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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I thought the point was to bring cargo from lunar orbit to Earth orbit, deliver it, then return empty. Didn't you read what you quoted?


Sorry read your post wrong, thought you had it the other way. Yup glad you agree.. bringing the cargo FROM the moon


Yup that would be downhill as it were with the empty trip being the uphill

Works out good huh?




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Sure. Another one of those patent ideas that work great on paper and don't require any outlay on the part of the holder but will reap benefits for them on the off chance it's ever done.

Published in 1992. I doubt any of the shuttles will be spaceworthy by the time He3 mining is undertaken though. Butterfield may have been a little overoptimistic.

[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Published in 1992. I doubt any of the shuttles will be spaceworthy by the time He3 mining is undertaken though. Butterfield may have been a little overoptimistic.


Well the QUESTION was

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Was there any consideration ever?


I would say that the patent is a definite "YES It has been considered"

You really do need to pay attention


Besides the 'shuttle' in the patent is not the rust bucket we have now, but the smaller one some people here are working on


Since when does the NASA barge have wingtips like these?



[edit on 25-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Besides the 'shuttle' in the patent is not the rust bucket we have now, but the smaller one some people here are working on


Oh, I see. Then they weren't considering using the existing shuttles as Skeptical Ed asked after all. You just kinda threw that in there, sort of a red herring so to speak.

[edit on 9/25/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   


[edit on 25-9-2009 by Kim Jong-il]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage sort of a red herring so to speak.


Well Ed uses pictures of lions at a zoo to debunk NASA UFO's
but speaking of fish...

How can NASA find water on the moon if there is no atmosphere?



[edit on 25-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
apparantly Wes Owsley has his own podcast now



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
www.theblackfridays.net...

talking about all kinds of stuff but not space related yet.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
delete
edit on 24/11/10 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
(snip)
Remember Ken Johnston issue with Enterprise mission? Jim Oberg traced that down...
(snip)


Let me shed some unknown info on the Ken Johnston situation. From threads at Unexplained Mysteries in Oct. 2007:
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
Oberg: Deliberate Alteration Of Lunar Photos!, Claims by a "Former NASA 'test astronaut'"
SkepticalEd
Group: Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 4-August 06
From: NYC
Member No.: 39833

Here ya go, Jim, your request has been fulfilled (from another thread). There's more at the website but I only copied this "teaser" paragraph. I expect you to locate this Ken Johnston Sr., communicate with him and see if he will "confess" to his claimed deeds and perhaps he'll provide samples of altered photos. And, if it's true, then I also expect you to take NASA on and initiate an open investigation, exposing all connected with it.

www.lunaranomalies.com...
"Former NASA "test astronaut" Ken Johnston Sr. was also at the Scottsdale Seminars. Among his considerable list of credentials was his work at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston, during the Apollo era, where he was a "photo documentation supervisor." Ken reported that, during his tenure at the LRL, he personally witnessed the deliberate alteration and changing of photography returned from the Moon! At Scottsdale, he related the specifics of the 'erasure' of horizon areas on key Apollo photos. Well, Ken, they didn't erase them all!"
----------
Oberg: "Thanks for drawing attention to him, Ed."
Oberg: "I was asking (emailing) around old friends at NASA about Johnston based on Ed's citing him,"



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike


Got any of those altered pics?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Got any of those altered pics?


Bara/Hoagland altered their book that mentioned Johnston to remove their false claim he was a jet pilot, but still insist falsely he was head of the photo archives. Actually, he was a shipping clerk who sent out moon rock samples [an honorable task he performed well] and had been given his own set of Apollo photos for reference -- he and about 500 other moonrock workers each had their own sets. When the mailing work was done, they were told to clear their shelves for new tasks. He gave his set to his university, which soon afterwards lost it. Big deal.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by The Shrike
Got any of those altered pics?
I used to defend NASA and say they don't alter pics other than contrast, hue, and similar edits that don't alter the content of the image.

Zorgon I don't know if you saw this or not, but since they had this photoshopped image on their website in February 2010, and replaced it with a non-photoshopped image as soon as the discussion was raised on ATS, I don't claim their web images are unaltered anymore:



I don't defend NASA anymore by saying they don't photoshop images, obviously they do, and very poorly at that, as seen in the area just to the upper right of the flag.

NASA replied in an e-mail they "believe that the negative for that image probably has a large scratch in that area" but they don't even sound like they are too sure about why they edited the image when using words like "believe" and "probably". But the guy who edited the image may not even work there anymore so he might not be around to ask. You'd think they could at least check the negative though, but that's probably a lot harder to do than it is to say.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But since they were able to quickly replace the photoshopped image with one that is unscratched, you wonder why they didn't just use the unscratched image in the first place, instead of photoshopping the scratched image? I can't understand it.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


to maintain the b/w lunar myth?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by The Shrike


Got any of those altered pics?



And, pray tell, where would I have been able to get the altered pics from? I've never seen altered pic that hid something that would change the course of history. Perhaps NASA needed to make a photo more presentable because of the medium they started working with which was film subject to scratches, emulsion problems, etc. But they did publish photos with those problems except now those problems are paraded as signs of "alien structures/anomalies".

From the beginning of my interest in such claims in the early '80s I challenged anyone to show a before and after photo showing alien anomalies and structures. No one has yet to show them. The present crop of photos mainly from Clementine showing what look like purposeful blurring do not convince me. Digital files seem to be blur-prone. Besides, some have already found the same areas which show nothing but natural features.

No one has yet to put their money where their mouth is. Not John Lear, not Hoagland, not Pegasus.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
No one has yet to put their money where their mouth is. Not John Lear, not Hoagland, not Pegasus.




And, pray tell, where would I have been able to get the altered pics from?


Kinda answered your own dilemma didn't you?




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join