Gary Mckinnon's account of NASA images

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I always lol at anti-gravity. wth good is something like that in deep space? If you have deep space travel, do you really need AG to cruise on and off a small planet?

What I always thought would even better than anti-gravity is positive gravity.

Alan Dean Foster would like his plot line back.

BTW, why can't you put a fan on a sailboat and use it to propel the boat?

originally posted by: buzzEmiller...
He does that with me too & and he also says that everything I see ....everything anyone sees...is ice! Always. That is not true of course....

Factually wrong again. The stuff in the videos can be lots of different things. Compare Martyn's claims to my actual claims -- www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Martyn has the integrity to leave my critical comments up on his video posts, instead of deleting them like overt hoaxers such as streetcrap and 'mister enema' do. So his sincerity deserves respect. I'm just questioning his judgment. ... and he, mine.

a reply to: JimOberg

I do see you on lots of threads like this one and though I haven't read no where near all your posts, I have to ask are there any videos or pictures where you think wow this is something unusual and no explanation seems to fit, maybe just maybe this could be it? i mean surely there has been a few? Surely everything can't be ice or space debris or swamp gas or drones and weather balloons.......can it? Those videos or pictures are the ones I want to view.

I don't understand why he wouldn't take screenshots?

I know he seems to be believable but again, it's just words -no evidence.

If I would have done the hack, I would have posted these pictures all over the place!

a reply to: krines

I always thought he was English.

But I got genuine guy off him. I believe him.

a reply to: flyandi

Its a legit question, but bear in mind a few things surrounding the gap of what we know and what he may have found out, and the legal conundrums in between. Once he mentioned he got cut off wile 'downloading' the images were too big, he was on dial up. Again his laptop was confiscated along with 3-4 other laptops in the house at the time when he was 'discovered' as the hacker, cause he happend to use his own email id. So if he did have any 'evidence' that could not have survived? Or else it would be his bargaining chip. Bear in mind most of what he did was for personal thrill, and curiousity. He didnt intend to get caught or even be in the media, I doubt his intention was ever to distribute the 'evidence'. His gradual exploits and 'warnings' he left on those hacked computers, and even the name 'SOLO' he chose to represent, make me think he simply wanted to single-handedly disrupt security for U.S. To me it just seems like a lot of what 'may have' happend is still not available for us to speculate on. This case is not straightforward or simple. We cannot completely dismiss or completely believe in what he said or did.

a reply to: krines

I understand but if he couldn't download the pictures, how could he have seen them?

Any computer can do screenshots .. you don't have to download the actual file. A screen print is all you need to do. I would have just done for my personal sake.

I get what you saying. He was not really a "hacking" but poking around and by accident found the stash. If he had an intend to disrupt US security he would have been much more careful and well planned. Even script kiddies know that.

Considering that he is now in the media and we discuss this shows he is searching for a forum to share his "knowledge". So his fear of legal repercussions was pretty quickly abolished.

I don't want to discredit him but as you said, a lot of open questions.

a reply to: krines

I once was very intrigued about the Garry Mckinnon story that I tried to make a composition of how this ship's exterior should look like, because there were no photo's taken I only could manage to make it like this.

but later on I had to cut off the tail sections ..

originally posted by: Bedlam
BTW, why can't you put a fan on a sailboat and use it to propel the boat?

??

Of course you can! Put fan on the bow, blow aftwards and trim in the sails.

a reply to: buzzEmiller
This is an article on a recent study.

Cannabis users are more likely to live in a distorted reality and have false memories, according to a new study.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Something to think about.

originally posted by: Bedlam
BTW, why can't you put a fan on a sailboat and use it to propel the boat?

Because the fan is actually pulling air from behind the boat, which creates a force equal and opposite to the force of the air pushing on the sail. Newton and all that stuff.

The lensed phantom mass would work because the ship wouldn't be directly attached to it.

The trick, of course, is being able to manipulate gravity waves with something besides an actual massive object. We don't know how to do that with what we know about EM fields, and that's pretty much all we know. If there is a "consciousness field" that might accomplish the same thing, we don't know about it.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Because the fan is actually pulling air from behind the boat, which creates a force equal and opposite to the force of the air pushing on the sail. Newton and all that stuff.

You would need a pretty big fan like the ones on those airboats. But then you wouldn't really need a sail because you would have a giant fan!

Now that I think about it, wouldn't the sail cancel out the force that fan is producing because they would be going in opposing directions. I dont know, physics isn't my thing.

I hacked into NASA's servers last year and saw pictures of a Martian orgy. I mean I don't have any pictures or other valid proof but it happened. You just have to trust me.

a reply to: keenmachine

I too would like to know if Mr. Oberg has seen any evidence pointing to anything outside of prosaic

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Bedlam
BTW, why can't you put a fan on a sailboat and use it to propel the boat?

??

Of course you can! Put fan on the bow, blow aftwards and trim in the sails.

Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater.

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: JimOberg

I do see you on lots of threads like this one and though I haven't read no where near all your posts, I have to ask are there any videos or pictures where you think wow this is something unusual and no explanation seems to fit, maybe just maybe this could be it? i mean surely there has been a few? Surely everything can't be ice or space debris or swamp gas or drones and weather balloons.......can it? Those videos or pictures are the ones I want to view.

There are plenty that have not been explained but I can't tell which ones were seriously investigated. Usually I'd spent my limited available time on the ones commonly accepted as impossible to explain by UFO experts, like the spaceflight ones. Other experts can assess other subcategories.

originally posted by: TanhauserGate
a reply to: keenmachine

I too would like to know if Mr. Oberg has seen any evidence pointing to anything outside of prosaic

I don't know. There is no valid argument against a theory that ETI could be observing us directly and that anything they see is exactly what they intend that we see, in whatever disguise they choose. They could disguise themselves as airplanes or as eagles. It can't be disproven.

The real question is whether there any reports that cannot be explained EXCEPT as an extraordinary phenomenon. I don't believe we are good enough in our investigations to determine that. Nor can it be ruled out.

Now tell me -- do you believe Donna Hare's story that she saw NASA space photos of Earth, being retouched, in which one could distinguish individual trees and their shadows, photos being prepared for public distribution, even though decades later nobody has been able to find a single example of such hi-precision images? That directly impacts McKinnon's credibility.

a reply to: JimOberg

I read your pdf on "Why I Find Donna Tietze Hare’s UFO Stories Unworthy of belief " today. And after reading that I DO NOT believe her story.I questioned her story anyways for many reasons(namely associated with greer) but as you stated She has a sketchy background and the ability of satellites at the time period would NOT render pictures showing trees and small structure as she claims to have seen.

I personally think that ufology needs to get away from the notion of "aliens" or interplanetary travelers however, are you Mr. Oberg open to the possibility of inter -dimensional or other theories? I"m sure your response will likely be " show me the evidence" and I'm with you there.I guess my question to you really is, do you accept or believe that people DO in fact see a phenomenon that points to something other than conventional or human in origin?

a reply to: Bedlam

Cheating? It's called sailing.

You do know how to sail, don't you? You put your airfoils together and get blown.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: krines.... The 'building 8' in NASA was mentioned by more than 1 person during the disclosure project testimonies, which is where he found the data too apparently.....

The description of Building 8 in Hare's testimony is sound, here's a shot of me there in 1976 with Dick Underwood, head of the JSC photo lab, showing Gemini flight film to Allen Hynek, head of CUFOS.

Jim,
What are you snorting in the picture?