APOLLO 12 UFO
Donald B Ratsch
Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
Allen Thomson
Now that Oberg has struck off on his own, has NASA put out a
vacancy notice for the position of Chief UFO Debunker? It
sounds like a pretty interesting job -- do you happen to know
if it's an SES position? How many Assistant UFO Debunkers are
there to supervise? (Writing performance appraisals can be a
real pain.)
Patrick Di Justo
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:41:25 GMT, thom...@netcom.com (Allen Thomson)
wrote:
If it's a GSA position, they're only interested in one thing:
quantity. "Jim, you've only debunked 12 UFOs this month. If I were
you I'd get on the ball, Oberg!"
Blue Resonant Human
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
>Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
>least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
>footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
>http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
Better yet, see:
http://www.brotherblue.org/brethren/oberg.htm
...for a peek at the real Jim Oberg and the real reason he got out of
the UFO business. It's not a pretty picture.
-BlueBird
Jerry Bryson
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>
> http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
This doesn't look like a NASA site.
--
Nescio ne sum, ergo penso sum.
JamesOberg
A few years ago I got a puzzled call from an IRS agent in Dallas, who had
received a letter alleging that as a paid government UFO debunker I was
avoiding income tax by leaving the cash bribes off my official income. The ufo
nut demanded the bounty on turning in tax cheaters. Fortunately it only took
about five minutes to clue the IRS guy in on the situation -- it helped that
the letter was in crayon.
I suppose the level of venomous nastiness is tribute to the effectiveness and
soundness of my research. I accept the compliment! ;-)
Mike Pritchard
In article <1d2tuok.11n...@pm3-123.richmond.infi.net> jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry Bryson) writes:
>From: jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry Bryson)
>Subject: Re: APOLLO 12 UFO
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:43:09 -0500
Duh....it's not.
It's also not very convincing...at all. Several of the "alledged" UFO's are
easily explained. If you have half a brain, anyway.
Mike P.
Note: This is a restricted account. Any and ALL advertisements are NOT welcome. Any user
sending an advertisement to this address agrees to pay a $75 archive/handling fee. This fee is
legal, according to US Law (US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227).
Michael Pritchard Phone: (217) 333-0850
Operations Supervisor FAX: (217) 333-7151
WILL AM/FM Radio Internet: mike...@will.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois (remove the "will" for e-mail)
SHedr24734
So, Donny-Boy is back. Somehow I doubt his information is any more reliable
this time than it was last time.
Still got testimony from imaginary NASA employees?
Still no verifiable data from OFFLINE sources?
Still think it's up to everyone else to prove you wrong- something that was
easily done last time?
Donny-Boy, not only are you not in the same league, you are hardly on the same
continent as the rest of us. Last time you clearly showed that in a battle of
wits, you were only half-armed.
Dave Majors
Which of the Apollo flights was the one with the S-IVB SLA panel UFO's?
Frank Schnabel
Donald B Ratsch wrote in message <34BBD44F...@home.com>...
>Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
>Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
>least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
>footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
>http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
A video of a dot. I can't imagine more compelling evidence.
JamesOberg
Here's the material posted. Don't hurt yourself laughing!
--------------------
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
Apollo-12 by Donald B. Ratsch (downloaded Jan 14, 1998)
On Friday November 13, 1997 by pre arrangement I traveled to Washington
D.C. to meet with ORTK member and MUFON's Representative for Washington
D.C. Elaine Douglas. Elaine knew I was interested in and collected NASA
UFO footage. She wanted me to meet a man she knew that could give me
some interesting information on that subject. She also wanted me to show
this man my collection of NASA UFO footage. He was to arrive at Elaine's
apartment at 10:30am so I arrived 30 minutes earlier at 10:00am. At
precisely 10:30am there was a knock on her door and I opened it for
Elaine. The man was well dressed and looked in his forties. Elaine
introduced us and we exchanged small talk while Elaine prepared a snack.
I popped a VHS tape that contained all my NASA UFO footage into the VCR
which was approximately 28 minutes in length. With each NASA UFO scene I
mentioned a little bit about each event such as the name of the mission,
date and time, etc. It was obvious he was impressed and I knew it would
reinforce the experience for him that he was about to reveal to me.
After the tape ended I asked him to tell me as best as he could remember
what he told Elaine. He said that he worked for NASA during the Apollo
years and was one of those guys who sat in front of the consoles
monitoring information. He said he wasn't sure what Apollo mission that
this experience occurred but he was sure it was before Apollo 13 because
the Apollo 13 problems made an impression on him. He knew that the
experience did not happen on the first lunar landing which was Apollo 11
so he concluded that it must have been the Apollo 12. He said the
experience happened in the evening when there wasn't much to do and many of the
seats in front of the consoles were empty. He said that since the
launch had already occurred from Cape Kennedy where he worked, the main
responsibility for the mission was handed off to Houston. And so with
nothing to do, he sat in front of his console and wanted to hear a
little air to ground/ground to air communications and so he punched in
the proper keys to begin listening. He said that numbers were being
transmitted air-to-ground/ground-to-air, just normal system
specifications, readouts, and settings. Then approximately 8:30pm as the
Apollo was some distance from earth on the way to the moon he heard the
following exchange:
Apollo: "We have company."
Houston: "Say again?"
Apollo: "I say we have company."
(Then a short period of silence)
Houston (emphatically): "You were told not to make transmissions such as
that! Put it on the flight recorder and we'll discuss it when you get back!"
Long period of silence.
On November 23, 1979 a video presentation was given by NASA UFO debunker James
E. Oberg. Oberg, production researcher used NASA film CL 862 which contained
movie segments from various space missions. His presentation was titled, "Photo
Aberrations, Debris, and UFOs." A written Production Scene List Locator
included scene numbers one to forty one, a scene description and File roll
number for each scene was also included. There are several controversial film
scenes which contain anomalous objects
which to this date have not been satisfactorily explained. One such
anomalous object is contained in sequence number 34 from File Roll 8032.
According to Oberg's scene description he writes, "LS - Apollo 12,
Object in black sky. Magazine E. Oberg list the length of time that the
object was in view as 23 seconds (08:41 to 09:06). Concerning the
object, Oberg writes: "Here is a view of some spacecraft approaching the
lunar module: although it is not clear what the object is at first, what
is apparent is that hand-held shots of real external objects will follow
this bouncy pattern -- a pattern which other 'alleged UFO movies' do not
at all follow. And in this case, as the object nears, you can see what
it is: the command module which the astronauts are about to safely dock
with." What Oberg has just described about the object is not at all what
the film clip actually shows. It is almost as if after seeing the ovoid
bright object bounce around, left and right, up and down that he then
closes his eyes and imagines how the rest of the film footage should
conclude. The object in the scene is indeed in view for 25 seconds as
Oberg points out in his scene description. He says the unknown object
becomes clearer as it approaches the lunar module and the object turns
out to be the command module in which the astronauts are about to dock
with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what does that 25 seconds really show? For most of the 25 seconds
the vertical ovoid bright object which is about a 1/4 inch in size on a
19 inch TV screen moves at a tremendous speed and gyrations of quick ups
and downs, lefts and rights, arcs. In all these gyrations the object
takes up the whole screen in it movements. Oberg says all this violent
movement of the object is due to a hand held camera. I disagree. Many
people have taken nice calm video shots with hand held cameras. But for
the radical movement of this object to be the result of a hand held
camera, the cameraman would have to be suffering from parkinson's
disease, for the object moved so violently. The other seconds of the
footage show the object moving across the screen in a smooth, slow, cal
m, fluid motion and sometimes is still and motionless. Why isn't the
object moving radically violent all the time? At the start of the film
sequence the object is in view for 2 seconds in one of its slow moves
then the bright lit object just goes out as if a light was turned off. A
second later the object reappears from top of screen moving to near the
center of screen. In all of the 25 seconds that the object was in view,
at no time did the object move closer to the lunar module so as to be
identified as the Command module as Jim Oberg suggest. This just did not
happen. In all its gyrations in the 25 seconds, the UFO remained at a
distance never moving closer to be identified.
APPENDANT / DECEMBER 23, 1997
I continued to be curious about CL862, a presentation by Jim Oberg in
the later 70's especially the Apollo 12 dancing UFO listed as being from
File Roll 8032. The 25 seconds of the dancing UFO did not approach near
the camera to be identified as the Command Module as Oberg stated it
would. However I thought I would give Oberg the benefit of the doubt and
take a look at File Roll 8032 itself to see if there was added footage
that might show the dancing image moving closer to be identified as the
Command Module as Oberg implied. So I purchased File Roll 8032 from NASA and
received it mid-November 1997. Inserted the VHS File Roll 8032 copy into my VCR
and pressed play. The first section that came up on the
screen was Magazine E, the event in question I was interested in. And
there it was, the round white bright ovoid object dancing around right,
left, up and down, going out like a light bulb and reappearing from the
top of the screen. At the end of the 25 seconds I partially expecting
the image to move near as Oberg said. But to my complete shock and
amazement the UFO actually did the opposite. In a split second it leapt
far into the distance and continued its showing off dancing maneuvers.
The image was now very small as the dancing antics took up only about
half of the TV screen. This distance gyrations continued at only about
three seconds in time. The curious thing is that in slow motion when the
object moved to the distant position, one could see it getting smaller
as if it moved into the distance. It was more like in one instance it
was there at its first position, then it went out like a light bulb and
then it appeared in its new distance position.
