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.

 

NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Why is it that when a really good picture/video pops up from NASA or any other agency

NASA & Debunkers using NASA's made up BS lies always pass of what they cannot explain as a simple artifact and everybody has to move along because its simply impossible to be anything else, especially not a UFO oh no it can't be, for we are alone in the Galaxy and the oldest civilization in the universe, lol yeah sure, hey LOOK look over there

The truth is, the artifact is now the new swamp gas, its nothing but a protocol to tar and discredit anything that they do not understand or do not want you to know, or investigate, we all know what a camera artifact looks like but hey you've been told by a very trustworthy government organisation so it must be true, i hear people all the time say hmm well it seems like a plausible/good enough explanation so i'll go with that

Here is a really good example of the artifact lie, and the implications of listening to NASA's lies

Columbia Disaster

This is an artifact according to NASA

Admin Note: Image removed at request of copyright owner. Please DO NOT post images you don't own on ATS, post a link to the owner's page displaying it.

An artifact brilliant, can't explain it... call it an artifact... nothing to see move along

If you would all like to go to 39:00 minutes into this documentary




If it wasn't for this investigation, and believing in NASA's BS artifact case closed lies, we would have NEVER have found out about the many different forms of lighting and sprites, you see Debunking and listing to clear BS never get us anywhere so please don't ever let these closed minded outright liars ever distract you from investigating or believing

Because as in this case one days it will come back and bite them in the arse, and lets be honest its not like we have a lack of evidence to investigate...
edit on 25-7-2013 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-25-2013 by Springer because: Removed copyrighted image




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


So since NASA says nothing here move along, if they are lying what exactly is this.....thing?

If you can prove it is what you say it is, then you can claim NASA lied......Until then, how is this not a case of nothing here move along?

I guess this is the opened case of the purple squiggly....



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Dunno about liars, but I do know about thieves, and it looks like the OP is acting like one.

The photograph shown is copyrighted by Peter Goldie, who made it. Its use on the Internet is unauthorized, he tells me.

Unless you got permission -- please specify that you did, if so.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


The really sad and also hilarious thing about your post is; Artifacts, window reflections, and other such ARE indeed kinda like swamp gas, but, not like you think they are.
They ARE swamp gas in the respect that ignorant people are entirely too willing to accept something ordinary known, and mundane that they're unfamiliar with as being something magical to be oooo'd, aaahhh'd, goshed over, and ranted about.
All the oh so world wise Hilbillies aren't out in the back pasture oggling at natural gas collections and other random meteorological phenomenon to gawk at and hoot and holler over any more.
Nope, those sage and oh so wise hayseeds are on the internet watching youtube and actively looking for UFOs in space pictures, and everywhere else they might think they could maybe find something to make some noise over.
Yeeehaw, paw, I found me one!

A lot of these things are often replicated in demonstrations of exactly how they're made or happen on cameras or with cameras, but, Nooooooooooo, that's unacceptable because something so normal and easy to happen like a trick of light on a lens is entirely improbable compared to magical people flying around the vastness of an entire universe just to be accidentally picked up on some chance camera way off in some average galaxy, somewhere at the far end of one of the arms, around a tiny little nowhere rocky world, out of out of over 500 billion galaxies each with anywhere from 300 - 700 Billion stars.

No one is denying the probability of life existing SOMEWHERE in the vastness of the universe, posibly even somewhere in our own galaxy. Visiting us though?
It's a little bit ridiculous when you factor in the distances and how much time there's been in the universe compared to how much of a very tiny fraction of time we've actually been around.


edit on 25-7-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
No question the image is weird.

But here's how the grownups figured it out:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Read, learn. grow wiser, and less accusatory.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein


reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


So since NASA says nothing here move along, if they are lying what exactly is this.....thing?

If you can prove it is what you say it is, then you can claim NASA lied......Until then, how is this not a case of nothing here move along?

I guess this is the opened case of the purple squiggly....



What you on about its BEEN proven

Go and read the post again lol

It proves NASA originally called the image an artifact and tried to discredit the lighting theory as an artifact, after investigation it was proven not to be an artifact and NASA got caught out LYING through the investigation leading to the findings /confirmation of mega lighting & Sprites & positively charged strikes thought to be impossible just a few years ago

It just goes to show that NASA does in fact have a protocol to explain away everything they do not understand, or don't want you knowing as an artifact,




edit on 25-7-2013 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Dunno about liars, but I do know about thieves, and it looks like the OP is acting like one.

The photograph shown is copyrighted by Peter Goldie, who made it. Its use on the Internet is unauthorized, he tells me.

Unless you got permission -- please specify that you did, if so.


Its on plenty of websites and google

Why has NASA told him to keep it of the net so people are not aware of there LIES jim?


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
F&S Tritonis

for posting this
your first 3 responses show ignorance glorified, as it's obvious from their replies,

that they didn't even watch the video

especially mr oberg's chilling "copyright" threat :shk:

so what if it's copyrighted?
fair use should cover this


edit on 25-7-2013 by TheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
F&S Tritonis

for posting this
your first 3 responses show ignorance glorified, as it's obvious from their replies,

that they didn't even watch the video

especially mr oberg's chilling "copyright" threat :shk:

so what if it's copyrighted?
fair use should cover this


edit on 25-7-2013 by TheMagus because: (no reason given)


Maybe i should have took more time explaining for others but it was a rush post i should be shopping for a Pram


But stumbled on this last night and jumped out of bed smiling thinking HA artifact

Then the huge discovery's made because of this picture changed everything, and so will be the case on UFO's

What i'm trying to say is NASA clearly has a protocol for explain away the unknown, so it is absolutely obvious they LIE and not just a little but ALOT to the public

So we must ask ... WHY?

