NASA Artifacts explanation is a LIE

Here's Goldie's own memoir of the photo for the tenth anniversary:

www.rawstory.com...

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

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.

John, please read Goldie's memoir [linked above] and tell me what he did wrong -- or why his expectations were wrong.

BTW he just emailed me he's not going to sue anybody:

Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:35 AM [cdt]

Maybe once a year when I'm bored I send out cease and desist letters to these crackpots. It's usually a waste of time, there is no protection to the copyright without expensive litigation and of course it is very annoying to read that I am a victim, stooge, or collaborator to a massive government cover-up.

Originally posted by Son of Will
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)

[SNIP]

Why jump on me so aggressively for pointing out THE OBVIOUS?

The fact NASA discredited this image as an artifact shows they either have closed minded dummies in there organisation or they have an AGENDA to discredit the unknown as artifacts, every single great NASA smoking gun is in the DEBUNKED section and listed as an ARTIFACT

delve in guys because there all dirty stinking LIES

They don't know what they're, or they don't want you to know because UFO'S don't exist and neither did Sprites or mega lighting up until a few years ago

@Jim

www.thunderbolts.info...

www.columbiadisaster.info...




Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This 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.

Point is sonny Jim

NASA Should say LOUD & CLEAR

WE DO NOT KNOW

But instead it chooses to lie & mislead the public, "nothing to see here" and then labels everything unknown to them as an artifact

Clearly NASA is covering up the existence of UFO's hell even there astronauts have come forward and said they have witnessed explainable sightings, Why are these not being investigated?

NASA new full well the purple cork screw image wasn't an artifact, but they still chose to lie to the people who pay taxes to fund the organisation,

Outright LIARS

Originally posted by Son of Will
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. [

Happy to compare Kean's rebuttal to my original article -- read it TOO, please, and the links with the evidence supporting it. They are linkied from HER article.

Note also a very characteristic feature of this general debate:

My article's title raises issues about Kean's book. That's the object of attention.

Kean's article's title raises issues about me personally. Anyone who makes THAT the object of attention, rather than the issues under consideration, IMHO isn't playing fair.

But by all means read my arguments and documentation.

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
..... Clearly NASA is covering up the existence of UFO's hell even there astronauts have come forward and said they have witnessed explainable sightings, Why are these not being investigated?

NASA new full well the purple cork screw image wasn't an artifact, but they still chose to lie to the people who pay taxes to fund the organisation,

....

We all produce typos when overexcited, it helps to re-read calmly, especially when you type "explainable " when I think you meant to type "UNexplainable" . We can figure out what you are trying to say.

By the way, NASA officials have indeed been known to lie, and I'm the guy who has called them out on it over the years. I walked out of my day job there in Houston in 1997 to blow the whistle before a Congressional committee about safety culture decay -- but although it meant leaving NASA, I couldn't save the 'Columbia' crew.

There are no lies involved in this photo analysis, as far as I can determine. As you learn more of the facts, you can turn your enthusiasm to more productive avenues of probing and penetration. As of now you're wasting your time, our time, and helping any genuine official misleaders dismiss ALL criticism as "whacko" [which they actually did, in a press release criticizing one of my news articles about the Mars fleet debacle, aimed by name at me].

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
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?

~Tenth

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

Because they have been caught lying on previous explanations, and label everything as an artifact that looks interesting and nothing like an artifact of any kind, all the pictures in the world doesn't have nearly as many artifacts as NASA's archive, its obvious there is a protocol to explain them away as artifacts for the simple jacks of the world, but it doesn't fool everyone and the UFO community continues to grow tenfold

You didn't provide any evidence to counter what NASA advised did you? Any photo analysis? Expert opinions? No?

I provided all anybody needs to know to see that NASA lies, of course alot more research on the skeptics part is needed in this thread but i did put it in the UFO forum where people would have the basics already

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.

Does that make it acceptable to label them as artifacts? and deliberately lie to the public?

NASA plays dumb until proven wrong,

I'm sure its only a matter of time till they're proven wrong again but i'm sure they'll keep wasting tax payers money to hide it from them until that day comes covering up the truth labeling everything as an artifact

The reason that I believe NASA when they say these things, is because nobody else can actually prove them wrong.

This video says you're lying and so was NASA

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.

I have explained that a few times in this thread

Watch the video and get back to me

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
..... Clearly NASA is covering up the existence of UFO's hell even there astronauts have come forward and said they have witnessed explainable sightings, Why are these not being investigated?

NASA new full well the purple cork screw image wasn't an artifact, but they still chose to lie to the people who pay taxes to fund the organisation,

....

We all produce typos when overexcited, it helps to re-read calmly, especially when you type "explainable " when I think you meant to type "UNexplainable" . We can figure out what you are trying to say.

By the way, NASA officials have indeed been known to lie, and I'm the guy who has called them out on it over the years. I walked out of my day job there in Houston in 1997 to blow the whistle before a Congressional committee about safety culture decay -- but although it meant leaving NASA, I couldn't save the 'Columbia' crew.