The big question to me is, why did Jim Oberg lie when he said the object
moved closer and was identified as the Command Module when in fact it
moved away and was NOT identified as the Command Module. So now we have Jim
Oberg, NASA's UFO debunker caught in two glaring deceptions. Number one he
tried to make everyone believe that the Apollo 16 Saucer was actually the
planet Earth (he has since backed off on that explanation
since I challenged him on it) and now he tried to deceive again by
exclaiming that the Apollo 12 UFO moved closer and was nothing but the
Command Module when if fact it moved away into the distance behaving
more like a quantum advanced space vehicle.
The "K" UFO by Donald B. Ratsch
In File Roll 8032 I also found another another piece of footage located
at the beginning of Magazine K. It last about 25 seconds and shows an
object similar in shape and brightness to the dancing UFO. This one, the
K object is following the Apollo with the lunar landscape seen below it.
The interesting thing about this footage is it is occurring while the
Apollo and the UFO are orbiting on the dark side of the moon, ruling out
the lunar lander reflecting sunlight as the explanation. The lunar
landings only occur during lunar daylight. Yet the UFO is creating its
own light since it is not reflecting the sun's rays. The surface of the
moon can be seen, albeit just slightly being illuminated by the
firmament of the heavens and perhaps light from the earth itself. I
suspect that the Apollo and the following UFO were in the moon's shadow
but facing the earth. The fullness of the moon faces the earth but
sometimes appears as a 1/2 moon, 3/4 moon, etc., because of the shadow
created by the sun's rays striking at an angle. The observation of the
25 second footage seems to suggest that the Apollo 12 and the UFO are in
the moons shadow near the moons limb as seen from earth. This is because
during the 25 seconds the moonscape is in view below, it is seen in very
low light, and then at the last 7 or 8 seconds the moonscape darkens to
blackness, suggesting the earth set, as seen from the moon, no longer
casting its light on that part of the moon. Yet the brightness of the K
UFO never dims. With the exception of two times, the object appears to
bobble several times, although the steady camera is indicated by the
moonscape not bobbling.
jus...@directnet.com
>A video of a dot. I can't imagine more compelling evidence.
Hey! Where can I buy this vidio of a dot! I like dots!
JamesOberg
<<
Which of the Apollo flights was the one with the S-IVB SLA panel UFO's?>>
It was, of course, Apollo-12.
Note that our ufonut nemesis characterizes this "informant" as being in his
mid-forties in 1997, and as having been a console worker at KSC 30 years
earlier. Is simple arithmetic beyond his ken?
ME
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
Jim Oberg deceiving the public?..Wow, news to my ears!
Donald B Ratsch
Many of you may have wondered, why isn't Oberg responding on the
newsgroup the charge of deception? Well the answer is, he has and he
hasn't. Slick Willy, I mean Slick Jim has seen fit to reply in such a
way that everybody monitoring these UFO newsgroups concerning the Apollo
12 UFO will not see it. Why? Because when he replied, the slickster
left the address of "sci.space.history" intact and erased all the other
newsgroups. Come-on big Jim, let everyone see these message exchanges,
not just your NASA buddies on sci.space.history.
Over at sci.space.history, 15 Jan 1998 20:18:41 GMT Jimbo says the
following: "Note that our ufonut nemesis characterizes this "informant"
as being in his mid-forties in 1997, and as having been a console worker
at KSC 30 years earlier. Is simple arithmetic beond his ken?"
James, you are doing it again. You are deceiving everyone. I did not
say he was in his forties, I only said he LOOKED like he was in his
forties. I never asked him his age. Anyway don't get off the subject.
You still haven't replied to everybody here why you lied and said that
the Apollo 12 dancing object moved closer to be identified as the
Command Module when in fact it did not move closer and remained
unidentified. Why did you lie???
JamesOberg
We're still waiting for Don to 'fess up about being deluded by the faker
Maurice Chatelain, and vainly trying to suck us into his delusion, but we're
not holding our individual breaths.
John Beaderstadt
I was incommunicado for a week because of the New England/Southern
Quebec ice storm; I take it that I missed something interesting? :-)
--
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
Graham Nelson
In article <19980115201...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, JamesOberg
<URL:mailto:james...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<
> Which of the Apollo flights was the one with the S-IVB SLA panel UFO's?>>
>
> It was, of course, Apollo-12.
>
> mid-forties in 1997, and as having been a console worker at KSC 30 years
James, James, you're just not getting it. He was abducted to
Alpha Centauri at 0.9999 of light speed, during which journey
thirty years passed on Earth. (It would have been only four, but
owing to the quaint UFO guidance system, they were obliged to
zip backwards and forwards randomly, rather in the pattern of
a reflected cabin light.)
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
SHedr24734
In article <34BE9930...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com>
writes:
>Because when he replied, the slickster
left the address of
>"sci.space.history" intact and erased all the other
newsgroups.
Well, of course you'd rather say nasty things about Jim than do any real
investigation yourself- if you'd noticed, Jim uses AOL, and the AOL software
often drops newsgroups (and, I've noticed, occasionally adds a totally
inappropriate one once in a while).
Sorry, no evil conspiracy here, just crappy software.
JamesOberg
<<Sorry, no evil conspiracy here, just crappy software>>
That, of course, must be the explanation, but frankly I didn't have a clue what
Don was raving about. That was hardly unusual, however, so I hadn't planned to
mention it. ;-)
Donald B Ratsch
SHedr24734 wrote:
>
> In article <34BE9930...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com>
> writes:
>
> >Because when he replied, the slickster
> left the address of
> >"sci.space.history" intact and erased all the other
> newsgroups.
>
> Well, of course you'd rather say nasty things about Jim than do any real
> investigation yourself- if you'd noticed, Jim uses AOL, and the AOL software
> often drops newsgroups (and, I've noticed, occasionally adds a totally
> inappropriate one once in a while).
BULL!
>
> Sorry, no evil conspiracy here, just crappy software.
Julian Bordas
Julian
John Beaderstadt
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> BULL!
Well, at least you maintain a consistent quality in all your arguments.
The Commentator
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> ME wrote:
> >
> > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > >
> > > Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> > > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> >
> > Jim Oberg deceiving the public?..Wow, news to my ears!
>
> Many of you may have wondered, why isn't Oberg responding on the
> newsgroup the charge of deception? Well the answer is, he has and he
> hasn't. Slick Willy, I mean Slick Jim has seen fit to reply in such a
> way that everybody monitoring these UFO newsgroups concerning the Apollo
> left the address of "sci.space.history" intact and erased all the other
> not just your NASA buddies on sci.space.history.
> Over at sci.space.history, 15 Jan 1998 20:18:41 GMT Jimbo says the
> as being in his mid-forties in 1997, and as having been a console worker
> James, you are doing it again. You are deceiving everyone. I did not
> say he was in his forties, I only said he LOOKED like he was in his
> forties. I never asked him his age. Anyway don't get off the subject.
> You still haven't replied to everybody here why you lied and said that
> the Apollo 12 dancing object moved closer to be identified as the
> Command Module when in fact it did not move closer and remained
> unidentified. Why did you lie???
Why should Jim Oberg, a man with a family, a job, hell a life, respond
to the likes of you and your dot on video?
The last time you tried to bait Oberg, a VERY bright guy, he cleaned
your clock and handed you your head.
You may think you have Oberg by the balls but your hands are not big
enough.
The Commentator
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
Last time i checked, unlike you, Mr. Oberg had a family, a job, hell, a
LIFE.
Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
SHedr24734
In article <34BF54...@together.net>, John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net>
writes:
>I take it that I missed something interesting? :-)
No, Donny-Boy is up to his usual nonsense. It's so much easier to dump on Jim
Oberg than to do any real thinking.
Julian Bordas
Frank Schnabel wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote in message <34BBD44F...@home.com>...
> >Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> >Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> >least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> >footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> >http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
>
Julian
Donald B Ratsch
The Commentator wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> > Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
>
> LIFE.
>
> Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
> to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
> things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
> Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
>
> In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
> mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
You can say all you want but the fact remains. The Apollo 12 UFO footage
shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
very provacative piece of film and unfortunately Jim Oberg lied on the
CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
Hee!
*DrPostman
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>You can say all you want but the fact remains. The Apollo 12 UFO footage
>shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
>aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
>different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I took a look at this footage and all I see is a spot that looks like
the person holding the camera has a hard time keeping the frame on.
The camera, not the object, obviously jerks back and forth.
>you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
>on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
>its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
>Hee!
Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
High Counselor of the New Usenet Order
Addicted to Art Bell? http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1282
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, Lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamiemps(at)mindspring.com
Graham Nelson
In article <34C298A7...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch
You can delude yourself all you want. I don't really know why
Mr Oberg wastes his time debunking your obvious drivel: sport,
perhaps. Your opinion on this issue will not change. No rational
person is in serious danger of agreeing with you. The fact, as
you say, remains. In the mean time, this discussion is off-topic
for sci.space.history, whose charter excludes "debate" about UFOs.
Donald B Ratsch
*DrPostman wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >You can say all you want but the fact remains. The Apollo 12 UFO footage
> >shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> >aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> >different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I took a look at this footage and all I see is a spot that looks like
> the person holding the camera has a hard time keeping the frame on.
> The camera, not the object, obviously jerks back and forth.
