NASA Openly Admits Alien Life Exists: Get Ready for Disclosure

originally posted by: seentoomuch
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.

Since you're so sure of this, then please provide a source, from NASA, saying that Hubble can't be pointed at the moon. I'll wait.

originally posted by: seentoomuch
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...

Were they being asked to take pictures of the moon, or of the Apollo landing sites to debunk the Apollohoaxers?

It's certainly conceivable some NASA PAO made up an excuse, but how about we find out who it was who made the claim -- an agency spox instead of some journalist trying to squash moon hoax nonsense?

So -- somebody named 'NASA' said it? Please, this is the age of the internet, let's track this down.

originally posted by: smurfy....Thing is she sounds enlightened, unlike the guy who deliberately destroyed that possible fossil not so long ago.

Are you imagining some evil guy with the fossil on his lab bench, crushing it to dust so as to prevent it being studied?

a reply to: JimOberg

That's insane Jim, just insane. Powdering the skeleton would leave evidence.....you should blow it up or melt it in molten steel. Sorta like the T-1000.

Obviously

reply to: JimOberg

Excuses, no doesn't fly, NASA lied to the public. We the public own NASA, and we deserve information when it is requested. Otherwise why do we fund them? It was a popular enough request that they responded to it in the article you quoted from. They said that they had frequent enquiries and wanted to clear up the misconceptions.

Here's one article referring to good 'ol Richard Hoagland who has a background in this and goes with the popular requests of the people to investigate anomalies, which we should do imho. I don't care if it gets all the OCD people in an uproar, there are moments when we should take a chance and explore possibilities when we have the capabilities to do so. The Hubble was functioning, they could've done it, could've scheduled it in when they realized how many people were interested in it. Why not? Why don't you want to explore?

STM

Source: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

E-mail from Zoltan Levay at STSCI :

X-POP3-Rcpt: mufor@mail
Return-Path: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:51:14 -0500
From: [email protected] (Zoltan Levay)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hubble pictures
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII

> ...has Hubble taken any photos of the moon?

No, the moon is too bright (even the dark side) to observe with HST.

Zolt

originally posted by: Thorneblood

I know the case, I just want to assess the myth.

originally posted by: seentoomuch
Excuses, no doesn't fly, NASA lied to the public. We the public own NASA, and we deserve information when it is requested. Otherwise why do we fund them? It was a popular enough request that they responded to it in the article you quoted from. They said that they had frequent enquiries and wanted to clear up the misconceptions.

You have a message from a guy at the Space Telescope Science Institute, that's a step forward, thanks.

What was being asked to be observed on the moon?

The reason this is important is that if the request was to verify the Apollo landings, the correct answer was that Hubble couldn't see them -- just not because of brightness.

Again, thanks for running this story to ground, let's find a NASA guy saying this.

a reply to: seentoomuch

Sorry, but a piece by Richard Hoagland (*snicker*), containing an alleged one sentence reply from a publicist at STSCI, is not proof that NASA claimed that Hubble is incapable of being pointed at the moon. Nice try, though.

originally posted by: JimOberg
You have a message from a guy at the Space Telescope Science Institute, that's a step forward, thanks.

Careful, Jim. The source for that message is Hoagland, so there's a good possibility that the message is entirely bogus.

a reply to: admirethedistance

I agree, alien believers are so gullible to fall for this garbage.... More propagana to feed the misinformation to the ignorant masses.

a reply to: JimOberg

Read the whole article. It was requested many times, enough for NASA to respond in the article YOU posted. Aaaargh, I'm on a thread with OCD non-explorers. My Dad, a high caliber scientist always complained about slow progress due to the anal micro movements the govt. insisted on. Not checking out anomalies is one of them. It could give us insight and a jump ahead.

Go sit and spin you guys, broken record playing over and over on your part. I'd rather explore.

STM

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Sadly, there's a huge market segment of people that just lap this garbage up, as if it's gospel.

In hindsight, "alien believers" may not have been the best wording, as I (and I'm sure most people) believe that life exists somewhere out in the vastness of the universe. It seems you knew what I meant, though.

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: JimOberg

Read the whole article. It was requested many times, enough for NASA to respond in the article YOU posted. Aaaargh, I'm on a thread with OCD non-explorers. My Dad, a high caliber scientist always complained about slow progress due to the anal micro movements the govt. insisted on. Not checking out anomalies is one of them. It could give us insight and a jump ahead.

Go sit and spin you guys, broken record playing over and over on your part. I'd rather explore.

STM

I read the entire 'article', and it makes a lot of claims, but doesn't provide any sources for them, making it essentially worthless. Given its' source (Hoagland), it's safe to assume that no sources are given because none actually exist.

