NASA Openly Admits Alien Life Exists: Get Ready for Disclosure

originally posted by: JimOberg
originally posted by: Thorneblood

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

What myth?

how about the lie that our government has never studied or interacted with ufos and aliens for starters?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
how about the lie that our government has never studied or interacted with ufos and aliens for starters?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

We're talking about NASA, and we don't test a hypothesis by starting out assuming it's true.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
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.

Here ya go, from NASA. Enjoy.

Source: science.nasa.gov...

Studying the moon can be tricky, because the moon is too bright to be photographed with large, highly sensitive telescopes on the ground or with the Hubble Space Telescope. The moon's brightness can potentially damage such sensitive optical instruments. Less sensitive telescopes on the ground and on satellites, however, have given us some stunning images of the full moon. The moon can also be photographed using different light wavelengths, such as ultraviolet.

NASA lied.

STM

a reply to: mysterioustranger

We have 1000's of years of evidence of what?

I'm hoping you are going to say Faeries, Elves or Demons cause i will believe that before i believe Aliens are our gods.

a reply to: seentoomuch

Uhm, did you miss the word "potentially" in that quote?

originally posted by: seentoomuch

originally posted by: admirethedistance
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.

Here ya go, from NASA. Enjoy.

Source: science.nasa.gov...

Studying the moon can be tricky, because the moon is too bright to be photographed with large, highly sensitive telescopes on the ground or with the Hubble Space Telescope. The moon's brightness can potentially damage such sensitive optical instruments. Less sensitive telescopes on the ground and on satellites, however, have given us some stunning images of the full moon. The moon can also be photographed using different light wavelengths, such as ultraviolet.

NASA lied.

STM

Not according to the source you posted, they didn't. In fact, it states exactly what myself and others have said, that pointing Hubble at the moon runs a high risk of damaging some if its' components.

Nowhere does it state that Hubble is incapable of doing so. It says that it 'can't' due to the risk of damage. That would be quite clear to you, had you read beyond the first sentence. In the 16 years since that article was written, they reassessed the risks and decided to try it.

Reading comprehension....

a reply to: admirethedistance

NASA stated in the response email that they couldn't due to the brightness of the Moon. This article states that they wouldn't due to the brightness, but then they could. Lies.

STM

a reply to: seentoomuch

Uh-huh. I'm done with this discussion. Keep telling yourself whatever it takes to help you sleep at night; That doesn't make it true. I would highly recommend you brush up on your reading comprehension skills, as they are severely lacking, at best.

Off-topic: Jim, I was just reading your bio, and saw that you went to UNM... Go Lobos!

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: admirethedistance

NASA stated in the response email that they couldn't due to the brightness of the Moon. This article states that they wouldn't due to the brightness, but then they could. Lies.

STM

I was on a trip with my partner to CA, and I guessed, based on the distances between previous exists that we had passed, that we could make it to the next major city before we got some gas. So, I told him that he would have to wait to use the bathroom. However, a few miles down the road there was another exit with a gas station, and we went there. Did I lie to my partner? No, I made a statement/decision based on the information that I had. When I received new information, I incorporated it into my previous knowledge and made a different decision.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: seentoomuch
Off-topic: Jim, I was just reading your bio...I didn't know you went to UNM! Go Lobos!

I went to UNM!

a reply to: seentoomuch

The brightness of the moon could POTENTIALLY damage it. They didn't want to risk it, then after reassessing, chose to.

originally posted by: seentoomuch

originally posted by: admirethedistance
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.

Here ya go, from NASA. Enjoy.

Source: science.nasa.gov...

Studying the moon can be tricky, because the moon is too bright to be photographed with large, highly sensitive telescopes on the ground or with the Hubble Space Telescope. The moon's brightness can potentially damage such sensitive optical instruments. .

NASA lied.

You found it, well done. Now that wasn't hard, was it?

If the NASA expert knew this was false and misrepresented it anyway, what's your proposed motivation?

What was he hiding?

Whatever -- you're point that just because NASA says something one can't automatically believe it, is valid.

That was my public position, too, regarding their Mars robot fleet debacle in 1999, so much show that NASA issued a unique press release branding my criticism as 'whacko' -- a distinction I've always taken particular pride in, especially after NASA stayed on their course of carelessness and several years later killed seven more astronauts.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Stormie

Right off the bat your first sentence is incorrect. NASA is not part of the military. True the first astronauts and most astronauts were former air force pilots but that's the beginning and ending of military involvement.
Going back to read the rest of your OP now.

NASA is a military unit.

www.dvidshub.net...

a reply to: MrRussell

No, it isn't. NASA has worked with the military, but NASA itself is not part of the military.

originally posted by: MrRussell

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Stormie

Right off the bat your first sentence is incorrect. NASA is not part of the military. True the first astronauts and most astronauts were former air force pilots but that's the beginning and ending of military involvement.
Going back to read the rest of your OP now.

NASA is a military unit.

www.dvidshub.net...

Major FAIL. Go to 'military units' and scroll down to 'civilian' entries, including the State Department and Environmental Protection Agency and NASA -- all of them 'part of the military'?

www.dvidshub.net...

originally posted by: MrRussell


NASA is a military unit.

Richard Hoagland claims that too -- here's a debunking of that:

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
Point-by-point critique of "Dark Mission" 2nd Edition

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

p. 58. "The Space Agency was quietly founded as a direct adjunct to the Department of Defense..."

Hoagland offers lame support for this contention with a quote from Sec. 305 (i) of the Space Act: "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the US Code." He doesn't say how he knows the passage of this act was "quiet."

He also complains -- as though he's only just come across this fact and is "shocked--SHOCKED" -- that Sec. 205(d) of the Act allows NASA activities to be classified for reasons of national security.

FACT: Title 35 of the US Code is exclusively concerned with patent law. Title 35 Chapter 17 is concerned with patent applications filed by employees of any defense agency, hence the inclusive definition in Sec 305(i). This is purely legal language, that emphatically does not mean that the agency was founded, whether quietly or accompanied by 76 trombones, as a direct adjunct to the Department of Defense. A parade of NASA Administrators, starting with James Webb, has expended political capital asserting NASA's independence from DoD.