Update: Buzz explains UFO Moon sighting

a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

Thats not how its done!
Any employee with knowledge of sensitive data will have been legally bound to keep there mouth tightly shut. Then all they need to do is employ a few to patrol the forums spreading bs. One of their favorite tactics is to ridicule the poster - see Mr Obergs reply below!

Is there any evidence you have a clue about this, or is it just the way you imagine it ought to be, to make you feel braver and smarter than the astronauts?

SyFy's "Alien Bases on the Moon" is going to be a doozie for the tin foil hat crowd, I hear. Donna Hare is back with amazing new stuff she has "just remembered". Old retreads like Vito Saccheri and his underground corridors beneath Clear Lake, Texas, shows his face. Mike Bara, Richard Hoagland's glowering attack gerbil, pontificates. Even John Walston unveils his secret-design telescope that allows HIM to see all those secret space bases invisible to mere mortals. More fun than the proverbial barrel full.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Then all they need to do is employ a few to patrol the forums spreading bs. One of their favorite tactics is to ridicule the poster

They need to patrol the forums because? How much impact do you think starting a thread like "Alien base on the moon" has on society in general? unfortunately there is an audience for this utter BS that SyFy will cash in on. If the "government" wanted to control this stuff, they would prevent this from airing and just shut down the site. I am sure a paid hacker would be about 5000 times more effective than a Jim Oberg making you look silly. And don't you think he would have been fired by now since his targets have been on to him since, I don't know, the internet existed?

a reply to: MarsIsRed

It was common knowledge, but this reaffirming statement was just this week. (Im thinking he's been getting all kinds of crap like "Did you or did you NOT see a ...." thrown at him.

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: MysterX

Why do you think that the NASA austronauts are under threaths to keep silent about UFOs/aliens? There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is true. Both Gordon Cooper (Project Mercury,the first manned space program) and Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut and the sixth man to walk on the moon) have spoken openly about their conviction that UFOs excist. Google it if you don't believe me.

Or you could listen to what Edgar Mitchell says (and has been saying for many years).

When it comes to UFOs/aliens Edgar Mitchell is not a trusted source. He simply rehashes what he has been told by others, just as big fools. He is not a skeptic, he's a religious man and therefore expouts beliefs. He was a respected astronaut and that's where he ends. He is not an experiencer, he is a re-taler.

originally posted by: JimOberg
SyFy's "Alien Bases on the Moon" is going to be a doozie for the tin foil hat crowd, I hear. Donna Hare is back with amazing new stuff she has "just remembered". Old retreads like Vito Saccheri and his underground corridors beneath Clear Lake, Texas, shows his face. Mike Bara, Richard Hoagland's glowering attack gerbil, pontificates. Even John Walston unveils his secret-design telescope that allows HIM to see all those secret space bases invisible to mere mortals. More fun than the proverbial barrel full.

No doubt that to some of us who want to suffer through the whole presentation without wanting to throw something at the TV, or to shout "Shut the f..k up" when bah!ra sounds off, or just to swear off the topic forever, will have to use the mute function on the remote.

Regarding Walsto (sic - Walson), he shows a lunar natural formation and claimed it was an alien anomaly/construction. I couldn't find the thread with the debunking. Maybe someone else may.

Sounds like an awful show and skeptical, logical minds will fume.

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

Jim Oberg is not known for his silence on UFOs; he doesn't accept their reality and regarding space UFOs will always claim they're ice particles, debris, what have you. So he should not be mentioned as a "paid" denier by NASA. Perhaps one of these days Jim will look up and see a discoidal shape doing non-aerodynamic movements above him and he'll finally accept their reality. But I doubt if he'll tell anyone. Once a reputation is accepted by the public nothing will change their mind.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Jim Oberg is not known for his silence on UFOs; he doesn't accept their reality and regarding space UFOs will always claim they're ice particles, debris, what have you. So he should not be mentioned as a "paid" denier by NASA. Perhaps one of these days Jim will look up and see a discoidal shape doing non-aerodynamic movements above him and he'll finally accept their reality. But I doubt if he'll tell anyone. Once a reputation is accepted by the public nothing will change their mind.