>
> >you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
> >on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
> >its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
> >Hee!
>
> Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
are bad cameramen.
Robert S. Huber
> Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
> think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> are bad cameramen.
You're talking about Apollo 12, right? That was a long time ago - only
the second manned landing trip to the moon. The "cameraman" is a guy in a
bulky suit stuffed inside a very cramped capsule. We're not talking
Steven Speilberg here.
--
R. S. Huber
*DrPostman
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>*DrPostman wrote:
>> Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
>
>Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
>think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
>are bad cameramen.
I'm telling it like I saw it. And yes, astronauts can be poor
cameramen. I believe that they receive more training in other
disciplines. There are always specs floating around spacecraft.
It could be as simple as a fleck of paint. I also noticed a common
feature of trying to follow an object around quickly with a camera -
a ghost image will occur - you can plainly see this happen in the clip.
*DrPostman
hu...@scripps.edu (Robert S. Huber) wrote:
>In article <34C36344...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
>> think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
>> are bad cameramen.
>
>You're talking about Apollo 12, right? That was a long time ago - only
>the second manned landing trip to the moon. The "cameraman" is a guy in a
>bulky suit stuffed inside a very cramped capsule. We're not talking
>Steven Speilberg here.
Gosh - you mean they didn't send them to cinematography classes during
their training - wasn't that sooooo important <g>
I showed it to a friend of mines daughter - she said it looked like a
jerky film and asked why the cameraman couldn't hold the camera
steady - this child is only 8 years old.
J.P. Randolph Jenkins
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
>
> Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
> think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> are bad cameramen.
>
Don,
I do not know the circumstances that the video, you are all so carried
away about, was acquired under. Sure, I know an American astronaut shot
it on the moon, but, was he shooting through glass, like from the Lunar
Module, or was he standing outside in a space suit? What equipment was
operating near him, did it have lights to help a suited astronaut
determine if it is powered up, or not? What was the focal length of the
lens on the camera? What type of camera was it?
It is important to know this shit, before you go running around telling
folks the astronauts were watching an alien air show on the moon.
I think if I were to ride into space, with an astronaut, I would want an
astronaut, who could fly, and handle emergencies, more then an astronaut
who is good at electronic news gathering techniques. Frankly, I think it
would be hard to hold any kind of mopic camera, steady while standing in
a bulky space suit, pressurized with air-conditioning, with gloves the
size of a baseball mit.
I recall one ufo, "event" where a bright object was imaged pacing an
airbus, everyone was all freaked out at how it stuck with the plane.
When a knowledgeable person finally analyzed the imagery, it was obvious
that the object was a glint of lens flare, making the aperture of the
camera (between the lens), image itself. A wide angle lens is most
likely to encounter this problem, but, a Zoom lens with w/a capability
is also likely to, because of the large size of the convex front
element. The smaller the imaging sensor, or tube, in the camera the more
likely for this to occur, also.
More bogus UFO images, are taken of lights reflecting of a glass window,
than of hubcaps flying through the air. Personally, having seen some
strange stuff in the air, myself. I do not give anybody any credit for
crapy shaky images, of lights in a dark sky. They aren't worth looking
at.
Lets imagine something, (ufo nuts should be good at this) An astronaut,
in his bulky suit, standing on the surface of the moon, with no
atmosphere to ruin his view of the heavens, brighter stars than any of
us have ever seen before. Do you think you might like to have a picture?
Well, maybe, the astronaut thinks he does, so he lifts his camera to the
heavens, zooms in on some really bright beautiful stars.
He thinks to himself, "damn, I wish this camera had a viewfinder, I know
I wouldn't be able to look through it though, with this big fat helmet
on". He starts imaging, anyway.
I bet he hoped that the imagery will look as good on tape as it does in
real life, "probably won't though". Have you ever tried to really
capture a sunset?
The lens is zoomed in all the way to capture as much detail as possible,
but, the telephoto enhances the camera shake, too. I bet he was
disappointed the the tape was reviewed.
This big Phoenix event is starting to bother me too. I believe that
something strange flew over Phoenix, early in the evening, then when
everyone heard about it, they ran out and took pictures of flares, in
the night sky. There is some fair imagery, of the real ufo, but, every
time I see something about Phoenix's ufo event on TV. They show clip
upon clip of the flares, even when the flares have been imaged falling
one by one, behind the mountains.
I am not a skeptic about ufo's, I want the government to tell me what
kind of aircraft, our tax dollars are buying and what is being done with
the aircraft. I also think that some unexplained ufo events, might be
of "otherworldly" origin. I just don't think that, every time I see a
light in the sky.
Thank for reading this shit.
Bye,
--
The Commentator
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> The Commentator wrote:
> >
> > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > >
> > > Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> > > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> >
> > Last time i checked, unlike you, Mr. Oberg had a family, a job, hell, a
> > LIFE.
> >
> > Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
> > to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
> > things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
> > Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
> >
> > In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
> > mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
>
> shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
> not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
> conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
> the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
> dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
> bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
> on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
> its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
> Hee!
You get excited over a DOT!?!? Get a life.
As I said earlier Oberg cleaned you clock the last time you tried this
scam. You claim Oberg lied? Fine. PROVE IT!!
You now have to show what the dot is, why it behaves as it behaves and
then you have to prove Oberg KNEW it was something other than what he
claimed.
Of course you cant do any of these things. They would require real
thought and work, something you have demonstrated no talent for.
You thought you had Oberg by the balls but your hands are not big
enough.
Donald B Ratsch
> I showed it to a friend of mines daughter - she said it looked like a
> jerky film and asked why the cameraman couldn't hold the camera
> steady - this child is only 8 years old.
WOW! That is your expert? An 8 year old child? Tee Hee!
Donald B Ratsch
>
> >> Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
> >
> >think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> >are bad cameramen.
>
> cameramen. I believe that they receive more training in other
> disciplines. There are always specs floating around spacecraft.
> It could be as simple as a fleck of paint. I also noticed a common
> feature of trying to follow an object around quickly with a camera -
> a ghost image will occur - you can plainly see this happen in the clip.
OK, so you say it is a speck. Oberg says it is the command module.
Wouldn't you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
Oberg is wrong??
Donald B Ratsch
J.P. Randolph Jenkins wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> >
> > think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> > are bad cameramen.
> >
>
> Don,
>
> I do not know the circumstances that the video, you are all so carried
> away about, was acquired under. Sure, I know an American astronaut shot
> it on the moon, but, was he shooting through glass, like from the Lunar
> Module, or was he standing outside in a space suit? What equipment was
> operating near him, did it have lights to help a suited astronaut
> determine if it is powered up, or not? What was the focal length of the
> lens on the camera? What type of camera was it?
If you want to believe Oberg, he says the astronaut taking the film was
in the lunar module taking film of the approaching command module. Well
thats takes care of your standing on the moon in a big bulky spacesuit
taking shaky film theory. And by the way I have NASA film of the
astronauts taking film of each other, some showing the lunar buggy
bouncing around and moving along. The cameraman had no trouble keeping
the camera steady as he panned the action. So therefore I don't accept
the idea that the Apollo 12 object was dancing because of a shaky hand.
By the way Jim, I know you are monitoring all this. Since your
approaching command module theory was shot down, do you have any more
brilliant deductions on what the dancing object was??
Donald B Ratsch
The Commentator wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > >
Well thats your opinion. I say it was the other way around. I assume you
are talking about the Apollo 16 Saucer film,
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apoll16/apollo16.htm I
was the one who weeks ago on sci.space.history cleaned clocks. Notice I
stated clock in the plural.
> You claim Oberg lied? Fine. PROVE IT!!
We are back to the Apollo 12. Of course Oberg lied. Apparently you can't
read. Check my thread on
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
But he lied because he said the object was identified because it
approached closer to the lunar module and was identified as the command
module. No such thing. The film did not show that. The dancing object
did not move closer to be identified but in fact moved farther away. The
film shows this. Therefore its status is an unknown and remains a
mystery. So this lying says something about Oberg's credibility.
Donald B Ratsch
om wrote:
>
> Donald "Numb Nuts" Ratsch <inmate_601@the_happy_home.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
> >think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> >are bad cameramen.
>
> been:
>
> 1) A poorly focused ice crystal
>
> 2) A poorly focused paint fleck
>
> 3) A poorly focused refraction of a microid impact on the glass
>
> 4) A poorly focused reflection from one of the instrument panel lights
>
> 5) Your poorly focused brain, actual size, from a distance of 2.5
> inches.
>
> ....Folks, I think it's time *everyone* put this idiot in their
> killfiles. Either that, or Jim Oberg needs to sue him for slander and
> force him to either put up or shut up with his "proof".
>
> OM
What do you mean slander Old Man. The truth is laid out in the CL862
papers put together by Jimmy O himself who was the production researcher
and presented by him November 23, 1979. I received a copy of CL862 by my
friend, Sam Sherman, President of Independent International Pictures
Corp.Inc. who received it via a F.O.I.A. request. And in the Oberg
CL862 papers Oberg states the following about the Apollo 12 object,
"Here is a view of some spacecraft approaching the lunar module:
although it is not clear what the object is at first, what is apparent
is that hand-held shots of real external objects will follow this bouncy
pattern--a pattern which other alleged UFO movies do not at all follow.
