reply to post by Blaine91555
i don't know the guy but to me it says he's trying to make a living at something he enjoys researching.
Alien Spaceships Around Stargate/Time Portal? Take Out Your Telescopes Now!, page 4
privacy
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:22 AM by Blaine91555
reply to post by undo
You don't find it odd that there are no links to info on any of his products, no pictures of anything he has constructed; nothing?
You don't find it odd he wants $5,000 to do presentations on these Alien Ships and after years there are no pictures from anywhere, by anyone?
He has no products, only claims, no services, only claims and he is going to hire all these executive level people up front? With what resources I wonder?
Would a company potentially worth "billions/trillions" have as its main site an amateurish concoction which repeats the same stuff over and over again? Would they forget to even demonstrate a single product or service?
[edit on 6/21/2008 by Blaine91555]
You don't find it odd that there are no links to info on any of his products, no pictures of anything he has constructed; nothing?
You don't find it odd he wants $5,000 to do presentations on these Alien Ships and after years there are no pictures from anywhere, by anyone?
He has no products, only claims, no services, only claims and he is going to hire all these executive level people up front? With what resources I wonder?
Would a company potentially worth "billions/trillions" have as its main site an amateurish concoction which repeats the same stuff over and over again? Would they forget to even demonstrate a single product or service?
[edit on 6/21/2008 by Blaine91555]
I'm definitely checking it out! 
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:27 AM by undo
reply to post by Blaine91555
as i said in my previous post (before the one above), i see something. doesn't mean it's what he saw, or that he even saw anything at all. but after my life experiences, nothing would surprise.
as far as his claims and offers, apparently he's not very good at selling himself. a pro would've had all kinds of jazzy presentations and all that stuff you mentioned. from where i'm standing it just looks like a guy who wants to make money selling goods, services and information but has no idea how to do it. doesn't mean he's a con. most cons seem slicker, if'n you know what i mean. kinda like that tolkien quote: seem fairer but feel fouler. do you feel threatened by him or his data? pretty much everything he talks about as regards pollution and home security, is offered on any number of survival sites. his big problem appears to be he's an amateur.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by undo]
as i said in my previous post (before the one above), i see something. doesn't mean it's what he saw, or that he even saw anything at all. but after my life experiences, nothing would surprise.
as far as his claims and offers, apparently he's not very good at selling himself. a pro would've had all kinds of jazzy presentations and all that stuff you mentioned. from where i'm standing it just looks like a guy who wants to make money selling goods, services and information but has no idea how to do it. doesn't mean he's a con. most cons seem slicker, if'n you know what i mean. kinda like that tolkien quote: seem fairer but feel fouler. do you feel threatened by him or his data? pretty much everything he talks about as regards pollution and home security, is offered on any number of survival sites. his big problem appears to be he's an amateur.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by undo]
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:36 AM by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
Johnny....never have I addressed you directly, before.
I asked a few questions, either on page one or two....mostly directed at Mike, but if this all a farce, then there is no need to answer, since my original questions become moot.
Sorry, that sounded so vague, as I read it.
Mike is the OP, and I found this very intriguing....but my questions were not answered. I think this is worthy of further discussion, as it seems many have much to bring to the table.
I am keen to learn more info, as others bring it.....
WW
Johnny....never have I addressed you directly, before.
I asked a few questions, either on page one or two....mostly directed at Mike, but if this all a farce, then there is no need to answer, since my original questions become moot.
Sorry, that sounded so vague, as I read it.
Mike is the OP, and I found this very intriguing....but my questions were not answered. I think this is worthy of further discussion, as it seems many have much to bring to the table.
I am keen to learn more info, as others bring it.....
WW
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:37 AM by Donoso
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
I thought that it sounded familiar, and after visiting his site I remembered seeing it some two years ago, I think that there is a thread about it somewhere.
I also remember reading about this... But not two years ago. In fact, I vaguely remember offering my time and telescope to see if there was anything in the region... or was that Gridkeeper's nonsense? Either way, there wasn't much to be seen besides, well, stars.
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:44 AM by undo
reply to post by Donoso
But we have tons of stuff between here and there. Tons. Ever wonder if he didn't just pick up on one of our pieces of equipment or something closer to earth? just because you don't see it when looking at the stars, you have to assume the telescope has crossed the path of at least one. Ever seen a map of all the stuff in Earthspace? It's horrendous. It's so crowded up there now, it'd be nigh on impossible to use a telescope to view stars and not have at least something cross your lens or be stationary above it even. think scale and magnitude.
Either way, there wasn't much to be seen besides, well, stars.