Based on your profound familiarity with my research, how about you tell us all -- sticking to this thread's theme -- how it is in error regarding the Apollo-11 UFO story? All my stuff needs thorough vetting. As does everybody else's.

Where hasn't it stood up to such scrutiny?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Jim Oberg is not known for his silence on UFOs; he doesn't accept their reality and regarding space UFOs will always claim they're ice particles, debris, what have you. So he should not be mentioned as a "paid" denier by NASA. Perhaps one of these days Jim will look up and see a discoidal shape doing non-aerodynamic movements above him and he'll finally accept their reality. But I doubt if he'll tell anyone. Once a reputation is accepted by the public nothing will change their mind.

Based on your profound familiarity with my research, how about you tell us all -- sticking to this thread's theme -- how it is in error regarding the Apollo-11 UFO story? All my stuff needs thorough vetting. As does everybody else's.

Where hasn't it stood up to such scrutiny?

No one, not me anyway, has scrutinized your Apollo 11 "UFO" results and found them wanting. My comments were aimed at countering th2356's comments: "Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success." since I don't accept anyone's assumptions that because you are a die-hard UFO skeptic you've been paid to state others' opinions. On many forums you've been asked to state your opinion re: the reality of UFOs, terrestrial and non-terrestrial and you have never, to my knowledge, stated your opinion. As a natural skeptic who has had many UFO sightings that are above (no pun intended) scrutiny, I understand. But giving credit to stronger-than-circumstancial evidence you could satisfy the curious, which are legion. You are held in that high an opinion.

We're way off theme and I am not the topic under discussion.

originally posted by: JimOberg
We're way off theme and I am not the topic under discussion.

Okay, point well taken.

Has it ever been established, with due diligence, how and who started this "cosmic tale"? And it helps prove that a certain bent of humans, those who follow the UFOs/aliens topic, are mostly believers who will not only accept the latest rumor but will run with it infecting the similar-minded.

I never gave the tale any of my time because, so what? There were never any details that could help one come to a pro-UFO opinion. So if Aldrin is credited with seeing a UFO life did not change one iota and the only change occurred in minds that hungered for this kind of acknowledgement, even though it was an iffy report at the beginning.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Aldrin has been the victim of a conspiracy witch hunt which doesn't say much for the "movement".

originally posted by: Uggielicious



Has it ever been established, with due diligence, how and who started this "cosmic tale"? And it helps prove that a certain bent of humans, those who follow the UFOs/aliens topic, are mostly believers who will not only accept the latest rumor but will run with it infecting the similar-minded.

.....

I originally researched the stories in the late 1970s, wrote several long magazine articles, and converted them into a chapter in my 1982 book, 'UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries'. Among other things I was able to trace the "They're lined up on the rim of the crater watching us' quotation to a Canadian weekly grocery store tabloid in September 1969. I also spent some face-to-face time with George Leonard, 'Somebody else is on the moon', to show him more photographs, and he was sufficiently embarrassed to write me a letter asking me to stop criticizing his book in public because he realized it was all based on mistakes and misinterpretation.

Being close in time to the events and to the birth of the myths was a unique vantage point that I tried to take maximum research advantage of, and to share the results [at which I was less successful!].

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

Thats not how its done!
Any employee with knowledge of sensitive data will have been legally bound to keep there mouth tightly shut. Then all they need to do is employ a few to patrol the forums spreading bs. One of their favorite tactics is to ridicule the poster - see Mr Obergs reply below!

Is there any evidence you have a clue about this, or is it just the way you imagine it ought to be, to make you feel braver and smarter than the astronauts?

There is a much more easier way and very effective on the manipulation topic and that is to deliberately saturate any documentary on the UFO/ET topic with the lunatic fringe , that is give MORE air time to the lunatic side of this subject this providing ample ammunition and justification for discrediting anyone who favours an ET possibility and that possibility remains until proven otherwise.

originally posted by: K-PAX-PROT

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

Thats not how its done!
Any employee with knowledge of sensitive data will have been legally bound to keep there mouth tightly shut. Then all they need to do is employ a few to patrol the forums spreading bs. One of their favorite tactics is to ridicule the poster - see Mr Obergs reply below!