And in this case, as the object nears, you can see what it is: the
command module which the astronauts are about to safely dock with." Now
you tell me, is it telling the truth when he says the object nears and
can be identified as the command module when the film shows the object
did not near but moved away. Huh!
om
*DrPostman
I think Oberg has just a wee bit more experience in that area than I do.
Postal workers don't get out to space much. And, while going "postal"
can come close, it still doesn't count. If you are making the
extraordinary claim that it is an alien vessel then provide the
extraordinary evidence that a claim like that requires. Ya know, we
could both be right in that it is a command module that looks like a
speck because it is so small.
*DrPostman
The Commentator
In a stell cage death match with your brain or Big Jim Oberg's, I bet on
Oberg. Every time.
So, you were issued a challenge to PROVE he lied. You failed to meet
that challenge.
You were issued a challenge to show what the dot was. You failed.
You only have one strike left. Better get with the program.your
credibility has the half life of a Hitler pinata at a Mossad picnic.
better get on the ball and prove your claims or you will be written off
as another loon desiring some time in the spotlight.
Julian Bordas
downloading this mpg.
Julian Bordas
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > >shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> > >aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> > >different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> >
> > I took a look at this footage and all I see is a spot that looks like
> > the person holding the camera has a hard time keeping the frame on.
> > The camera, not the object, obviously jerks back and forth.
> >
> > >on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
> > >its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
> > >Hee!
> >
>
> think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> are bad cameramen.
Open your big mouth and put both feet in it. Borman did not want a
camera as it would get in the way of the mission. Your Apollo 12 crew
were so good as cameramen that they pointed the lense at the sun,
ruining the camera. The need to be a quality camera man was not the
highest list of attributes to be an astronaut. You have truly shot
yourself in the foot with your latest piece of "information"
Yours without wax
Julian
Julian Bordas
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> > I showed it to a friend of mines daughter - she said it looked like a
> > jerky film and asked why the cameraman couldn't hold the camera
> > steady - this child is only 8 years old.
>
> WOW! That is your expert? An 8 year old child? Tee Hee!
Not an expert by any means. An uninformed obsever YES!!
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings....
Julian
Julian Bordas
> >
> > >> Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
> > >
> > >Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
> > >think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> > >are bad cameramen.
> >
> > cameramen. I believe that they receive more training in other
> > disciplines. There are always specs floating around spacecraft.
> > It could be as simple as a fleck of paint. I also noticed a common
> > feature of trying to follow an object around quickly with a camera -
> > a ghost image will occur - you can plainly see this happen in the clip.
>
> Wouldn't you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
> Oberg is wrong??
I must of missed this post from James Oberg, could you forward me a
copy?
Ta Julian
Donald B Ratsch
*DrPostman wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >OK, so you say it is a speck. Oberg says it is the command module.
> >Wouldn't you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
> >Oberg is wrong??
>
> Postal workers don't get out to space much. And, while going "postal"
> can come close, it still doesn't count. If you are making the
> extraordinary claim that it is an alien vessel then provide the
> extraordinary evidence that a claim like that requires. Ya know, we
> could both be right in that it is a command module that looks like a
> speck because it is so small.
If you admit to knowing less than Oberg concerning this case then you
are deeply wrong then because Oberg is definitely wrong about it being
the command module. Again remember he said it was the command module
because it moved closer to the lunar module so as to be identified but
in fact the film shows it didn't move closer but moved further away,
thus an unknown.
Donald B Ratsch
Julian Bordas wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >> Or just a spec out in space with a bad cameraman filming it.
> > > >
> > > >Do you have any suggestions what that spec in space might be?? And I
> > > >think our space program is in trouble if like you suggest our astronauts
> > > >are bad cameramen.
> > >
> > > I'm telling it like I saw it. And yes, astronauts can be poor
> > > cameramen. I believe that they receive more training in other
> > > disciplines. There are always specs floating around spacecraft.
> > > It could be as simple as a fleck of paint. I also noticed a common
> > > feature of trying to follow an object around quickly with a camera -
> > > a ghost image will occur - you can plainly see this happen in the clip.
> >
> > Wouldn't you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
> > Oberg is wrong??
>
> copy?
>
> Ta Julian
It wasn't from a post, it was from his CL862 paper during his film
presentation in 1979 titled, "Photo Aberrations, Debris, And UFOs"
Donald B Ratsch
The Commentator wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Commentator wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > > > > > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > > > > > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > > > > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Last time i checked, unlike you, Mr. Oberg had a family, a job, hell, a
> > > > > LIFE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
> > > > > to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
> > > > > things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
> > > > > Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
> > > > >
> > > > > In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
> > > > > mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
> > > >
> > > > shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> > > > aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> > > > different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> > > > CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> > > > the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
> > > > not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
> > > > conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
> > > > the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
> > > > dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
> > > > bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
> > > > on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
> > > > its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
> > > > Hee!
> > >
Ok so Oberg is smart. But he is deceptively smart. I'd rather be an
average Joe that tells the truth. Oberg was not being honest in the
CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
the command module when it did NOT move closer and was not identified.
Look at Ted K, the Unabomber, a guy with 165 I.Q., but he is lying when
he said he didn't mail all those bombs. I cannot say that the object was
an ET spacecraft but I do know that it was not the command module.
Robert S. Huber
In article <34C590...@erols.com>, lyr...@erols.com wrote:
> I'd like begin a boycott camPAIN against UPN for running
> that Alien Abduction HOAX.
A hoax is an attempt at deception. The actors who played the parts of the
aliens were listed in the credits, right? How humorless can you be?
--
R. S. Huber
Glen Quarnstrom
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>> I showed it to a friend of mines daughter - she said it looked like a
>> jerky film and asked why the cameraman couldn't hold the camera
>> steady - this child is only 8 years old.
>
>WOW! That is your expert? An 8 year old child? Tee Hee!
Why not? Oates uses a kid who can't even talk yet as evidence for HIS
crapola.
"Out of the mouths of babes..."
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
"Aged Revered Wizard of the AFA-B Bullies"
Sir Dr. Geezer, BsD - Sexagenarian Centurion
SKEP-TI-CULT® #100-433034-653.
...hangin' in #Geezer or #Skepticult when I'm on IRC.
JamesOberg
Don Ratsch, when will you admit being suckered in by the liar Maurice
Chatelain??
SHedr24734
In article <34BFFF8A...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com>
writes:
>BULL!
OOOhhh... sounds like you worked real hard on that one.
ANd where is your evidence that my alternative explanation, the one that you
try to dismiss with the above revelation, is wrong? Have you actually used the
AOL software to reply to newsgroups? Have you contacted anyone that does and
gotten any data on the subject? If so, let's see your numbers. Or were you too
pathetically lazy to do any real homework on the subject- judging from your
statement, that seems to be the case.
You crawled away from the Apollo 16 UFO discussion because you got whipped-
your evidence is no better here and the above shows that your debating skills
have not improved any. You sinply don't have what it takes.
Your statement above clearly defines everything you have to say on the subject.
*DrPostman
Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com> wrote:
>If you admit to knowing less than Oberg concerning this case then you
>are deeply wrong then because Oberg is definitely wrong about it being
>the command module. Again remember he said it was the command module
>because it moved closer to the lunar module so as to be identified but
>in fact the film shows it didn't move closer but moved further away,
>thus an unknown.
I don't know what it was, nor do I really care - whatever it was was
filmed so poorly that analysis is near impossible. And what about
the ghosting I mentioned? You can see the image slew in a way that
I've only seen done by moving the camera doing the filming.
ME
I'd like begin a boycott camPAIN against UPN for running
that Alien Abduction HOAX.
Feel free to email me any advertisers as well and I will
begin compiling a list. Then we can let them know we are
boycotting them for advertising on UPN.
You can goto UPN at www.upn.com as tell them you are boycotting them.
BOYCOTT UPN!
Chris
*DrPostman
ME <lyr...@erols.com> wrote:
Wow dude - you get this worked up over wasting an hour?
Take your meds and calm down.
Julian Bordas
Hello
Thanks to every one who has participated in this and other
discussions. I was in a bit of a quandry on how to start my Doctorate
in Psychology, but thanks to Don(key) and his ASS(inine) comments I have
been able to finish my thesis disseration that started with the
ramblings of Mark Hines.
I will not be responding to furhther post by Donny boy and i resectfully
suggest that no one else responds to donny boy
Regards
Adam
Robert S. Huber
In article <34C5C1...@Biogate.com>, JBo...@Biogate.com wrote:
> Hello
> Thanks to every one who has participated in this and other
> discussions. I was in a bit of a quandry on how to start my Doctorate
> in Psychology, but thanks to Don(key) and his ASS(inine) comments I have
You came these goofy newsgroups rather than your graduate advisor?
> been able to finish my thesis disseration that started with the
> ramblings of Mark Hines.
You know, I've written a thesis, and I've written a dissertation, but I've
never written a thesis dissertation!
--
R. S. Huber
ME
> A hoax is an attempt at deception. The actors who played the parts of the
> aliens were listed in the credits, right? How humorless can you be?
>
> --
> R. S. Huber
Did you see NOT REAL in the ads or anywhere during the
airing?...Deception in my book...If aliens ever do land
on the whitehouse lawn no one will believe it because of
crap like this.
BOYCOTT UPN!
James Grady Ward
*DrPostman wrote:
>
> ME <lyr...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd like begin a boycott camPAIN against UPN for running
> >that Alien Abduction HOAX.
