It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Openly Admits Alien Life Exists: Get Ready for Disclosure

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

edit on 3-7-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: seentoomuch

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: seentoomuch


In the mean time I won't be holding my breath.


oh, please do.



Look quick Autumnwitch, over there, it's a nun if you hurry you can go harass her . . . .

STM

On topic: I hope that you, Jim Oberg and Zaphod meet them in person. And the OP is right and it is just the beginning imho . . .


I'm sure in some nonsensical way you think that statement makes sense. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I am.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: admirethedistance

Yes, they said they couldn't originally, and then they could. I would call that a lie. You're clearly short of ethics if you don't know a lie when you hear/see one. Oh, that's right, it's in a gray, shady area so that makes it not a lie in your opinion. Just dance a little to the right, a little to the left, make it "fit" what you want it to be, typical . . .



STM



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch

Oh and thank you for including me in such good company. You've actually paid me a compliment though you didn't intend to.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

And as Jim pointed out, there are at least half a dozen private companies that can do the same thing now. Is the military tied in with them too?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: VoidHawk

And as Jim pointed out, there are at least half a dozen private companies that can do the same thing now. Is the military tied in with them too?
So, I could send up a spy satelite and nobody would mind? and before you say it, any thing in space with a camera is a possible spy.
Those private companies have VERY strict rules they must obey, and if they stray where they're not allowed they'd be arrested. The only way they could avoid such an event is if they are instructed by the military on what is allowed, and hence, the military must be involved with them.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch

One other thing now that I've read your post again.
The "Oh please do" was in reference to my holding my breath.
So you'd like to see me dead because I don't agree with you?
Very classy.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I didn't say that they wouldn't mind. The US military has been tracking every satellite in orbit since Sputnik. There's a very easy way to keep from having things exposed. Make sure they're not out when the satellite goes overhead. Or if they're out, they're not where the satellite is. You can find plenty of pictures of Area 51 from private companies, as well as other bases. What every one of them is lacking, is something sensitive out in the open at the time the photo was taken.

GeoEye Area 51
Digitalglobe Area 51

Two of Area 51 found just with a very quick search.


edit on 7/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The vast majority of us posting here will NEVER have the time or luxury of pouring over every research study and meeting eveyr person in question who's ever been involved. We will never go to the NASa facilities to see how real it all is. We will never explore all of the offices and all of the people there who've given their heart and soul. We can only either have faith in NASA or remain skeptical for the rest of our lives.

I"m in the latter camp.

Jim Oberg, why do you waste your time?? Do'nt be stupid. You cannot eliminate skepticism or distrust. My distrust of NASA cannot be erased, returned or forfeited, or otherwise replaced by trust.

Same deal with AGW. Every scientist seems to think they should convince the public. They will NEVER convince everybody. They can only make people have faith in them. People do not have the resources. Scientists have invsested their lives to reach the confidence they've attained. This cannot be true for others and is impossible without turning to faith.
edit on 3-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

What about countries that don't answer to us or our military? The United states doesn't own space and can't tell other countries what they can or cannot look at from up there. Much as they may want to.

And I see my colleague Zaphod58 has already addressed this.
edit on 732015 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: VoidHawk

What about countries that don't answer to us or our military? The United states doesn't own space and can't tell other countries what they can or cannot look at from up there. Much as they may want to.

But this is about whether the military are involved with NASA. Considering the abilities that NASA have the military could not afford to ignore what they were getting up to. The easiest way for them to know everything that NASA was doing would be to have their own people involved. Security services take security very seriously, even to the piont of spying on their own civilians! are we to believe they are not integrated into NASA because they...trust them?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seentoomuch
Just one lie from NASA off the top of my head was the infamous, "Can't point Hubble at the Moon, it's too bright" hahahha and then "Here's Hubble's photos of the Moon". ....


Turns out that since Hubble has a suite of separate detectors, some would be damaged and others wouldn't be.

www.slate.com...



I learned quickly that there are a lot of misconceptions about the orbiting observatory.
One of the most frequent is that it can’t observe the Moon, because our natural satellite is too bright. Trying to snap a shot of it would damage Hubble’s detectors.
That’s not true. Well, not totally true. Some cameras on HST are very sensitive, and could be damaged if pointed to a bright source. The ultraviolet camera I worked on was so sensitive it would fry if it looked some kinds of stars too faint to even see with the naked eye!
But other cameras are just fine with bright sources, and that includes the Advanced Camera for Surveys.
....So there you go. The Moon is not too bright for Hubble.
Funny though, it is hard to observe by HST, but that’s actually because it’s moving too fast in the sky. Hubble isn’t designed to track that quickly, so what they do to observe it is put it in “ambush mode”: Aim Hubble in the sky where the Moon will soon be, then wait. When the Moon moves in, Hubble grabs the snapshot. This has been done many times, actually (like in 1999 and 2005).


