngineertubediagram.jpg

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

WECCameraSchematic-Colorcrop.jpg

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

WestinghouseEngineertubediagram.jpg

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

WECCameraSchematic-Colorcrop.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.