There are no lies involved in this photo analysis, as far as I can determine. As you learn more of the facts, you can turn your enthusiasm to more productive avenues of probing and penetration. As of now you're wasting your time, our time, and helping any genuine official misleaders dismiss ALL criticism as "whacko" [which they actually did, in a press release criticizing one of my news articles about the Mars fleet debacle, aimed by name at me].

NASA Called it a ghost in the machine an artifact

It wasn't

So does NASA call everything under investigation an artifact?

Is this standard procedures Jim?

To LIE?

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

NASA Called it a ghost in the machine an artifact

It wasn't

So does NASA call everything under investigation an artifact?

Is this standard procedures Jim?

To LIE?

Actually, I think 'ghost in the machine' was in the script of the TV show. I saw no evidence NASA ever used that phrase.

You've got to stop being so careless with what you are SURE are 'facts', but aren't.

Can you demonstrate that you even have adequate understanding of the NORMAL shuttle reentry phenomena, before trying to promote an abnormal theory?

Have you ever watched a shuttle entry fireball, as the photographer Goldie had [from SF], and I have [from Houston], and thousands of other amateur observers across the US and Central America? Do you have the slightest clue what it looks like, or are you just hollywoodizing what you imagine it OUGHT to look like?

This is a serious question. Please give us insight into your background knowledge of this phenomenon.

Have you read my linked advisory? Have you read Goldie's linked 10th anniversary story?

Please, let us know the knowledge base on which you have erected this hypothesis.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

NASA Called it a ghost in the machine an artifact

It wasn't

So does NASA call everything under investigation an artifact?

Is this standard procedures Jim?

To LIE?

Actually, I think 'ghost in the machine' was in the script of the TV show. I saw no evidence NASA ever used that phrase.

Ghost in the machine is the same thing as artifact Jim lol

Stop trying to steer me of my rail old boy,

NASA ask for the pictures, and then forbided them to be published while investigating the artifact

Then discredited the purple corkscrew as an artifact

Seems to me like NASA has a protocol to deal with the unknown, and intentionally misleads the public unless they have the money & time to challenge there explanation

Never A Strait Answer

Seems it never left you

Click here for more information.

This photo shows at least two stars and the power lines

NASA claimed it was camera vibrations during a long-exposure... an artifact

A still image taken from California was submitted to NASA by a member of the public. A superficial look at the image suggested that it might record an anomalous re-entry event that was claimed to be lightning striking the Orbiter. Our analysis suggested that the pattern was due to camera vibrations during a long-exposure. A separate upper atmospheric scientific team also investigated the image. The results of those analyses are being reported separately.

While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line

It looks to me like someone high up in NASA or higher did not want this anomaly investigated or any other interesting anomaly. they do the same thing every time something interesting pops up... there MUST be a protocol that is followed to throw of the sheeple,

The original images have never been made public WHY? if its just an artifact what is there to hide? because clearly there is, and clearly its not

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line

Why do you think that would be impossible? Do you have any experience with photography?

Look at this photo I took. It was hand held, long exposure and I used a flash with my other hand. It has lots of light trails yet you can make out every string on his guitar, similar to the power lines in your photo.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by TritonTaranis

While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line

Why do you think that would be impossible? Do you have any experience with photography?

Look at this photo I took. It was hand held, long exposure and I used a flash with my other hand. It has lots of light trails yet you can make out every string on his guitar, similar to the power lines in your photo.

Cool pic bro

Does your picture look anything like the anomalies in this picture ?



NO

reply to post by TritonTaranis


Yes! It has both straight wires and wiggly light trails.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by TritonTaranis

 

Yes! It has both straight wires and wiggly light trails.

It looks nothing alike sorry

reply to post by TritonTaranis


lol

reply to post by JimOberg


Since the photograph was used as an example of some behavioral issue with NASA, and not being used to promote web traffic for advertising revenue or other commercial interests, it should fall under "fair use" laws. and not even require permission from the copyright holder.. I could be wrong though Jim, I have been wrong before..

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
While the purple zig-zag line could be produced by a shaky camera, it would be impossible to get such an image without all the other objects in the image also showing the same pattern of zig-zag motion. such as the stars and power line

That might make sense if every light source in the FOV was of equal brightness. But a much dimmer star, that took 15-20 seconds to even register as a dot, wouldn't be expected to leave a detectable zig-zag in the initial brief shake. Not expected, that is, by anybody who knew anything about photography.

I've asked you about what you know -- if anything -- about the appearance of fireballing shuttle reentries. Can we presume, since you have not answered, that the real answer is zero?

Your sincere belief that you already know enough to have a credible opinion on these themes, seems to be the main obstacle to you actually LEARNING enough to have a useful and credible opinion on these themes. But this is the venue to get knocked about until you realize this, and then when you determine to actually learn about this stuff, here is where you'll find many friends willing to help.