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.

 

Wes Owsley discusses NASA and UFOs

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


Apparantly you haven't heard the recent comments from the "Exopolitics: Barcelona Conference."

Its that kind of lunacy that I am trying to help others not waste their time on.

I will state one more time. I am simply trying to let the real ufo researchers know to not waste their time on this subject.

If anyone has any other questions for me of a serious nature then please feel free to ask. Otherwise I will no longer be responding to posts meant only to seek an arguement.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Mr. Owsley, I was actually not trying to argue at all, & you are right...( is a war ever over until all the soldiers are dead?)... the lunacy you refer to is still alive & well & I guess I was trying myself to say the same thing. Don't go there...been there, done that. So stay with us.

You & I know that the U.S. military plans to turn space into the next battlefield, bristling with orbiting weapons designed to attack satellites, IBMs & targets on Earth.

Yet the best that can be said about the weaponization of space, is it would provide unreliable protection against an improbable form of threat that is the UFO! How likely is a UFO attack? Well... it would have already happened. U.S. weapons scientists & intelligence analysts have known about the UFO enigma for more than 50 years....

...yet, no one has the slightest idea about how to deal with them. NASA does not even attempt to do so. To imagine a success rate against highly advanced UFOs is absurd.To imagine any success rate defies all logic.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
You & I know that the U.S. military plans to turn space into the next battlefield, bristling with orbiting weapons designed to attack satellites, IBMs & targets on Earth.


Typo for ICBM, no big deal.

As far as I recall, the only weapons ever introduced into orbit for testing and deployment were Soviet weapons during the late unlamented 'former' USSR. "Knowing" something is thus not always a guaranty that the 'something' is even true.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wesowsley
Good Morning Jim,

I was referring to the lack of evidence for things like Moon Bases, Mars Bases, UFO Bases on earth etc.


OK, like the stuff in Corso's looney book, right? Yeah, not only is there
no evidence, there's plenty of strong counter-evidence -- consequences that would be noticed, or traceable, if such facilities existed, which can be established as not existing.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Well, I appreciate your clarifying my mental state. I must have misread Wes' "stance" 'cause it sounded to me as if he supported their reality. Thank you, zorgon.


Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Do you have any evidence (notice I didn't ask if you believed) of the above? Do you have any evidence for Moon Bases? Martian Bases? Alien contact? Alien cooperation with our space program(!)? UFO bases? USO bases? Regular bases that belong to us but house alien craft? If you have such evidence, will you share it with us and instructions on how to verify their veracity? Much appreciated. Jim will verify my sanity!


I don't think Jim can verify your sanity in this case... seeing as you missed the fact that Wes's stance is all the above mentioned are pure bunk so why would he need to 'verify their veracity'?





posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed


Always glad to help people stay sane





posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
As far as I recall, the only weapons ever introduced into orbit for testing and deployment were Soviet weapons during the late unlamented 'former' USSR. "Knowing" something is thus not always a guaranty that the 'something' is even true.



The rocket's cargo is in fact so secret that that no federal agency will admit that the craft is theirs. The mission craft is simply called PAN. The launch guide from United Launch Alliance, which manufactures and operates the Atlas V, simply says that the PAN satellite mission is on behalf of Lockheed Martin's "U.S. Government Customer." The 45th Space Wing of the U.S. Air Force described the craft as a U.S. government communications satellite.


blogs.orlandosentinel.com...

There is no question that "secret stuff" is out there. For what purpose, I have no idea. But the point is that neither you, Jim, nor Wes, would be able to tell us what this stuff is even if you knew - and more to the point - I seriously doubt that either of you WOULD know, even if you DID still work for NASA.

So while it's always interesting to hear your points of view, I don't believe that either of you can tell us, with any authority, that it's all "bunk".



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot
So while it's always interesting to hear your points of view, I don't believe that either of you can tell us, with any authority, that it's all "bunk".


Very well said...



Originally posted by wesowsley

Its that kind of lunacy that I am trying to help others not waste their time on.


Why? What do you care what people spend their time on? I see millions of people in my town spending hours at slot machines wasting their time (and money) but thanks to them I don't have to pay state income tax


Surely people can spend their time as they wish?