We all know why that is because you don't need to know, and you can't handle the truth





especially mr oberg's chilling "copyright" threat :shk:


Yeah i wonder who Jim works for



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Maybe i should have took more time explaining for others but it was a rush post i should be shopping for a Pram



Have you ever seen a shuttle fireball reentry? Have you ever even read the account of witnesses who described what it looks like? Spectacular isn't adequate to describe it.

BTW Peter Goldie, who owns the photograph, will be delighted to instruct you -- and ATS -- in the subtleties of copyright law and the enforcement mechanisms behind it. Be sure to provide him with your real name and address.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
so what if it's copyrighted?
fair use should cover this


Be sure to give Mr. Goldie's lawyer your real name and address, if you wish to testify as a legal expert.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TheMagus
so what if it's copyrighted?
fair use should cover this


Be sure to give Mr. Goldie's lawyer your real name and address, if you wish to testify as a legal expert.


ROFL! in other words: Mr. Goldie and his lawyer[s], are just an empty threat, unless I, the OP,

and ATS [if you choose to drag them into this] help you with the witch hunt by providing ourselves as willing victims

you'll find such cooperation wanting I'm afraid


more proof of the existence of a Thought Police


actions speak louder than words

authoritarianism has no place in science or any other path of seeking knowledge

only politics


and in the end, it's your reputation/credibility that suffers here with this kind of behavior . :shk:



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
To get some reality back into the argument, please read www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Dunno about liars, but I do know about thieves, and it looks like the OP is acting like one.

The photograph shown is copyrighted by Peter Goldie, who made it. Its use on the Internet is unauthorized, he tells me.

Unless you got permission -- please specify that you did, if so.


Perhaps the Op didn't know who copyrighted the photo. If it's already all over the internet then I'd say shame on Peter for not protecting his product properly. It becomes fair use just like any image in the mainstream media.

It's just like the music publishers who say No you cant copy my song but they publish that song in a format which is easily copied. Shame on them for being Stupid. You do the thing in a stupid way ( make a photo without correct watermark or song thats easily copyable ) , it gets passed around the internet and you have no one but yourself to blame


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
No question the image is weird.

But here's how the grownups figured it out:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Read, learn. grow wiser, and less accusatory.


Condescending egotistical - wow Jim - Really.. Get a clue man.

I thought it was against ATS rules to flaunt your own website.....

What makes you any different then anyone else? Nothing.
edit on 25-7-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
This is an interesting read on the "objectivity" of Jim Oberg: Leslie Kean vs. Jim Oberg

This is not a small matter; on the contrary, it is extremely important to point out how delusional and irrational people like Jim are. They can influence the uneducated and the fence-sitters, if left unchecked by those who know better.

My advice: Never forget the difference between a skeptic and a debunker.
edit on 25-7-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
. If it's already all over the internet then I'd say shame on Peter for not protecting his product properly. It becomes fair use just like any image in the mainstream media. ...


Well, it's been awhile since I checked, and it sure does look like it really is "all over". I quickly found a dozen with a Google image search.

So.... granted, a naive user could have reasonably assumed it was 'public property'.

But it's not, and let me get the documentation on that, to show you.

And I hope you never create anything original, so you don't risk having it stolen and then getting yourself blamed for the theft. Jeez, show a little compassion for intellectual property rights, will yuh?



edit on 25-7-2013 by JimOberg because: update



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


ETA: The following is in regards to NASA in general, I do understand that your specific reference was indeed them wanting to say something different than the truth.

You don't believe them why?

You didn't provide any evidence to counter what NASA advised did you? Any photo analysis? Expert opinions?

No?

What we have in today's day and age is a group of believers, who don't actually have any of the necessary knowledge to make declarative statements about what is and what is not, truth when it comes to matters of space.

The reason that I believe NASA when they say these things, is because nobody else can actually prove them wrong. If they were lying, well you'd think that at least one person with the technical know how would go a. and show you.

Not through some shady imaging program that just changes the colors either.

You claim NASA's explanation is a lie, I challenge you to provide the adequate research and inform that would prove that statement.

Otherwise, it's a personal opinion and although you have the right to those, you don't have the right to your own facts.

~Tenth
edit on 7/25/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
What makes you any different then anyone else? Nothing.


Read the advisory and check the links, and you will see the difference. On topics in this field, I know what i'm talking about and have the verifiable evidence to back it up. The OP doesn't.

ADD: And I'm the only guy you'll ever meet who actually is in contact with the photographer, Peter Goldie. So yes, I'd say that suggests both the facts and interpretations I present on this specific subject are of a different quality than that of the OP. Sorry if that offends your sense of 'fair play'. Live with it.
edit on 25-7-2013 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Jeez, show a little compassion for intellectual property rights, will yuh?


Nope I won't. Not until people start protecting their IP properly. People want their cake and to eat it too - can't have that too much room for abuse.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join