> >
> >Feel free to email me any advertisers as well and I will
> >begin compiling a list. Then we can let them know we are
> >boycotting them for advertising on UPN.
> >
> >You can goto UPN at www.upn.com as tell them you are boycotting them.
> >
> >BOYCOTT UPN!
> >
> >Chris
>
> Wow dude - you get this worked up over wasting an hour?
> Take your meds and calm down.
Besides, if you actually watched the thing( well I only caught
the last half hour of it), the final scene where the alien( in shadows
of course) picks up the camera and moves it to where you can see
the person that had been holding it proves that either it is a
fake or we have one very dumb alien here. It is not like the average
video recorder is not obvious what it does or anything, so why
leave the tape behind?
--
buckysan
annapuma and unapumma in 98
44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC
Peter Kazlouski
ME wrote:
At least notify UPN and their sponsors that you will BOYCOTT UPN SPONSORS. Make
an effort to find out what commercials they are showing (on programs like Star
trek voyager and Deep Space Nine, which people will probably watch anyway), make
a list of those sponsors, and make strong efforts to BOYCOTT them and NOTIFY
THEM THAT YOU ARE BOYCOTTING THEM, because of the fraaudulent abduction "tv
movie".
ME
I have notified them as have others.
BOYCOTT UPN!
The Commentator
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> *DrPostman wrote:
> >
> > >Wouldn't you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
> > >Oberg is wrong??
> >
> > Postal workers don't get out to space much. And, while going "postal"
> > can come close, it still doesn't count. If you are making the
> > extraordinary claim that it is an alien vessel then provide the
> > extraordinary evidence that a claim like that requires. Ya know, we
> > could both be right in that it is a command module that looks like a
> > speck because it is so small.
>
> are deeply wrong then because Oberg is definitely wrong about it being
> the command module. Again remember he said it was the command module
> because it moved closer to the lunar module so as to be identified but
> in fact the film shows it didn't move closer but moved further away,
> thus an unknown.
Whats the matter? Dont you remember the challenge you were issued? Of
course you don't, it is uncormfortable to you.
You claimed Oberg lied. You were challenged to prove it. You failed.
I guess that is the story of your life, FAILURE!
Michael P. Walsh
ME wrote:
>
> > A hoax is an attempt at deception. The actors who played the parts of the
> > aliens were listed in the credits, right? How humorless can you be?
> >
> > --
> > R. S. Huber
>
> Did you see NOT REAL in the ads or anywhere during the
> airing?...Deception in my book...If aliens ever do land
> on the whitehouse lawn no one will believe it because of
> crap like this.
>
> BOYCOTT UPN!
----
----
----
Does this mean I have to stop watching StarTrek Deep Space 9
and StarTrek Voyager?
Sorry, that's too big a sacrifice to make.
Mike Walsh
Darrell M. Crosgrove
Lo...@mysig.emailthere (*DrPostman) wrote:
>ME <lyr...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd like begin a boycott camPAIN against UPN for running
>>that Alien Abduction HOAX.
>>
>>Feel free to email me any advertisers as well and I will
>>begin compiling a list. Then we can let them know we are
>>boycotting them for advertising on UPN.
>>
>>You can goto UPN at www.upn.com as tell them you are boycotting them.
>>
>>BOYCOTT UPN!
>>
>>Chris
>
>Wow dude - you get this worked up over wasting an hour?
>Take your meds and calm down.
>
>
>
>
>
"wasting an hour"...????
Are you INSANE!!!
That was some of the BEST television I have ever seen.
I was literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!!!
It was right up there with "Manos" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!!!
Two thumbs up!
Darrell M. Crosgrove
ME <lyr...@erols.com> wrote:
>> A hoax is an attempt at deception. The actors who played the parts of the
>> aliens were listed in the credits, right? How humorless can you be?
>>
>> --
>> R. S. Huber
>
>Did you see NOT REAL in the ads or anywhere during the
>airing?...Deception in my book...If aliens ever do land
>on the whitehouse lawn no one will believe it because of
>crap like this.
>
>BOYCOTT UPN!
I don't believe I have seen "NOT REAL" in ANY of the ads for "Third Rock
From The Sun" either...
Could someone verify this please?
Duane Laviniere
ME wrote:
> I have notified them as have others.
>
> BOYCOTT UPN!
Oh shut up you guys. If you didn't know that it was fake after the
first ten minutes, then you get what you deserve. It smacked of hoax,
but I watched anyway b/c it was entertaining. You obviously watched the
whole hour for a reason too. Get over it. You got your hours worth,
now shut up about it. It's like a UPN representative held a gun up to
your head to watch it.
--
o Duane Laviniere
| email: lavind@[NO-SPAM]rpi.edu
Don P.
(Darrell M. Crosgrove) writes:
[SNIP]
>That was some of the BEST television I have ever seen.
>
>I was literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!!!
>
>It was right up there with "Manos" and "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!!!
>
>Two thumbs up!
Some people think it is funny as you. Some people think it
is not SO funny due to the great number of humans that have
been abducted by Flying Discs and other such UFO crafts
by the Natioanl Security Agencies.
I think it is sad, just more disinformation to take the
heat off the National Security Agencies and on to Mr. ET.
The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
Now they must put the blame of abductions (that they have
carried out since WW2) off themselves and on to Mr. ET.
Wipe the ALIEN STIGMA goo off your eyes, and you
will see that the UFO phenomenon and alien abductions
is purely a HUMAN covert operation, perpetrated by the
National Security Agencies.
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
Investigator of theoretical physics, and
researcher of the suppression of energy
production and anti-gravity technologies.
To reply by email remove "[A.Fuente]".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Humans have had efficient disc flight for at least
43 years."
ETH (Alien Visitation) skeptic, UFO proponent
"A human made flying disc made of rotating opposing
neodymium and barium ferrite magnets. Oh MY!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Donald B Ratsch
JamesOberg wrote:
>
> Don Ratsch, when will you admit being suckered in by the liar Maurice
> Chatelain??
Everybody notice that Oberg wrote the above thread on sci.space.history
only. I am including the rest of the original adressees so that
everybody can observe.
Welcome back James. Ok my own investigation on Maurice Chatelain did not
confirm that he was Chief of NASA Communications in the 70's during the
Apollo years. Ok, I was man enough to admit that. So will YOU be man
enough to admit that you deceived on sequence number 34 of the CL862
regarding the Apollo 12 dancing object and its supposed moving closer to
the camera?
Don P.
(*DrPostman) writes:
>(Don P.) esoxl@[A.Fuente]juno.com@ wrote:
>
>
>> The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
>>Now they must put the blame of abductions (that they have
>>carried out since WW2) off themselves and on to Mr. ET.
>
>even exist until 1952.
Common misconception there DrPostman!
It is a fairly well known FACT the the first
intellignece apparatus was sort of a rich mans
club started in the early 1900's a al Rockefeller,
Rothchilds, etc. This intelligence apparatus evolved
into OUR GOVERNMENTS National Security Agencies.
So what, it was PUBLICY given recognition and a
name in 1952 or whenever. Point is, by 1947 it has
already existed for almost 20 years.
Who do you think was SUCKING the Duetsch Marks
from Adlof?? It was not the fairy dollar mother!
Contemplate the NSA or whatever *name* you wish to give
them, prolonging the WW2 so that they could SUCK Adolf
dry of his precious Deutsch Marks. Point is that the NAZI's
ran out of money, and the Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc. ceased
supplying him with raw materials at that point.
Sorry there DrPostman, but there was an intelligence
apparatus operating WELL before 1947 that was in
charge of the US Government, US military.
Hey DrPostman, can you think of a dead president that
wanted to do away with this VERY old rich mans club.
Brian S. Thorn
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:42:11 +0000, "Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>> BOYCOTT UPN!
>Does this mean I have to stop watching StarTrek Deep Space 9
>and StarTrek Voyager?
"Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" is not affiliated with the
United Paramount Network, UPN. This show is in national
syndication and is carried by the highest-bidding TV
station in each metropolitan area.
"Star Trek: Voyager" is the flagship of the UPN network,
which was launched two years after ST:DS9 first went
on the air. In TV markets that do no have a UPN affiliate
(like the one I'm in) "Voyager" is in syndication just like
ST:DS9. In my market "Voyager" is the only UPN
program available and is aired by the FOX station.
-Brian
Robert Hubby
Justin Wigg (jjw...@tassie.net.au) wrote:
: (*DrPostman) writes:
:
: >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
: >even exist until 1952.
:
: NASA did not exist until 1958.
Your point? the National Security Agency is not related to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration...
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"Never give a sucker an even break." - W.C. Fields
Michael P. Walsh
Brian S. Thorn wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:42:11 +0000, "Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
-
-> >Does this mean I have to stop watching StarTrek Deep Space 9
-> >and StarTrek Voyager?
->
-> "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" is not affiliated with the
-> United Paramount Network, UPN. This show is in national
-> syndication and is carried by the highest-bidding TV
> station in each metropolitan area.
>
> "Star Trek: Voyager" is the flagship of the UPN network,
> which was launched two years after ST:DS9 first went
> on the air. In TV markets that do no have a UPN affiliate
> (like the one I'm in) "Voyager" is in syndication just like
> ST:DS9. In my market "Voyager" is the only UPN
> program available and is aired by the FOX station.
>
> -Brian
----
----
In Los Angeles both StarTrek Voyager and StarTrek Deep Space Nine
are carried by Channel 13 which is the local TV station which
carries all of the UPN programs.