Does it do any harm in the long term? Have world politics and conditions been effected by what Hoagland or Greer or any of the others you call lunatics says?

BTW we frown on name calling around here


The really silly thing is that YOU are wasting your time... because as Clickfoot said... you couldn't tell us even IF for some odd reason an IT liaison at a foreign embassy would in some way be made privy to abovetopsecret military business.

Perhaps if you said you were ex NAVY and made that claim.... but then you would have to lie.... and I have yet to meet a NAVY person that has lied to me...








[edit on 18-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot
There is no question that "secret stuff" is out there. For what purpose, I have no idea. But the point is that neither you, Jim, nor Wes, would be able to tell us what this stuff is even if you knew - and more to the point - I seriously doubt that either of you WOULD know, even if you DID still work for NASA.

So while it's always interesting to hear your points of view, I don't believe that either of you can tell us, with any authority, that it's all "bunk".


Please note that Wes specifically excluded secret satellites and experimental aircraft from his "bunk" statement.

That said I doubt any one person knows about all the secret programs in place, maybe a few people do but not many. I'm sure Wes would admit there are secret satellites he doesn't know about. However the existence of those satellites doesn't negate the logistical issues he mentioned regarding resource requirements for launches related to a secret space program.

I found the podcast by Wes excellent and when I saw Wes posting in this thread to follow up on his interview, that was a pleasant surprise. It was also nice to have the show hosts posting here, until some people started running them off.

Yes ATS is a conspiracy site so it's the place to talk about such ideas. But just like 95% of all UFO sightings are usually identifiable with enough research, 95% of the threads on UFOs are likewise not that remarkable. So that leaves us 5% of UFO sightings that are interesting, and 5% of threads on ATS that are credible, interesting topics, and IMO this thread is one of those 5%.

I don't understand why some people see the need to make "shell-tapping" posts to a guy who is doing UFO research like Wes, and to people hosting paranormal shows like Jeremy V and Jeff R, making these high quality contributors want to leave the thread. Yes Jim Oberg is an excellent contributor too who is harder to run off but not many people want to put up with as much abuse as he'll take and I don't blame them.

So please I ask my fellow ATSers, don't run off the high quality contributors in this thread when there are over 26,000 other threads you can post in about all the other UFO topics you want.

I'd personally like to thank Jeremy V, Jeff R, and Wes O for the great podcast on Paratopia, and for following up here with more interesting information. Some people like me really appreciate all of your efforts to bring some credibility to the UFO and paranormal fields.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please note that Wes specifically excluded secret satellites and experimental aircraft from his "bunk" statement.


Yes I noticed that...

So how can he make that disclaimer and make his stance that there is no secret space program?





That said I doubt any one person knows about all the secret programs in place, maybe a few people do but not many. I'm sure Wes would admit there are secret satellites he doesn't know about.


I doubt it... kinda goes against his premise




However the existence of those satellites doesn't negate the logistical issues he mentioned regarding resource requirements for launches related to a secret space program.


That would require complete knowledge of all other possible sources of resources. IF there was a base on the Moon, then you also have ISRU resources in abundance



It was also nice to have the show hosts posting here, until some people started running them off.


Well Jeff Ritzmann is a permanent fixture around here
And I may not agree with his views, but I have never seen him run away from a fight




Yes ATS is a conspiracy site so it's the place to talk about such ideas. But just like 95% of all UFO sightings are usually identifiable with enough research, 95% of the threads on UFOs are likewise not that remarkable. So that leaves us 5% of UFO sightings that are interesting, and 5% of threads on ATS that are credible, interesting topics, and IMO this thread is one of those 5%.


Well marvelous... but all we have is one man's opinion that there is nothing going on
and I can find you other people that worked for NASA in some capacity that state the opposite... and that too is merely opinion because neither side has the proof



I don't understand why some people see the need to make "shell-tapping" posts to a guy who is doing UFO research like Wes,


Because by his own admission his UFO research already has concluded that any Aliens are BUNK... what kind of 'research' is it when you start out with a preconceived notion?



and to people hosting paranormal shows like Jeremy V and Jeff R, making these high quality contributors want to leave the thread.


