NASA Conspiracy - UFO Sightings & Alien Structures

McGinty
RE the 'space music': Could it be magnetic-acoustic? Gravitational phenomena resulting in soundwaves ?

Whatever it is a natural phenomena, could it be related to the mysterious horn sounds heard around our planet?

This isn't a bad suggestion. Radiation impinging on the surface of a spacecraft can be expected to induce thermal vibration. Which means sound.

When I worked on anti-missile systems at the AF Weapons Lab we simulated efect of an X-ray pulse [from a defensive missile] on an enemy warhead. The energy depositied in the skin created a sudden thermal expansion that led to a supersonic shock wave into the guts of the device. If strong enough, it peeled away the inner skin of the container, converting it into buckshot that tore the guts out of the warhead.

The Apollo 'music' still sounds like cross-talk somewhere in the long zig-zag comm link to me, but I've spent many a Mission Control sleep shift trying to debug weird electronic 'noise' in circuits I was responsible for, such as the rendezvous radar. It's why I was on duty during the Sts-48 mission.

buzzEmiller
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

...The Obergs & the deniers are of closed mind & do not see "UFO" as anything other than "Alien Spaceship" & then enter ATS threads like this
& contribute nothing of any use...ever. Any UFO researcher I have ever worked with was always looking at & considering if the evidence they were studying was bogus...as a natural thinker would...

I disagree. I add fundamental context to the videos under consideration, information never initially provided, such as basic stuff like vehicle pointing direction, camera type, solar illumination [is it day or night?], crew activities and comments, vehicle actions such as thrusters and water dumps, etc -- stuff that most posters don't think viewers even need to know. Or they don't WANT them to know, as in some people's cases [no names are needed].

skyblueworld

Chrisfishenstein

JimOberg
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

Cheers Jim but I stopped reading at these parts:

Sorry that your mind reflexively snapped shut at the first encounter with an opinion different from your own, but thanks for the admission you are intellectually incapable of considering evidence and arguments that threaten your prejudices. You're right, I was attempting to subvert your dogmatic faith, and to slip some factual reality to replace the delusions you cling to. It was probably safer to avoid such tricks.

Thanks for the admission that you know something about all of this! When people, especially people who are trained to work social media sites for NASA start to defend by insulting, that is clear admission to me that you do know something and are trying to deflect the topic at hand.

intellectually incapable

There is no need to call someone an idiot in big words....Unless you know he/she is on the correct path and you are trying to make people think this person is not smart!

Instead of deflecting with insults, what is NASA's proof that these events DIDN'T actually happen? Usually you are quick to throw some evidence out there to show this claim is false...So.......where is it?

We have to read his 99faq to become smart I guess...

Double standards in the application of criticism = Pseduskepticism.

Hi, I'm not here to stand up for Mr Oberg, he is more than capable of doing that for himself, but if you take what you believe are facts from sites that meet your criteria, but don't balance them elsewhere to make sure you have a fuller appreciation of thought on the subject...... aren't you applying double standards yourself?

JimOberg

signalfire
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, I've always wondered what your take would be on the Donald Keyhoe books (available here for free: NICAP free books

.

I'm not the subject under discussion here, and this is a busy week with space stories.... so give me a pass on this, for now. OK?

First, what a smug response.


You claim you're having a "busy week with space stories" and such, but yet you've come back, repeatedly, to this thread. Is that just to repudiate the OP's and other members' claims on this particular subject, or?

I mean, it being such a busy week with those "space stories" and all. One would think someone so important (like yourself) wouldn't have the time, or the desire, to discuss such outrageous claims with this tin foil hat bunch.

Every mysterious or bizarre occurrence benefits greatly from having been exposed to people with great debugging skills.
It is, in fact, the scientific process. If an observation comes up with an explanation that fits criteria of things we actually know about, then it puts long odds on the correctness of picking an explanation that we have not experienced. It does not mean that the later cannot be true, but you really cannot go there until the reality test results are at least as weak.

reply to post by skyblueworld




I had to take a screenshot for the benefit of those people who refuse to watch the video. I want those words to sink in. Those words were spoken on the far-side of the "moon" we have the transcript so why are the recordings still classified?

I've always wondered about the fact that NASA spent way more than $23 Billion to get to the moon, but, Apollo command modules were unable to communicate with Houston during long portions of each "moon" orbit. (Where the trickery takes place)

It's ok to strap 3 guys to a rocket, blast them off to the "moon", get them through the Earth radiation belts, then to allow the communications to planet earth cut-off for significant portions of each orbit. It's absurd.