But we have tons of stuff between here and there. Tons. Ever wonder if he didn't just pick up on one of our pieces of equipment or something closer to earth? just because you don't see it when looking at the stars, you have to assume the telescope has crossed the path of at least one. Ever seen a map of all the stuff in Earthspace? It's horrendous. It's so crowded up there now, it'd be nigh on impossible to use a telescope to view stars and not have at least something cross your lens or be stationary above it even. think scale and magnitude.
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:53 AM by Donoso
reply to post by undo
You have to realize that I'm out 3 times a week with a modest bit of equipment gazing. In my near ten years in doing so I've yet to witness anything out of the ordinary. I'm well aware of the junk that's in low Earth orbit and even then it's an amazing feat to have one cross your line of sight. Most of the junk isn't even visible in the first place! But in all honesty I'm not positive it was this specific case that I was looking into or that Gridkeeper/Escamilla escapade that dealt with supposed "huge spacecraft" orbiting Earth at a very close distance. Now that's one thing that has been discussed over and over again and no matter how many times people have checked correct coordinates nothing showed up.
Ah! But then there was a magical device needed to witness these oh so amazing craft that somehow Escamilla was able to produce. Anyways! This is getting really off topic.
You have to realize that I'm out 3 times a week with a modest bit of equipment gazing. In my near ten years in doing so I've yet to witness anything out of the ordinary. I'm well aware of the junk that's in low Earth orbit and even then it's an amazing feat to have one cross your line of sight. Most of the junk isn't even visible in the first place! But in all honesty I'm not positive it was this specific case that I was looking into or that Gridkeeper/Escamilla escapade that dealt with supposed "huge spacecraft" orbiting Earth at a very close distance. Now that's one thing that has been discussed over and over again and no matter how many times people have checked correct coordinates nothing showed up.
Ah! But then there was a magical device needed to witness these oh so amazing craft that somehow Escamilla was able to produce. Anyways! This is getting really off topic.
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:55 AM by weedwhacker
reply to post by theRiverGoddess
Goddess....sounds interesting....you obviously must live in the Northern Hemisphere, as I've pointed out....because that particular constellation isn't visible from the Southern hemisphere.
What I have been asking, and this is based on my knowledge of astronomy...when we continually see something in the same place in our sky, as the planet rotates....then we are either seeing something very, very far away, or it is staying in a fairly local position....not orbiting, as a natural satellite would....but artificially in place....to be seen, each rotation by Earth....does this make sense to anyone????
Goddess....sounds interesting....you obviously must live in the Northern Hemisphere, as I've pointed out....because that particular constellation isn't visible from the Southern hemisphere.
What I have been asking, and this is based on my knowledge of astronomy...when we continually see something in the same place in our sky, as the planet rotates....then we are either seeing something very, very far away, or it is staying in a fairly local position....not orbiting, as a natural satellite would....but artificially in place....to be seen, each rotation by Earth....does this make sense to anyone????
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:57 AM by undo
check this out:
# As of april, 2005 at least 13 nuclear reactor fuel cores, 8 thermoelectric generators, and 32 nuclear reactors are known to be in Earth orbits below 1700 km.
# Low Earth orbit ~ 250-600 km from earth - International space station
# Geosynchronous stationary orbit ~ 35,785 km from earth - communications satellites
# ~ 20,000 km from earth - Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites
pic of the junk field (this doesn't count the actual working devices in space from the nations of the world)
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
Source
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
# As of april, 2005 at least 13 nuclear reactor fuel cores, 8 thermoelectric generators, and 32 nuclear reactors are known to be in Earth orbits below 1700 km.
# Low Earth orbit ~ 250-600 km from earth - International space station
# Geosynchronous stationary orbit ~ 35,785 km from earth - communications satellites
# ~ 20,000 km from earth - Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites
pic of the junk field (this doesn't count the actual working devices in space from the nations of the world)
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
Source
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:03 AM by Donoso
reply to post by undo
That gives a fairly unfair scale to the actual size of the junk orbiting Earth. There's absolutely no way you'd be able to single one of those items out and try to track them with a telescope. They're simply not visible from down here. One of the only objects orbiting Earth I've been able to successfully track and image is the International Space Station.
Think about it for a second, if there's junk represented in such a scale as in the image you posted... No satellite would be safe. They'd be bombarded by various bits of crap non-stop. That's simply not the case, space is a very big place.
Edit: To add, absolutely no launch would be safe to position any single one of our equipment into orbit.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by Donoso]
That gives a fairly unfair scale to the actual size of the junk orbiting Earth. There's absolutely no way you'd be able to single one of those items out and try to track them with a telescope. They're simply not visible from down here. One of the only objects orbiting Earth I've been able to successfully track and image is the International Space Station.
Think about it for a second, if there's junk represented in such a scale as in the image you posted... No satellite would be safe. They'd be bombarded by various bits of crap non-stop. That's simply not the case, space is a very big place.