Works for me
Jeremy came in attacking every one he could name as being a nutcase... Wes calls them all lunatics... and Jeff... well I wonder why John is no longer around...

I have no respect for someone who starts slinging mud before they even say their piece. Why can they not simply make their case without resorting to character assassination of those they don't agree with? If calling them out on that offends them TOUGH... they can dish it out but run for cover when its tossed back...




Yes Jim Oberg is an excellent contributor too who is harder to run off but not many people want to put up with as much abuse as he'll take and I don't blame them.


That's because Jim knows the score... and even he has lost his cool once in a while...and had posts deleted... it happens... even to me

but when someone starts off insulting the opposition, then telling you everything you believe in is BUNK and a waste of time, then adds a disclaimer that they can't speak about secret projects...

Well sir... that person just painted a target on his forehead and backside





So please I ask my fellow ATSers, don't run off the high quality contributors in this thread when there are over 26,000 other threads you can post in about all the other UFO topics you want.


Phage is a high quality contributor who is on the opposite side of my fense (most of the time) How is someone who says what most here believe in is bunk and not worth the time to research a 'high quality contributor'?

Why just because he says what YOU believe and used to work for NASA? How about Ed Mitchell? Is he high quality? He used to work for NASA... yet I see the skeptics calling him an old fool for speaking out...



I'd personally like to thank Jeremy V, Jeff R, and Wes O for the great podcast on Paratopia, and for following up here with more interesting information. Some people like me really appreciate all of your efforts to bring some credibility to the UFO and paranormal fields.


Credibility... from an ex-NASA guy with no proof calling it all bunk
Uh huh yup I can see that working





[edit on 19-9-2009 by zorgon]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please note that Wes specifically excluded secret satellites and experimental aircraft from his "bunk" statement.

I'm aware of this - note my reply was to a comment made by Jim. The point stands in either case, however. Just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it isn't there.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't understand why some people see the need to make "shell-tapping" posts to a guy who is doing UFO research like Wes, and to people hosting paranormal shows like Jeremy V and Jeff R, making these high quality contributors want to leave the thread.

I'd just like to make it clear I wasn't doing that



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Some of the secret space stuff includes press reports that the DoD tested a small 'inspector satellite' out in 24-hour orbit, which is indeed a potential prototype satellite attacker. Those stories are within range of known technology and more, are in the scope of potential missions in support of existing DoD needs. They are plausible.

The NMD missile defense office also has a satellite about to be launched for testing high-precision missile tracking from space, a critical function of an enhanced missile defense net. That's also a stepwise advance of weapons-related research for space.

None of these types of missions are surprising or inherently 'bunk'.

What is bunk is the kind of claim that asserts that operational space-to-space combat nets have been in operation for decades (a la Corso et al), or that the US has decided to deploy any system with any such capability.

The serious nature of such groundless accusations is that Moscow reads the stories too, and uses the rumors as public justifications for developing its own 'response' to these phantom programs, and the NY Times reports the Russian position as 'understandable and justified'.

And then we move beyond idle speculation, debate, and recreational name calling, into activities that feed back into real decision making. by lifelong paranoids in power, about building and deploying real hardware that can realy break things. And then it's time to get afraid, very afraid.




[edit on 19-9-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The United States has already significantly weaponized space. I'm not speculating, I know. We have both nuclear and small scale kinetic-impactor type weapons.

Some have been launched as publicly known classified cargo such as when you hear about this or that rocket launched today carrying undisclosed military hardware, others have been launched as part of commercial satellites.

There is nothing up there that is significantly high-tech such as high power lasers or death rays (lol).....at least during the time I gained my knowledge, since then I have no idea what could be up there) And I know of no space-to-space combat systems or anything crazy like that.

How anyone could sit here and even debate that we wouldn't have already weaponized space even in the most basic way has their head in the sand. The ultimate high ground has been the goal for more than one country for some time now. I don't give two craps about the rules or treaties........it's done.

It is my understanding that a nuclear launch from outer space, they way the system works, is undetectable except for a brief time actually during the re-entry phase before it again drops from anything other than IR tracking. The platforms can't even be tracked as space junk by any current method (that either we have or they have at the time).