From a command/control aspect, it is unacceptable risk and it is absurd.
From a survival stand point, it is an unacceptable risk and it is absurd.
Gus Grissom would have never agreed to such a bad communication plan, a half-assed communications system.

NASA blacked out nearly 50% of the communications from every orbit using this trick. When the ship was on the far side of the "moon" the television networks had to fill the space with fake moon sets, puppets, cartoon animations, more puppets and guest appearances by other famous NASA astronauts.



Here is a fake CBS TV moonscape setup:


Here are some puppets on NBC TV:


The safer mission plan would be to have the Lunar Orbiters act as communications relays... to insure 100% communication with the command module for the entire lunar orbital period. There is absolutely no benefit to having the command module "in the dark" for that much time. The Bellcomm planners planned it this way.

NASA perfected the earth-site relay system California, Spain, Australia because having constant contact with a low-earth orbit space expedition is a critical necessity for success of the mission. This is not something that the Bellcomm planners would have overlooked when writing a mission plan for the "moon".

There is no rationale for Apollo command modules to have a communications "black out period" for technical reasons during the 1969-1972 time frame because it was technically possible to have 100% communications with the command module. As a matter of fact, Howard Hughes owned a monopoly on space communication satellites during the Apollo era, whilst, his political protégé and puppet Richard Nixon watched over 500 feature films during his time in the White House, 1969-1974.



I'm glad you started this thread skyblueworld. The people of ATS need to know how easy it was be to fake moon landings to cover up UFO's and Alien structures on the moon. Well, it was very easy in 1969-1972. Nixon appointed a 20-year CBS TV executive named Frank Shakespeare to manage the United States Information Agency (USIA) basically a propaganda organization during the Apollo era. And that's why Nixon appointed a former Hughes scientist and Mormon James Fletcher to the position of NASA Administrator after Nixon cancelled the Apollo's and ordered the space shuttles.

TL;DR NASA had ample time during moon "black out periods" to perform clandestine operations. NASA transcripts are scriptures that must be accepted by faith alone. And NASA is hiding facts about the moon.

reply to post by skyblueworld


Lights on the moon, lights in the atmosphere? I think it are plasma bulbs that hide a superior technology. Plasma bulbs that are very similar to the magnetic bulbs that are carriers of what we call souls and that in the future will be separated from our bodies by our geniuses who are fed (with hidden knowledge) by the real rulers of this planet.
Our creators left technology on the moon especially for us. And our real rulers are doing things on the moon we only can guess.
I know I promoted the following site several times and maybe it becomes annoying to you but then again you don't have to follow the link. I thank ATS for its existence and for the fact they let me ventilate my belief (maybe a little bit too much). If so, sorry for that. I' ll forgive you moderator if you delete my intervention, maybe enough is enough.

www.evawaseerst.be...

JimOberg

McGinty
RE the 'space music': Could it be magnetic-acoustic? Gravitational phenomena resulting in soundwaves ?

Whatever it is a natural phenomena, could it be related to the mysterious horn sounds heard around our planet?

This isn't a bad suggestion. Radiation impinging on the surface of a spacecraft can be expected to induce thermal vibration. Which means sound.

When I worked on anti-missile systems at the AF Weapons Lab we simulated efect of an X-ray pulse [from a defensive missile] on an enemy warhead. The energy depositied in the skin created a sudden thermal expansion that led to a supersonic shock wave into the guts of the device. If strong enough, it peeled away the inner skin of the container, converting it into buckshot that tore the guts out of the warhead.

The Apollo 'music' still sounds like cross-talk somewhere in the long zig-zag comm link to me, but I've spent many a Mission Control sleep shift trying to debug weird electronic 'noise' in circuits I was responsible for, such as the rendezvous radar. It's why I was on duty during the Sts-48 mission.

Finally something constructive

That is a very good explanation, thank you.

reply to post by skyblueworld

JimOberg


This isn't a bad suggestion. Radiation impinging on the surface of a spacecraft can be expected to induce thermal vibration. Which means sound.

Hopefully I understand this correctly. There are no actual recordings of the Apollo musical sounds, we only have the testimony of the astronauts that said they heard the sounds. Am I correct?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

I've always wondered about the fact that NASA spent way more than $23 Billion to get to the moon, but, Apollo command modules were unable to communicate with Houston during long portions of each "moon" orbit.