You've repeatedly claimed that NASA stated that Hubble was incapable of being pointed at the moon, so again, please either provide a source, from NASA, for that claim, or admit that you're just regurgitating what you've read on garbage sites such as Hoagland's. I'm still waiting.

a reply to: admirethedistance

You are aware that this is the "Aliens & UFO" forum, right? So of course we're going to discuss "Aliens", right? And of course there will be people that discuss them and others (like you) who diss anyone that believes they exist and literally camps out on the thread damping down any pro discussion. Y'all are like liberals, you trounce on anyone who doesn't think like you. Pathetic.

STM

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: admirethedistance

You are aware that this is the "Aliens & UFO" forum, right? So of course we're going to discuss "Aliens", right? And of course there will be people that discuss them and others (like you) who diss anyone that believes they exist and literally camps out on the thread damping down any pro discussion. Y'all are like liberals, you trounce on anyone who doesn't think like you. Pathetic.

STM

Did you not read a few posts back where I clearly stated that I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe (or the countless other posts in which I've said the same)? Also, in case you forgot, that's not even what we've been discussing for the last page and a half; We've been discussing the unsubstantiated claims, made by you, that NASA regularly lies about things; Particularly, your claim that NASA stated Hubble was incapable of being pointed towards the moon.

So rather than trying to suddenly change the subject and make false statements about me, how about we get back to discussing what you brought up? Ready to admit that you were wrong yet?

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: JimOberg

Read the whole article. It was requested many times, enough for NASA to respond in the article YOU posted. Aaaargh, I'm on a thread with OCD non-explorers. My Dad, a high caliber scientist always complained about slow progress due to the anal micro movements the govt. insisted on. Not checking out anomalies is one of them. It could give us insight and a jump ahead. Go sit and spin you guys, broken record playing over and over on your part. I'd rather explore.

I read the article, the pronoun 'it' was never specified -- but seems associated with Apollo landing sites, which most definitely are NOT observable by Hubble.

Hoagland also writes as if Hubble was ONE telescope instead of a changing mirror-sharing suite of instruments each with different brightness tolerances.

Basically, we are shown NO comments from NASA using the brightness excuse. Just Hoagland's assurances that NASA told him that -- not even a name of the alleged teller. Sorry, but based on a decades-long track record, I am NOT willing to take his sole say-so that it's really the way he claims to remember it. Are you?

a reply to: JimOberg

Why would YOUR quoted article even exist if it wasn't a common request for NASA? So much so that Slate was interested?

I'd call NASA right now but their switchboard probably closed at 5:00 PM.

Go back to the normal OCD, must have five journal peer reviewed sources to state anything, along with an mri of your brain, your first born, oh, and most important of all the statement must totally agree with the anal point of view. My father was right. You do realize that most great discoveries were anomalies, right? We must always check those out.

I think NASA knows a lot more than they're telling us and that the OP is just the beginning, y'all are in for a surprise. Like I said, I don't know what y'all will do with your days after that.

STM

a reply to: seentoomuch

So....Still no source, eh?

originally posted by: seentoomuch....
Go back to the normal OCD, must have five journal peer reviewed sources to state anything, along with an mri of your brain, your first born, oh, and most important of all the statement must totally agree with the anal point of view. ....

Oh, come ON, you're saying if we don't accept Richard Hoagland's account of a conversation with an unnamed NASA official, we're suffering from a psychiatric disorder?

I don't doubt you 'believe' lots of things, I just wanted to calibrate how rigorous your standards of evidence was. Thanks.

I can't answer for JPL radio signals or NASA-Goddard labs, I just have persuasive evidence from personal experience inside the astronaut operations program that space flights never came across observations consistent with ET contact. Other secrets, other places, I have less insight into.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: smurfy....Thing is she sounds enlightened, unlike the guy who deliberately destroyed that possible fossil not so long ago.

Are you imagining some evil guy with the fossil on his lab bench, crushing it to dust so as to prevent it being studied?

So you start the ad hominum on Richard Hoover then..right now, or just close the gub. As far as the Crinoid is concerned, he knows and was told it was destroyed, as by an explanation by David Mackay at NASA, that they were looking for carbon, so why that particular fossil looking piece? a very singular piece of work, not even a necessary. I'm getting fed up with you second chancing in this case by so trying to romanticise my thinking of what they did, that's truly pathetic. Here are Richard Hoover's comments below, and it behoves you, (and everyone else here for that matter) to look at the interview in full, not just the part about the Crinoids, but all of it, over and over again,

.

a reply to: Stormie

There will never ever ever no way no how ever...be any disclosure. There doesn't need to be nor would it be believed by everyone.

We have evidence....1000's of years of it....and we ignored it.