[edit on 19-9-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

There is nothing up there that is significantly high-tech such as high power lasers or death rays (lol).....at least during the time I gained my knowledge, since then I have no idea what could be up there) And I know of no space-to-space combat systems or anything crazy like that.



Things may have changed...




Now look closely at that satellite at the top right:



Does it Look Familiar?





Well it might... This image was taken from during the secret shuttle Mission STS-44 launched November 24, 1991 - It was a DoD space mission.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please note that Wes specifically excluded secret satellites and experimental aircraft from his "bunk" statement.

Yes I noticed that...
So how can he make that disclaimer and make his stance that there is no secret space program?

However the existence of those satellites doesn't negate the logistical issues he mentioned regarding resource requirements for launches related to a secret space program.

That would require complete knowledge of all other possible sources of resources. IF there was a base on the Moon, then you also have ISRU resources in abundance


If your theories have addressed all the resource requirements satisfactorily in your opinion then you can certainly feel those concerns have been resolved. All I was doing is agreeing with Wes that there are in fact large resource requirements.




I don't understand why some people see the need to make "shell-tapping" posts to a guy who is doing UFO research like Wes,


Because by his own admission his UFO research already has concluded that any Aliens are BUNK... what kind of 'research' is it when you start out with a preconceived notion?


Wes, if you are still around, that does translate into an interesting question for you. You are obviously interested in UFOs since you are still doing UFO research. Do you consider the possibility that any of the UFOs you research could possibly be extraterrestrial in origin?



Phage is a high quality contributor who is on the opposite side of my fense (most of the time) How is someone who says what most here believe in is bunk and not worth the time to research a 'high quality contributor'?

Why just because he says what YOU believe and used to work for NASA? How about Ed Mitchell? Is he high quality? He used to work for NASA... yet I see the skeptics calling him an old fool for speaking out...


Granted, we all have our own set of filters on what is possible, probable, and likely. Since none of us have all the facts on all the classified projects, we do have to rely on those filters sometimes instead of facts. How we construct our "reality filters" has a lot to do with our background, experience, education, outlook, and a number of other factors. I don't know if anyone has the perfect set of "reality filters" including me, but we all have them in whatever state they are. Then what each of us do is apply those filters to the statements of indivuduals. My reality filter doesn't include any set of assumptions that because somebody did or did not work for NASA, their credibility is higher or lower on topics outside of what they specifically worked on at NASA. My filter does include the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evicence" clause in my signature and elaborated upon here: skeptico.blogs.com...
I think people who exclude that particular clause from their personal set of reality filters do so at their own peril.

An extraordinary claim may still be "unknown" even if it can't be proven true with extraordinary evidence. That's how I see the ET UFO claim. I certainly think it's possible some UFOs could be ET in origin and that's one reason I have an interest in them. So my interpretation of Wes's statement about alien "bunk" was a reference to stories like we've already captured aliens and are secretly working with them for example. I think there are cases where we've heard extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, so I would conclude those cases are not proven true, and to be generous, at best, "unknown". I can't say for sure they are completely false, and in fact there do seem to be some elements of truth woven into some of the various extraordinary stories.

So the reason I see anyone as a "high quality contributor" is based partly on to what degree their statements pass my own personal reality filter (with all its flaws and imperfections, though at least I constantly try to re-evaluate and improve the filters). I am also willing to entertain ideas beyond my present reality filter, for example while I agree with Wes that it takes a lot of resources to conduct a launch, if somebody else says they know where the resources are coming from, that are sources Wes is not aware of, I would examine their evidence for that and either revise my beliefs or not, based on the evidence. If that evidence proves to be true, I would consider that person to be an even higher quality contributor for having changed my set of assumptions in my "reality filter".


Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
There is nothing up there that is significantly high-tech such as high power lasers or death rays (lol).....at least during the time I gained my knowledge, since then I have no idea what could be up there) And I know of no space-to-space combat systems or anything crazy like that.


You obviously know way more than I do about it, interesting post! All I know is there are secret satellites but I don't really know their capabilities or function.