There's a reason for that. Namely that there was about 20 billion cubic kilometres of rock in between them and the Earth. What signalling process would you suggest? Launch another moon rocket or two to act as a relay satellite?

Alright, maybe you folks have done it, and ran Jim Oberg off this thread. Nice work. Because when a guy who was in the room for some of the sightings, someone who knows the players and hung out with the people that the tread is talking about, someone who has working-knowledge of the topics under discussion, has something to say about it, ha....better make him feel like an interloper, accuse him of imaginary things, and hope that the thread door hits him on his way out. My heroes! ?shortsightedness anyone?

What a great thread. I downloaded and read all those transcripts. Fascinating to see just how much the Apollo 11 was edited by NASA. It was such ferocious editing that aroused suspicions for me in the first place.

Taken in context, the "strange music" was probably a UFO. If you read the transcripts of the mercury missions, you'll also see that they were dogged just about every time a rocket went up. I vote aliens on this one. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but those NASA transcriptions are very weird indeed.

Looking forward to the visually recorded 3 month Mars One flights. Big Brother in Space. Now THAT will be event television at its finest.

reply to post by objectman


I find it very unlikely there are aliens right on our doorstep on the moon. If they were there than we would have seen them by now. And I mean properly seen, not the usual myth, hoax and hearsay.

Let me make my position clear - I'm pretty sure that we are far from being alone in the universe, simply down the the laws of probability. It's a big place. But those same laws of probability make it vanishingly unlikely (IMHO) that intelligent life also just happens to be on our very own moon. Like I said, it's a big place. That would be like winning the lottery in two consecutive draws.

It might be more exciting and more fun to imagine that people are hiding aliens everywhere, but it's incredibly more likely that they're not. I mean, it would be the biggest story ever in the history of mankind, and yet nobody has ever spilled the beans with hard evidence. As we've seen from recent history, there are plenty of people prepared to blow the whistle even on "relatively minor" issues like government surveillance, corruption etc. You really think nobody would have come out and said "Hey, look at this!" in the past 50-odd years?

objectman
....Looking forward to the visually recorded 3 month Mars One flights. Big Brother in Space. Now THAT will be event television at its finest.

And if they put Ken Johnston on the crew [he IS a candidate -- he was at a March 1 candidate conference in Switzerland a week ago], you can be sure they WILL report UFOs!! Look him up.

I'm not running away, just waiting for serious questions that I can help with.

reply to post by uncommitted


hi there,i agree with uncommited.we need jim orberg as a de-bunker,he does help to balance things out and he has got the background required to be a good de-bunker. i dont always agree with what he says sometimes(ive been a lurker for about 3 years) but he has made some interesting points that i wouldnt of thought of.

anyway the NASA evidence always interests me. are they covering something up? why? is it "us or "them"? interesting

ben555
reply to post by uncommitted

 

hi there,i agree with uncommited.we need jim orberg as a de-bunker,he does help to balance things out and he has got the background required to be a good de-bunker. i dont always agree with what he says sometimes(ive been a lurker for about 3 years) but he has made some interesting points that i wouldnt of thought of.

anyway the NASA evidence always interests me. are they covering something up? why? is it "us or "them"? interesting

We all start with a common premise - there could well be objects seen outside spaceships that are IMPORTANT for ANY number of possible reasons. And need to be winnowed out and then paid attention to.

Vladimir Kovalyonok's report from Salyut in 1981 is a prime example, in my view.

I've just realized there's another utterly devastating disproof of any UFO-related activity on Apollo-10. The backup commander and lunar module pilot, who were all over the Mission Control Center for all critical flight phases, were Gordon Cooper and Ed Mitchell. Yes, THAT Gordon Cooper and THAT Ed Mitchell.

If anyone thinks there was a smidgeon of UFO-related activity in their presence, that they did NOT talk about in later years, I think that's preposterous. Of course they would have. Yet both have been explicit --they believe in UFOs but never encountered ANY such evidence while at NASA. Not a smidgeon.

reply to post by JimOberg


agreed. we have to go through all scenarios to get to the truth! i will be looking up the the 1981 salyut sighting as i canot recall that one.

ATTENTION:

EVERYONE needs to STOP the sniping, off topic comments and condescending remarks.


Suggest everyone re-familiarize themselves with this thread -

ALL MEMBERS READ:Increased Scrutiny for Aliens & UFO Forum


The Topic is NASA Conspiracy - UFO Sightings & Alien Structures



To those who've added to the discussion with civility and poise, we thank you for setting the examples we strive for !