I assume then that I could meet the terms of the boycott by
not watching StarTrek Voyager.
I believe this boycott stuff is nuts and I have no
intention of following.
The posting person has every right to his views, but I
would assume they should be posted only in
sci.space.policy as I don't believe they have any
particular relationship to space history.
Mike Walsh
Michael P. Walsh
Justin Wigg wrote:
>
> (*DrPostman) writes:
>
> >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
> >even exist until 1952.
>
> NASA did not exist until 1958.
> Justin Wigg - jjw...@tassie.net.au
>
----
----
----
I really don't understand the significance of Justin Wigg's comment.
Perhaps he doesn't realize that NSA and NASA are two different agencies.
No, NSA is not a mispelled version of NASA.
Mike Walsh
The Commentator
Donald B Ratsch wrote:
>
> The Commentator wrote:
> >
> > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > >
> > > The Commentator wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Commentator wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> > > > > > > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > > > > > > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > > > > > > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > > > > > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last time i checked, unlike you, Mr. Oberg had a family, a job, hell, a
> > > > > > LIFE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
> > > > > > to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
> > > > > > things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
> > > > > > Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
> > > > > > mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can say all you want but the fact remains. The Apollo 12 UFO footage
> > > > > shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> > > > > aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> > > > > different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> > > > > very provacative piece of film and unfortunately Jim Oberg lied on the
> > > > > CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> > > > > the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
> > > > > not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
> > > > > conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
> > > > > the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
> > > > > dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
> > > > > bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
> > > > > you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
> > > > > on the Apollo 12 footage? Weather balloon perhaps? Ha! Ha! Ha! Or maybe
> > > > > its ball lightning? Haw! Haw! Haw! Or maybe its a bird? Tee Hee! Tee
> > > > > Hee!
> > > >
> > > > You get excited over a DOT!?!? Get a life.
> > > >
> > > > As I said earlier Oberg cleaned you clock the last time you tried this
> > > > scam.
> > >
> > > Well thats your opinion. I say it was the other way around. I assume you
> > > are talking about the Apollo 16 Saucer film,
> > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apoll16/apollo16.htm I
> > > was the one who weeks ago on sci.space.history cleaned clocks. Notice I
> > > stated clock in the plural.
> > >
> > > > You claim Oberg lied? Fine. PROVE IT!!
> > >
> > > We are back to the Apollo 12. Of course Oberg lied. Apparently you can't
> > > read. Check my thread on
> > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> > > But he lied because he said the object was identified because it
> > > approached closer to the lunar module and was identified as the command
> > > module. No such thing. The film did not show that. The dancing object
> > > did not move closer to be identified but in fact moved farther away. The
> > > film shows this. Therefore its status is an unknown and remains a
> > > mystery. So this lying says something about Oberg's credibility.
> >
> > In a stell cage death match with your brain or Big Jim Oberg's, I bet on
> > Oberg. Every time.
> >
> > So, you were issued a challenge to PROVE he lied. You failed to meet
> > that challenge.
> >
> > You were issued a challenge to show what the dot was. You failed.
> >
> > You only have one strike left. Better get with the program.your
> > credibility has the half life of a Hitler pinata at a Mossad picnic.
> > better get on the ball and prove your claims or you will be written off
> > as another loon desiring some time in the spotlight.
>
> Ok so Oberg is smart. But he is deceptively smart. I'd rather be an
> average Joe that tells the truth. Oberg was not being honest in the
> CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> the command module when it did NOT move closer and was not identified.
> Look at Ted K, the Unabomber, a guy with 165 I.Q., but he is lying when
> he said he didn't mail all those bombs. I cannot say that the object was
> an ET spacecraft but I do know that it was not the command module.
Prove Oberg is wrong. You have made the charges, you get to provide the
proof.
Of course you cant do that any more than you can prove your earlier
charge that Oberg lied.
You are, in short, an abject failure as an exposer of truth. You have
not the inate common sense to know what the truth is.
Justin Wigg
(*DrPostman) writes:
>Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
>even exist until 1952.
NASA did not exist until 1958.
--------------------------------------
Justin Wigg - jjw...@tassie.net.au
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981
--------------------------------------
om
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:31:49 -0800, The Commentator
<71154...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Donald B Itch <Kazinsky's_Future_Cellmate@the_happy_home.com> wrote:
>
>>[Translated from idiot-speak: I'm a paranoid schitophrenic
>> no-life crying for attention. Please flame me so I can convince
>> myself that I have a purpose in life!]
>Whats the matter? Dont you remember the challenge you were issued? Of
>course you don't, it is uncormfortable to you.
....No, it's the cornco...I mean "Alien Anal Probe" that his
grey-haired grandda...er...the greys implanted that's bothering him.
He's just taking it out on the rest of us.
>You claimed Oberg lied. You were challenged to prove it. You failed.
....He ignored the challenge because he's a troll. And a no-life one at
that.
>I guess that is the story of your life, FAILURE!
....Yeah, but remember - the best thing we can do is either killfile
the bastard until he goes away, or file hundreds of complaints to his
ISP. Especially complaints where we show he's been spamming for
bestaility websites to little kids.
OM
Justin Wigg
Justin Wigg wrote:
>
> (*DrPostman) writes:
>
> >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
> >even exist until 1952.
>
> NASA did not exist until 1958.
Oops! NSA, NASA, what's the difference? ;-) Didn't have my glasses
on, uh, didn't get enough sleep, uh, it wasn't me! Someone hacked onto
my computer and tried to embarrass me... uh, ... (further lame excuses
kept to myself). Next time, I'll READ THE POST first.
jolaf
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:23:32 +1100, Justin Wigg <jjw...@tassie.net.au>
wrote:
>Justin Wigg wrote:
>Someone hacked onto my computer and tried to embarrass me..
IT'S TRUE!!!!!
*DrPostman
rah...@sonic.net (Robert Hubby) wrote:
>Justin Wigg (jjw...@tassie.net.au) wrote:
>: (*DrPostman) writes:
>:
>: >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
>: >even exist until 1952.
>:
>: NASA did not exist until 1958.
>
>Your point? the National Security Agency is not related to the National
>Aeronautics and Space Administration...
>
>R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
> "Never give a sucker an even break." - W.C. Fields
You mean it isn't all part of the great evil illuminated builderburgered
council for international relationed united nationed jewish bankish
communist conspiracy?
*DrPostman
(Don P.) esoxl@[A.Fuente]juno.com@ wrote:
>>> The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
>>>Now they must put the blame of abductions (that they have
>>>carried out since WW2) off themselves and on to Mr. ET.
>>
>>Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
>>even exist until 1952.
>
> Common misconception there DrPostman!
No misconception - Truman did not create the organization called
the NSA until 1952 - it is a matter of record.
> It is a fairly well known FACT the the first
>intellignece apparatus was sort of a rich mans
>club started in the early 1900's a al Rockefeller,
>Rothchilds, etc. This intelligence apparatus evolved
>into OUR GOVERNMENTS National Security Agencies.
Not clear about those "facts" what evidence do you have of
this?
> So what, it was PUBLICY given recognition and a
>name in 1952 or whenever. Point is, by 1947 it has
>already existed for almost 20 years.
Then why did Donavan have to create one in 1942?
why didn't they just use an organization that you claim
already existed for 15 years?
> Who do you think was SUCKING the Duetsch Marks
>from Adlof?? It was not the fairy dollar mother!
Ever heard of Krupp? Lots of people got rich in Germany.
> Contemplate the NSA or whatever *name* you wish to give
>them, prolonging the WW2 so that they could SUCK Adolf
>dry of his precious Deutsch Marks. Point is that the NAZI's
>ran out of money, and the Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc. ceased
>supplying him with raw materials at that point.
Lets just forget that little stockpile of gold and cash they found
deep in a german mine, shall we. Not to mention the billions germans
put into Swiss banks.
> Sorry there DrPostman, but there was an intelligence
>apparatus operating WELL before 1947 that was in
>charge of the US Government, US military.
Your paranoia saddens me.
> Hey DrPostman, can you think of a dead president that
>wanted to do away with this VERY old rich mans club.
Nope.
SHedr24734
In article <34C3CEE7...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com>
writes:
>OK, so you say it is a speck. Oberg says it is the command module.
Wouldn't
>you like to switch to his selection? Why are you right and
Oberg is wrong??
It is a command module that looks like a speck. Neither fellow is wrong.
John Beaderstadt
SHedr24734 wrote:
>
Why?
--
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
JamesOberg
Just for the record, the strongly pro-UFO pro-ESP ex-astronaut Edgar Mitchell
makes it clear that there were no UFO encounters during manned space flights
(he calls Ratsch and the OTRK bunch 'fringe' for thinking so!). Does Ratsch
suggest he is lying?
Here's the report. Somebody else please repost it to the UFO newsgroups, which
I do not visit:
-------
The Associated Press brought national and international recognition to the
comments expressed by Dr. Edgar Mitchell at The Prophets Conference
presented by Axiom last October. The following excerpt by Dr. Mitchell is
of significant interest to those concerned with the truth.
Following the Prophets Conference remarks presented by Dr. Steven Greer
regarding technology and efforts to brief government officials on the UFO
phenomena, Dr. Edgar Mitchell responded by saying...