What I have read though, is that decades ago the US and USSR began notifying each other about launches because every launch could be detected, and we wanted to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings that might lead to WWIII. Therefore, whenever we launch something into orbit with a conventional rocket, I feel pretty confident Russia knows about it.

Could we be launching things into orbit with a non-rocket technology like spaceshipone? If the private sector can do it why not something coming out of skunkworks/area 51? If the military doesn't have that technology yet, I'd be surprised if we weren't working on it. And is such an alternative launch system also detectable? I think it would have to possess stealth capabilities that spaceshipone does not possess to avoid detection.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Things may have changed...

Very interesting


Hadn't seen that one. Got any more?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
The United States has already significantly weaponized space. I'm not speculating, I know. We have both nuclear and small scale kinetic-impactor type weapons....

It is my understanding that a nuclear launch from outer space, they way the system works, is undetectable except for a brief time actually during the re-entry phase before it again drops from anything other than IR tracking. The platforms can't even be tracked as space junk by any current method (that either we have or they have at the time).


And this information came to you in a dream, or something? These things are radar shielded and cloaked and invisible but can drop a nuclear warhead on any target within minutes? Do they have some sort of anti-gravity engine, then?

Without some checkable evidence, don't expect anybody to take your claims seriously.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Well it might... This image was taken from during the secret shuttle Mission STS-44 launched November 24, 1991 - It was a DoD space mission.


If it was so secret, how did you get the photo?

Exubie, are you saying that what everyone else sees as an optics shroud for a missile tracking detector, you see as a ray gun barrel? This is priceless!!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Exubie, are you saying that what everyone else sees as an optics shroud for a missile tracking detector, you see as a ray gun barrel? This is priceless!!




Ray Gun?

Hardly.

Nevertheless in the Vision for Space 2020, an identical satellite shown acting in support of a weapons system.

This was an unclassified launch for the department of Defense. The payload included a Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite:




The Defense Support Program (DSP) is a program of the U.S. Air Force that operates the reconnaissance satellites which form the principal component of the Satellite Early Warning System currently used by the United States.

DSP satellites, which are operated by the Air Force Space Command, detect missile or spacecraft launches and nuclear explosions using sensors that detect the infrared emissions from these intense sources of heat. During Desert Storm, for example, DSP was able to detect the launches of Iraqi Scud missiles and provide timely warnings to civilians and military forces in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

en.wikipedia.org...


The satellite is for all intents and purposes identical to that shown in the Vision for Space 2020 - and in that paper, the satellite is shown acting in conjunction with other weapons systems. Due the nature of mission and the role this satellite in the Space 2020 paper, one should not be blamed for interpreting this mission as a show of force.

This satellite is not one of your "ray guns" but nevertheless it could be used to coordinate strikes with such weapons (i.e. Lasers)


Ray Guns...



*Here's a suggestive image for you to regard. Note the target:




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by JimOberg


And this information came to you in a dream, or something? These things are radar shielded and cloaked and invisible but can drop a nuclear warhead on any target within minutes? Do they have some sort of anti-gravity engine, then?

Without some checkable evidence, don't expect anybody to take your claims seriously.


No sir, no dream. I personally worked on a small part of a related project, my father worked for a defense contractor that handled certain aspects, and another one of my family members was/is still involved with it in one way or another I hear (don't speak to them on a regular basis anymore).

Are they radar shielded and cloaked? Yes. Not in the manner that you would immediately expect or be familiar with, but it is actually fairly ingenious in my opinion. As for the time on target and what happens with an enemy's ability to track once it hits atmosphere I have no details on, at least none that I understand and I only had casual conversation about that part while working with another contractor on another project around the same time.

I actually could, if I wanted to, provide evidence to my claims, but of course I don't want to
Some on here know me, and also know I wouldn't spit stuff like this out casually. I'm not given to many wacko and out there stuff, and I have a reputation around here with the tin-foil hat crowd to be some sort of prude who sounds like a broken record at times when it comes to my disbelief of 99.996% of the claims on here.

Like I said before, none of this stuff is "out there" advanced tech now, well a couple things are but I have even seen some of it start to filter down to standard industry (aerospace industry so far I have seen). It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to see how this stuff is up there.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join