Edit: To add, absolutely no launch would be safe to position any single one of our equipment into orbit.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by Donoso]
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:05 AM by undo
reply to post by Donoso
as i mentioned before, when you are focusing o a star field or a planet, moon, etc, or just into random space, the camera lens will show you the obvious. it will sense and process the less obvious and adjust it so that it doesn't bugger up your view. so you take an image of space, and adjust it and things will start popping out because your camera sees it, it just doesn't show it to you unless you specifically adjust it. otherwise you would see junk in your view. the camera isn't designed to show you fine details like that, unless you request them and the available adjustments and settings have to be pretty intense. since space around our planet is a matter of national security, i'm guessing telescope manufacturers are limited in just how sensitive the equipment can be.
don't say it isn't a matter of national security or you'll have to argue the case of that brit who hacked nasa -- in his defense.
as i mentioned before, when you are focusing o a star field or a planet, moon, etc, or just into random space, the camera lens will show you the obvious. it will sense and process the less obvious and adjust it so that it doesn't bugger up your view. so you take an image of space, and adjust it and things will start popping out because your camera sees it, it just doesn't show it to you unless you specifically adjust it. otherwise you would see junk in your view. the camera isn't designed to show you fine details like that, unless you request them and the available adjustments and settings have to be pretty intense. since space around our planet is a matter of national security, i'm guessing telescope manufacturers are limited in just how sensitive the equipment can be.
don't say it isn't a matter of national security or you'll have to argue the case of that brit who hacked nasa -- in his defense.
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:07 AM by undo
reply to post by Donoso
i didn't post an image. one of the other members did. i just put it in my paintshop and upped the clarity and brightness/contrast, so things that aren't normally shown but are indeed photographed, would show up.
i didn't post an image. one of the other members did. i just put it in my paintshop and upped the clarity and brightness/contrast, so things that aren't normally shown but are indeed photographed, would show up.
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:09 AM by Donoso
reply to post by undo
This is absolutely false. At no point in focusing a telescope on any object will you see "junk" in your field of view. The eyepieces on a telescope are nothing like current digital camera lenses with auto focus. Try to find images of ground based telescopes seeing junk out in Earth orbit. You simply cannot focus on the junk because they are so small!
This is absolutely false. At no point in focusing a telescope on any object will you see "junk" in your field of view. The eyepieces on a telescope are nothing like current digital camera lenses with auto focus. Try to find images of ground based telescopes seeing junk out in Earth orbit. You simply cannot focus on the junk because they are so small!
reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 01:18 AM by undo
reply to post by Donoso
if you can see an object increased in size, such as that image that was posted of murphaz on the previous page, many fold their original size in the sky, when it was originally just a dot in the sky (and all those outer limits of the galaxy images, showing us hundreds of thousands of galaxies beyond our own that we simply can't see from earth, you can see junk closer to earth. especially big pieces of junk or maybe even active devices. the final image just doesn't show you it, it adjusts the image so you only see the obvious. the night sky is full of stuff. i've seen satellites hurling past from the ground, in broad daylight.
it is, afterall, a matter of national security. folks who look for this stuff, understand it's a matter of national security. they aren't trying to screw up the works, they're just trying to see what's going on out there. i see no reason why this guy's data would be a threat to anyone, and that it would engender the kind of character assassination i see going on in this thread. he's just some guy who thinks he sees things in his telescope. you can't prove he doesn't, you don't have his eyeballs.
if you can see an object increased in size, such as that image that was posted of murphaz on the previous page, many fold their original size in the sky, when it was originally just a dot in the sky (and all those outer limits of the galaxy images, showing us hundreds of thousands of galaxies beyond our own that we simply can't see from earth, you can see junk closer to earth. especially big pieces of junk or maybe even active devices. the final image just doesn't show you it, it adjusts the image so you only see the obvious. the night sky is full of stuff. i've seen satellites hurling past from the ground, in broad daylight.
it is, afterall, a matter of national security. folks who look for this stuff, understand it's a matter of national security. they aren't trying to screw up the works, they're just trying to see what's going on out there. i see no reason why this guy's data would be a threat to anyone, and that it would engender the kind of character assassination i see going on in this thread. he's just some guy who thinks he sees things in his telescope. you can't prove he doesn't, you don't have his eyeballs.
The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
Posted 3 days ago with 158 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 158 member flags
The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
Posted 14 days ago with 139 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 139 member flags
Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
Posted 7 days ago with 85 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 85 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Can anyone recommend any good non kindle books on Philosophy and Metaphysics
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 39 minutes ago
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 39 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 34 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 34 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 29 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 29 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 14 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 14 hours ago, 19 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 136 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 136 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 83 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 83 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Mystery of the Masonic "hunnerts o' times" language of Orphan Annie
Secret Societies, Posted 7 hours ago, 51 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 7 hours ago, 51 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.202 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.202 seconds