"I'd like to add a bit to what Steven (Dr. Steven Greer) had to say. It was
a marvelous report, but what I'd like to add to it is that in our briefing
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Group, it became very clear to us
that they were naive. They did not really know any more about this effort
than we do, if as much. That is because, as Bob Dean pointed out earlier,
most of the people in government were not in government when I retired
twenty five years ago, they are younger people. The files going back fifty
years just no longer exist. They've either been purged, compromised or
whatever. They don't exist. So when we blame government for not being
forthright, they really don't have anything to be forthright about, at least
at that level. Now, somewhere there's knowledgeable people, and Steven has
ferreted out quite a few of them. And in my own efforts in talking with
these folks, and talking with government, the question often comes up as to
how they could have kept this a secret for so long. And friends they
haven't. It's been around us all the time, but it has been denied, and
obscured.
I often like to state the condition, the story, the myth if you will, about
Columbus coming here and some of the Indians not seeing the ships simply
because it was not in their collective consciousness and their repertoire,
they at least didn't want to see them. Much of what we're seeing now is
what many people don't want to see either. There's been a massive effort at
creating that, of denying the obvious, of saying that you're not seeing
what's sitting right in front of you right now, thus causing doubt in your
own mind. It's amazingly effective. So, documentation and evidence, that
is probably the smoking gun type of evidence, has been totally compromised
by saying that it's simply not true. So it is not true that they
(government) have kept the secret. They haven't kept the secret, but it has
been totally compromised by misinformation and disinformation.
Now for my own experience, I have had no first hand experience like so many
of you. I have not encountered a UFO, and we did not have them trailing, us
as far as we know, going to the moon. We didn't meet anyone on the moon.
We did it just like we said we did. For the last twenty-five years we have
dealt with the issue of, on one hand, the flat-earthers who said, 'you
didn't go anywhere, it was all filmed out here in the desert,' and on the
other hand, another fringe that said, 'yes you have been there, but you were
followed. You were in contact with UFOs. There were beings on the moon
that you met and had contact with.' Well, that's not true either. So, we
have walked between these two extremes of misinformation, disinformation and
pure ignorance. We did what we said we did, and I want to assure you, from
that period up until the current time, NASA was one of the organizations
ignorant of this type of activity. And the prevailing wisdom in NASA
(at-the-time) was that we didn't even think about it. It was a ridiculous
idea that we would encounter beings on the moon.
Don P.
DrPostman writes:
#(Don P.) wrote:
#
#
#### The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
####Now they must put the blame of abductions (that they have
####carried out since WW2) off themselves and on to Mr. ET.
###
###Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
###even exist until 1952.
##
## Common misconception there DrPostman!
#No misconception - Truman did not create the organization called
#the NSA until 1952 - it is a matter of record.
#
Truman created the NAME for an organization that has
existed since the early 1900's.
## It is a fairly well known FACT the the first
##intellignece apparatus was sort of a rich mans
##club started in the early 1900's a al Rockefeller,
##Rothchilds, etc. This intelligence apparatus evolved
##into OUR GOVERNMENTS National Security Agencies.
#Not clear about those "facts" what evidence do you have of
#this?
#
Evidence? I'm sure that Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc.
have sent releases to the press on this!
Geeeeesh! Why do you think it is referred as the
"intelligence"???
We will find no hard facts.
## So what, it was PUBLICY given recognition and a
##name in 1952 or whenever. Point is, by 1947 it has
##already existed for almost 20 years.
#Then why did Donavan have to create one in 1942?
#why didn't they just use an organization that you claim
#already existed for 15 years?
#
Illusion, plain and simple! Do you think the American
public would be happy knowing the truth, that the US
intelligence community is run by wealthy oil barons,
bankers, etc.
#
## Sorry there DrPostman, but there was an intelligence
##apparatus operating WELL before 1947 that was in
##charge of the US Government, US military.
#Your paranoia saddens me.
#
Paranoia?? DrPostman if I were paranoid I would NOT
be accusing the National Security Agencies for the
UFO phenomenon, abductions, and for the murdering of a
US president! If I were paranoid I would keep my mouth
shut, hide in side my house, and wear an aluminum
hat.
Be real. I think it is Paranoia that leads to NOT
expecting the obvious. Face it, people are too frightened
and paranoid to face reality.
You have to look much closer to home for paranoia.
## Hey DrPostman, can you think of a dead president that
##wanted to do away with this VERY old rich mans club.
#Nope.
#
Figures.
Robert S. Huber
In article <6aam4c$1v1a$3...@news.rchland.ibm.com>, (Don P.)
esoxl@juno[A.Fuente].com wrote:
> Paranoia?? DrPostman if I were paranoid I would NOT
> be accusing the National Security Agencies for the
> UFO phenomenon, abductions, and for the murdering of a
> US president! If I were paranoid I would keep my mouth
> shut, hide in side my house, and wear an aluminum
> hat.
>
> Be real. I think it is Paranoia that leads to NOT
> expecting the obvious. Face it, people are too frightened
> and paranoid to face reality.
"I'm _not_ paranoid! That's just a dirty rumor started up
by all the people who are out to get me!"
- Don P.
> "A human made flying disc made of rotating opposing
> neodymium and barium ferrite magnets. Oh MY!"
How nifty. Can you send me the plans to one of these flying machines?
Oh, that's right - the government has conspired to hide all the plans away
from you!
--
R. S. Huber
SHedr24734
In article <34C4DB71...@home.com>, Donald B Ratsch <st...@home.com>
writes:
>I'd rather be an
average Joe that tells the truth.
And someday you may be. Today, howevery, you are obviously lying or unable to
tell the difference between truth and fiction and/or both.
You continually jump to conclusions without providing supporting evidence. You
seem to think other people have the obligation to disprove what you have to
say, which is of course demonstrable nonsense, then pitch a fit when this is
done. You cannot be bothered with even elemental research if it doesn't come
from the web, and at least in the Apollo 16 folder you kept quoting people that
had obviously lied to you- they couldn't possibly have worked for NASA at the
time they and you claimed, but because their lies fit your conspiracy better
you preferred to believe them than the facts. When the overwhelming amount of
facts clearly shows you are wrong, you're not man enough to admit it- you just
stop talking about it until the crowd dies down and you have new faces to fling
your bullshit into.
Go home and play with your fantasies, little boy- you're just going to get your
feelings hurt here.
Robert Hubby
*DrPostman (Lo...@mysig.emailthere) wrote:
: rah...@sonic.net (Robert Hubby) wrote:
:
: >Justin Wigg (jjw...@tassie.net.au) wrote:
: >: (*DrPostman) writes:
: >:
: >: >even exist until 1952.
: >:
: >: NASA did not exist until 1958.
: >
: >Your point? the National Security Agency is not related to the National
: >Aeronautics and Space Administration...
: >
: >R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
: > "Never give a sucker an even break." - W.C. Fields
:
:
: You mean it isn't all part of the great evil illuminated builderburgered
: council for international relationed united nationed jewish bankish
: communist conspiracy?
You've been reading "None dare call it conspiricy" haven't you? Don't you
know that sort of stuff can rot your brain?
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"You should never, ever doubt what nobody is sure about." - Willie Wonka
Donald B Ratsch
JamesOberg wrote:
>
> Just for the record, the strongly pro-UFO pro-ESP ex-astronaut Edgar Mitchell
> makes it clear that there were no UFO encounters during manned space flights
> (he calls Ratsch and the OTRK bunch 'fringe' for thinking so!). Does Ratsch
> suggest he is lying?
>
> Here's the report. Somebody else please repost it to the UFO newsgroups, which
> I do not visit:
Stop lying again, I've seen you participate on alt.paranet.ufo before in
the past.
You say two things about Mitchell. First you say "the strongly Pro-UFO
astronaut." Then you say, "makes it clear that there were no UFO
encounters during manned space flights." I suppose you praise him for
the second part but condemm him for the first? Its really strange that
Mitchell will accept the notion that ET's crashed at Roswell and yet
suppose the ETs would be uninterested in following the Apollo astronauts
to the moon or would be uninterested in our space program. His analysis
of the Apollo 16 Saucer object was worse than yours. You said that it
was the planet earth and he said it looked like the nose of the command
module as seen from the lunar module. Both explanations are so lame. Its
obvious that Mitchell believes in ET visitation but yet at the same time
is loyal to his former bosses (NASA). And by the way you still won't
comment about that Apollo 12 dancing object that you said came closer to
be identified when it really didn't. Would you like to comment on that
now?
Don P.
DrPostman writes:
>(Don P.) wrote:
>
>
>>>> The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
>>>
>>>even exist until 1952.
>>
>
>No misconception - Truman did not create the organization called
>
OFFICIAL NSA began it's existence? I think many
people are aware *when* the rudiments of this organization
started and *who* started them.
I suppose the F117 Stealh Fighter did not officially
exist before Panama.
>> It is a fairly well known FACT the the first
>>intellignece apparatus was sort of a rich mans
>>club started in the early 1900's a al Rockefeller,
>>Rothchilds, etc. This intelligence apparatus evolved
>>into OUR GOVERNMENTS National Security Agencies.
>
>Not clear about those "facts" what evidence do you have of
>this?
>
Not Clear...!! This is quite humorous.
Are you telling me that you had NEVER heard that this
country's intelligence community has its roots from the
likes of Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc??
Are you saying this is the FIRST you heard of this
assertion??
Tell me DrPostman, who do you think runs the NSA's??
Please don't tell me it is the Director of the CIA.