This was the biggest 'NASA lie' you could come up with?
edit on 3-7-2015 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Yes, it is a lie.

They were requested over and over and over to take the shots of the Moon. They said they couldn't. Never a word about methods or maybes'. . . the answer was they couldn't.

Then when it was for other purposes they could.

That makes it a lie.

STM

ETA Another NASA Lie: www.c3headlines.com...

edit on 3-7-2015 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: VoidHawk

And the military doesn't have that exact same ability on its own?

Thats not my point!
My point is NASA have that ability! and that makes them an extreme security risk. I really do not think the military would ignore that, and the only way they could control that risk would be if they were integrated into it.


Are you saying NASA could get spy satellite resolution imagery by flying over Russia's Plesetsk military cosmodrome, or the Kura nuclear warhead impact test zone in Kamchatka, and see things they shouldn't?

How, exactly, with what resource?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: VoidHawk

And as Jim pointed out, there are at least half a dozen private companies that can do the same thing now. Is the military tied in with them too?
So, I could send up a spy satelite and nobody would mind? and before you say it, any thing in space with a camera is a possible spy.
Those private companies have VERY strict rules they must obey, and if they stray where they're not allowed they'd be arrested. The only way they could avoid such an event is if they are instructed by the military on what is allowed, and hence, the military must be involved with them.



Admit it, you're just making this up from your own imagination based on what you think OUGHT to be true, right? You have no real idea about what national security constraints commercial operators actually work under?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormie

I think the "life" that Ellen Stofan is talking about is most likely bacterial.

There are new technologies coming on line that will allow us to see at high resolution into the atmospheres of planets around stars other than ours. This will likely swipe away much of what we think we know and lead to greater insights.

There is confusing and contradictory evidence that there may (or may not) be life on Mars but we have seen no footage of any organism (as far as we know). This situation is likely to be resolved soon as we do further chemical and biological assays.

The linked article itself makes preposterous assumptions.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormie

Oh this again?

All of science (credible science) has stated repeatedly that it would be ridiculous to assume that in the vastness of the universe we are the only planet with life on it.

There is a MASSIVE difference between the scientific and mathematical probability of there being some form of life on one of the potentially billions of planets out there, and the notion that sentient intelligent life forms more advanced than us are showing up unannounced to fly around our skies.

The acceptance of the probability of some life existing does not automatically mean NASA knows there are intelligent beings visiting this planet.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite...

Jim Oberg, why do you waste your time?? Do'nt be stupid. You cannot eliminate skepticism or distrust. My distrust of NASA cannot be erased, returned or forfeited, or otherwise replaced by trust.


You ought to know I don't trust bureaucrats any more than you do, that I went to Congress in 1997 to testify NASA was lying about safety standards on the space station project with Russia [and left my day job soon afterwards], caught officials and spokesmen in a series of lies over safety and over Russian misbehavior, and told them they were going to kill another crew if they didn't straighten out. Where do you get the childish idea that 'trust' is an on-off switch, instead of a constant process of penetrating skepticism?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Stormie


Jeff Newmark, NASA’s Interim Director of Heliophysics, said it’s a matter of “when, not if” when it comes to discovering life beyond Earth.
wwlp.com...

NASA Openly Admits Alien Life could exist , there is a difference.


Agreed,
as Ellen Stofan say, 10 to 25 years, and she puts the number on it, and it doesn't matter what kind of life, nor does she say sentient life or what kind of life either. We shouldn't forget that Viking had the means to search for biological signatures, I think about four experiments for that alone and really that is still in debate for those concerned AKA...NASA.
Ex long term NASA man Richard Hoover was pretty cross about NASA destroying, what he considered was a Crinoid fossil pictured on Mars hours after it first appeared, and he has strong ideas about what he considered fossils found in some Mars meteorites, so I would not be surprised if there is factionalisation in NASA whether there is debate or not. Why? I have no idea, but at the end someone is needing to cool on the criticism if there is something they did not take into account.
Now, according to what Ellen Stofan has reportedly said, this is the most significant part of her statement to me,

"We’re going to understand the implications of that for life here on Earth.”

What's that to mean? if they do find life, regardless of the form, is this the genus of all life...the niddy gritty, the stuff that made the primaeval soup...the ingredients, and not just the primaeval soup alone?
Thing is she sounds enlightened, unlike the guy who deliberately destroyed that possible fossil not so long ago.

edit on 3-7-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

And yet, as I showed, there are unblocked, extremely clear pictures, taken from private satellite companies, of the most secure area in the US, and the pride of the USAF testing community.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join