Is there any evidence you have a clue about this, or is it just the way you imagine it ought to be, to make you feel braver and smarter than the astronauts?

There is a much more easier way and very effective on the manipulation topic and that is to deliberately saturate any documentary on the UFO/ET topic with the lunatic fringe , that is give MORE air time to the lunatic side of this subject this providing ample ammunition and justification for discrediting anyone who favours an ET possibility and that possibility remains until proven otherwise.

That would be a plausible technique if there were real secrets. The problem is, the UFO community has proven itself fully capable of self-parody and self-bunkification without any outside help, so how can we tell the difference?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: K-PAX-PROT

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, if "they" have paid Jim Oberg to keep silent about UFOs on the moon or UFOs following Apollo spacecrafts, he can't be the only one who has been bribed by "them" with great success.

"At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities."

www.nasa.gov...

Oh my, that must have cost a whole lot of monies. Not only ordinary salaries, but bribes too! Not to mention having to employ all those Men In Black running around threathening people and/or bribing them. Oh my again.

Thats not how its done!
Any employee with knowledge of sensitive data will have been legally bound to keep there mouth tightly shut. Then all they need to do is employ a few to patrol the forums spreading bs. One of their favorite tactics is to ridicule the poster - see Mr Obergs reply below!

Is there any evidence you have a clue about this, or is it just the way you imagine it ought to be, to make you feel braver and smarter than the astronauts?

There is a much more easier way and very effective on the manipulation topic and that is to deliberately saturate any documentary on the UFO/ET topic with the lunatic fringe , that is give MORE air time to the lunatic side of this subject this providing ample ammunition and justification for discrediting anyone who favours an ET possibility and that possibility remains until proven otherwise.

That would be a plausible technique if there were real secrets. The problem is, the UFO community has proven itself fully capable of self-parody and self-bunkification without any outside help, so how can we tell the difference?

How we could tell the difference?? well for one those in charge of such information are not the only ones in when, why or if these secrets ever come into the public domain, there could be a ET MANIPULATION on time scales ect as to when it all comes out.Also i find it very hard to perceive that anyone on here or in the UFO ET believers or debunker camp would have the national security clearances needed to make any justifiable justifications that there is or is not real secrets in the first place. The real question is that it is very plausible that if there are real secrets regarding a UFO/ET reality for those cases classed as unknowns ,(not by their lack on information but by the levels of high strangeness they contain), then it follows that they WOULD remain as secrets by virtue and by a natural desire of the authorities or those in possession/control of preventing a world wide panic or anxiety complex by keeping such information secret.

Surely by a % of ALL of those cases that still remain unsolved (again not by any lack of information to such cases but by the % of high strangeness involved, credible witnesses involved and those involving high numbers of military witness), there is a enough of a % to warrant a serious and credible possibility that some may very well be in deed of ET origin .There has been no one to date so far who has offered conclusive proof beyond all doubt that a possibility of possible ET origins for even ONE of such cases cannot be possible or that there is no highly advanced ET intelligences out there who posses technology that only appears as "high strangeness " when witnesed by us.So how can anyone really justify beyond possessing the required security clearances have the credibility to say out right and even guess that there are no secrets??

a reply to: VoidHawk

Of course you're right. They'd miss the opportunity to take part in something amazing. By your standards no one would ever do anything with any inherent risk. No skydiving, snow boarding, no bravery in war. The American Astronauts were real men. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the type.

I'm not sure that any amount of money or threats would stop some people from wanting basically be the first person in the history of the world to have incontrovertible proof of alien life/intelligence. There would be the opportunity at that point for some level of international, immortal fame, and possibly a chance to make a few bucks, too.

Even if you were in prison, you'd still be "The Guy Who Proved Aliens!"

originally posted by: K-PAX-PROT
So how can anyone really justify beyond possessing the required security clearances have the credibility to say out right and even guess that there are no secrets??

I've always said that the government (any government) only wants to keep two things a secret: 1) what they know, and 2) what they don't know.