Do you think the NSA's has any concerns in energy-production
technology, and the prolonged use of fossil fuels???
Do you really think the elected officials of the US run the
show?
What do you think the use of US Patent Law Title 35,
Part 2, Chapter 17, Sections 181-188 is used for? And
who do you think it benefits???
The FACTS are DrPostman that the rudiments of NSA's
started in the early 1900's.
The NSA's has been hiding technology since this time.
The NSA's have been driving the direction of scientific
advancement since this time, or more precisely AWAY
from certain areas.
The NSA's are responsible for prolonging certain wars
and conflicts.
The NSA's are responsible for the development of flying
disc and other UFO crafts since WW2.
The NSA's are responsible for some abductions that get
blamed on Mr. ET.
The NSA's have covertly blamed much of the UFO phenomenon
on Mr. ET.
The NSA's are responsible for the propagation of the
alien visitation stigma.
The NSA's are responsible for the MURDER of President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.
The NSA's are NOT are government and need to be
replaced by election.
But don't get me wrong they also have their benefits.
Because of the NSA's I can sleep well at nite and feel
that we (as Amercicans) are well protected. It is also
great that I only pay $1.34 for a gallon of gas.
I love my country, I respect it's government, I have
little respect for the National Security Agencies.
Whatever name we call them, the NSA's, the Intelligence
Community, etc. does not matter. What matters is that they
have been around since the early 1900's, and their MAIN
interests is NOT the american public, it is their billfolds!
It does not take paranoia to see things this way, on
the contrary it takes the lack of paranoia to view things
this way.
Strip your fear, strip your paranoia, and see things as they
really are.
Looking forward to, and awaiting for your replies.
Kind Regards
Don Palermo
Investigator of theoretical physics, and
researcher of the suppression of energy
production and anti-gravity technologies.
To reply by email remove "[A.Fuente]".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Humans have had efficient disc flight for at least
43 years."
ETH (Alien Visitation) skeptic, UFO proponent
"A human made flying disc made of rotating opposing
neodymium and barium ferrite magnets. Oh MY!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shaun Case
Don P. wrote:
>
> (*DrPostman) writes:
> >(Don P.) esoxl@[A.Fuente]juno.com@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The NSA's orchrestrated the Roswell HOAX brialliantly.
> >>Now they must put the blame of abductions (that they have
> >>carried out since WW2) off themselves and on to Mr. ET.
> >
> >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
> >even exist until 1952.
>
> Common misconception there DrPostman!
>
> intellignece apparatus was sort of a rich mans
> club started in the early 1900's a al Rockefeller,
> Rothchilds, etc. This intelligence apparatus evolved
> into OUR GOVERNMENTS National Security Agencies.
>
>
> from Adlof?? It was not the fairy dollar mother!
>
> them, prolonging the WW2 so that they could SUCK Adolf
> dry of his precious Deutsch Marks. Point is that the NAZI's
> ran out of money, and the Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc. ceased
> supplying him with raw materials at that point.
>
>
>
>
> Don Palermo
> Investigator of theoretical physics, and
> researcher of the suppression of energy
> production and anti-gravity technologies.
>
> To reply by email remove "[A.Fuente]".
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Humans have had efficient disc flight for at least
> 43 years."
>
> ETH (Alien Visitation) skeptic, UFO proponent
>
> "A human made flying disc made of rotating opposing
> neodymium and barium ferrite magnets. Oh MY!"
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You be readin too many komic books man.
Chief Wahoo
It was the NACA , National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 1915-1958,
before NASA
Robert Hubby wrote in message <6a8srj$k...@bolt.sonic.net>...>: >Truly amazing when you consider that the NSA did not
>: >even exist until 1952.
>:
The Commentator
Your points are well made. Thank you.
*DrPostman
(Don P.) esoxl@[A.Fuente]juno.com@ wrote:
> Truman created the NAME for an organization that has
>existed since the early 1900's.
>
Then why did Donovan have to create the OSS in 1942?
> Evidence? I'm sure that Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc.
>have sent releases to the press on this!
>
> Geeeeesh! Why do you think it is referred as the
>"intelligence"???
>
> We will find no hard facts.
but we will find as much wild speculation as possible eh?
*DrPostman
(Don P.) esoxl@[A.Fuente]juno.com@ wrote:
> A rose is a rose is a rose. Does it matter when the
>OFFICIAL NSA began it's existence? I think many
>people are aware *when* the rudiments of this organization
>started and *who* started them.
Then who and what are they?
>
> I suppose the F117 Stealh Fighter did not officially
>exist before Panama.
Having been in the Air Force in the early 80's I knew
about it long before then. Do you think that we have
no need for security?
> Not Clear...!! This is quite humorous.
>
> Are you telling me that you had NEVER heard that this
>country's intelligence community has its roots from the
>likes of Rockefeller, Rothchilds, etc??
I've heard it - I just don't believe in that boogie man.
> Are you saying this is the FIRST you heard of this
>assertion??
Oh no - I have seen lots of conspiracy theories splattered
across this newsgroup, and half of them are ready to fight
you to prove that their nutty conspiracy is more correct than yours.
> Tell me DrPostman, who do you think runs the NSA's??
>Please don't tell me it is the Director of the CIA.
I wont - I'll tell you the truth instead - the Secretary of Defense.
> Do you think the NSA's has any concerns in energy-production
>technology, and the prolonged use of fossil fuels???
For what purpose
>
> Do you really think the elected officials of the US run the
>show?
Badly, but yes.
>
> What do you think the use of US Patent Law Title 35,
>Part 2, Chapter 17, Sections 181-188 is used for? And
>who do you think it benefits???
So far it looks like it is a protection from other countries
getting at US secrets.
>
> The FACTS are DrPostman that the rudiments of NSA's
>started in the early 1900's.
And what evidence do you have of this.
>
> The NSA's has been hiding technology since this time.
Like what, and why?
>>>>>rest of unsubstantiated claimes snipped<<<<<<<<
What scares me is that you really believe all this.
R...@pantheon.global
The Commentator <71154...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You can say all you want but the fact remains. The Apollo 12 UFO footage
>> > > > > shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
>> > > > > aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
>> > > > > different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
>> > > > > very provacative piece of film and unfortunately Jim Oberg lied on the
>> > > > > CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
>> > > > > the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
>> > > > > not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
>> > > > > conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
>> > > > > the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
>> > > > > dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
>> > > > > bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
>> > > > > you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
>> > > > > on the Apollo 12 footage?
If you watch it carefully you will see night coming around the earth. The
object gets bigger as darkness crosses it. THis suggests that it is not
moving closer to the Apollo 12 at all, but is 'blooming' in the darkness.
Red
--
Pantheon Unarmed Militia
A valid and rational solution to our nations problems
To participate visit this site and reply to the e-mail link
http://members.tripod.com/~PantheonGlobal/
Donald B Ratsch
The Commentator wrote:
>
> Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> >
> > The Commentator wrote:
> > >
> > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Commentator wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Commentator wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Donald B Ratsch wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Acquisition of brand new NASA UFO footage reveals that Jim Oberg, NASA's
> > > > > > > > Chief UFO debunker has been deceiving the public on UFOs since from at
> > > > > > > > least 1979. The case involves the Apollo 12 UFO footage. Download the
> > > > > > > > footage and you will understand the Oberg deceit. See:
> > > > > > > > http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/apollo12/apollo12.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Last time i checked, unlike you, Mr. Oberg had a family, a job, hell, a
> > > > > > > LIFE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Last time he cleaned your clock and handed you your hat. You are trying
> > > > > > > to debate a VERY bright guy (even though we probably dont agree on many
> > > > > > > things, and we certainly are not friends, I have a GREAT respect for Big
> > > > > > > Jim. He has credibility. You dont.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In short when you think you have him by the balls you are sadly
> > > > > > > mistaken, your hands are not big enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shows an object in the blackness of space performing fantastic
> > > > > > aerobatics near the moon, blinking out like a light bulb, appearing in a
> > > > > > different location and at a different distance from the Apollo. It is a
> > > > > > very provacative piece of film and unfortunately Jim Oberg lied on the
> > > > > > CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> > > > > > the command module. It did no such thing but in fact moved farther away
> > > > > > not closer. Oberg lied because he couldn't identify the object as
> > > > > > conventional and so he made up the story that the object came closer to
> > > > > > the camera scenario hoping that he could say, "Case closed" or "Klass
> > > > > > dismissed". But I have news for him. Come on 6'8" big guy. You are a
> > > > > > bigboy, you don't need your NASA buddies to hold your hand and speak for
> > > > > > you. I'll give you another chance. Try again, what is that dancing UFO
> > CL862 papers when he said the object moved closer to be identified as
> > Look at Ted K, the Unabomber, a guy with 165 I.Q., but he is lying when
> > he said he didn't mail all those bombs. I cannot say that the object was
> > an ET spacecraft but I do know that it was not the command module.
>
> Prove Oberg is wrong. You have made the charges, you get to provide the
> proof.
>
> Of course you cant do that any more than you can prove your earlier
> charge that Oberg lied.
I just did. You must be pretty dense or can't read english! I'll say it
one more time. Oberg said that the dancing object moved closer in the
CL862 papers and was then identified as the command module. The fact is,
this did not happen. The object moved farther away and remains as an
unknown. It did not move closer but moved farther away. This is where
Oberg is lying. Now can you understand that?