It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Footage in the Sky: The Truth Behind NASA's UFO Videos

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...





A batch of raw footage from decades-old NASA missions shows zipping lights and strange objects in the sky.

Recently posted on YouTube, the clips are renewing UFO conspiracy theories that the government is hiding knowledge about its interactions with intelligent life.

But two astronauts dispute that — and talk about NASA's supposed cover-up and what the clips really show.


reed the full story by clicking on the link above.

Just saw this on the foxnews frontpage. nice to see something about ufo's on the main pages but what is your view on this storie..

[edit on 2-6-2009 by MarkLuitzen]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by MarkLuitzen]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by MarkLuitzen]




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Sorry
Links not working even if I paste into my browser.


Edit to add: Thanks for fixing the link.

I'm sorry but is FOX that far behind ATS?

I mean we've discussed the videos they are mentioning to death here a while ago.

Good find though.








[edit on 2-6-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


sorry for that I have edited it hopefully it does now ..



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Recently posted on YouTube, the clips are renewing UFO conspiracy theories that the government is hiding knowledge about its interactions with intelligent life.


I though this was funny lol. "Renewing', as if they went away!



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
They just admitted to magnetic propulsion in this article. Outside of that they haven't described the the biggest UFO evidence known as the tether incident.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
They just admitted to magnetic propulsion in this article. Outside of that they haven't described the the biggest UFO evidence known as the tether incident.


I missed the 'admission', please tell me where you found it.

As for the STS-75 case, there's always 'another' story to throw at them when limitations of space constrain the number of cases you can treat.

Google my name and STS-75 for some eye-opening contrarian views, and some real new evidence.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I don't even know what to say about that article. I don't even see the point in their publishing of such lame so-called reporting.
A cobbled and incoherent glob of sound bites/quotes and a couple of selected incidents amongst many many more observations.
I would expect as much from Fox, but that doesn't mean I am yet to be convinced of ET contact or ET piloted craft being depicted in any of the videos I've seen.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Thats ridiculous. How typical of Faux News. Does it really matter though? The only people who are going to read that on there (besides us) are the ones who are already hopelessly manipulated by the mass media machines.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Must be a slow news day for Fox or they just don't know what is news anymore.

Since when has the UFO debate started heating back up enough to warrant coverage of debunking of old videos? Is ET/UFO conspiracy really gaining traction? I haven't seen that happen and I'm pro-conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I personally think these stories being broadcast more frequently are like many of you guys have suspected, that Murdoch is just capitalizing on another demographic. Although I am surprised that Glenn Beck is covering as many 'conspiracy' topics as he has without being ridiculed by the rest of the elite media, I thought he was just trying to push the envelope a little for ratings but whenever anyone starts poking at the powercorp giant GE you wonder who's pulling the strings and for what reason. As was very clearly pointed out by a previous poster we have been going over this stuff for quite some time and none of it could really be considered breaking and now they decide to broadcast it on national news as if people are just now starting to ask questions about what we really know.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I read the story and since when does "The Pope" get to throw his two cents in on the subject? Like the pope is also an expert in Astronomy, Cosmology and Phenomenon? Give me a break, "The Pope" should be trying to figure out how the Virgin Mary got pregnant since he seems to be lacking knowledge in that department.

Who made the pope the expert in this area of the subject. Or maybe "The Pope" fears the downfall of all Religions if people discover that other "beings" exist. Kind of self-serving preservation of their financial lively hood, don't ya think?

IMO, all Religions or "Superstitions" will work itself out once people become educated enough that they've been duped "for centuries".

It's obvious that the suppression of these types of technologies will continue because "it's not profitable" to the Church, Oil Companies and other monopolized and controlled resources. Because it's "planned scarcity" that makes institutions and corporations rich.

It's obvious that there are "Real UFO's" and "Man Made" UFO's. And we've (The Military Industrial Complex, TransNational Governments) been doing this stuff for decades.

Who needs disclosure when you seen one yourself. You want disclosure, you need to go out and investigate, document, record videos and find one yourself. Just go hang out around Private Industries that develop this technology (Lockheed Martin) or hang out near Military Bases and start going video fishing.

Who knows, you may even stumble upon more than you can bargain with.

As for me, I can conclude it's real enough due to the millions of witnesses and how the Pentagon handles this type of information. And if "The Pope" gets to throw in his two cents, then it's must be a serious topic enough for him to worry about.

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmazzagatti
Thats ridiculous. How typical of Faux News. Does it really matter though? The only people who are going to read that on there (besides us) are the ones who are already hopelessly manipulated by the mass media machines.


And the kids who think the dancing shuttle dots are alien space fleets have NOT been manipulated by deliberately incomplete and garbled descriptions of the scenes?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Honestly, I have no idea why the second video is even really considered possible UFO material to begin with. There are far better examples of UFO activity in LOE. There are definately far better examples of UFO activity taken from the space shuttle..

This looks like a clear debunking effort by popular mechanics. This is why.

Popular Mechanics has a clear history of disinformation related to Area 51 (for starters). In June 1997, when I was just out of high school, I saw this magazine at a news stand, so I bought it. The magazine article was "The New Area 51".



THIS is that article on the popular Mechanics website.
BY JIM WILSON
Published in the June 1997 issue.

Just to give you the short version of the article.. It basically claimed that the air force had abandoned Area51 in 1997 and dispersed it's R&D and testing to other sites and nearby air force bases, leaving Area 51 a ghost town.

We now know that never happened and that it was clear disinformation by the author of the story. We also know that not only did the military NOT abandon Area51 but they actually ramped up efforts at the base (which completely contradicts the claims included in the article). The government is, to this day, adding new facilities and new infrastructure to the base and all the satellite images prove this is obviously the case. The first response I ever posted on ATS was related to new satellite images (new in 2006, anyway) showing new facilities and hangars.

The article, from 1997, sais..

The Air Force has abandoned top-secret testing at its once most secret test site. We know why and we know where they moved it to.

We know that they lied about the base being abandoned.
Also, why would the government or the military, for that matter, tell a magazine author all of this information and noone else? All kinds of red flags here, folks.

"UFO Hunters" did an episode on the base that was part if this last season on the history channel. Business as usual at the base. But not only that, the "Janet" flights that fly out of the nearby McCarren airport (from a separate, secure, government-owned, fenced-in terminal) are transporting personnel to and from the base at least twice daily. That's alot of manpower coming in and out on a daily basis. And it doesn't include the personnel being transported to and from the base via buses, automobiles, or helicopters from nearby air force bases like Nellis or Edwards. Considering the base already has facilities to house and feed it's more permanent residents, that's alot of inbound and outbound manpower. Alot of activity at this base. It has never been abandoned and there is no sign that it will ever be. The government doesn't just dump in millions/billions of dollars into adding immense hangars, new munitions storage igloos, and other base support facilities just to leave it to rot in the desert.

Also, In 2003 while I was still working in munitions for the U.S. Air Force, my supervisor told me a story about Area 51. He said his permanent duty station was Nellis AFB in 1998 and that he'd recieved a TDY assignment to an undisclosed location. I think he said it lasted about a month. He, and others, were flown in by helicopter directly from the nearby Nellis AFB to Area51. He told me about all the security paperwork he had to sign, what it was like working there, and he also described the eerie silence observed daily on a base where noone ever really talks to each other. The active duty personnel were also forbidden from talking to any contractors (which apparently abound at the base). I won't say what he was working on there because I am ex-air force, It is classified, and I value my privacy. But you can rest assured it was not related to ET's or UFO's. It was much more down to earth, actually. But his mere presence at the base.. Wouldn't that be yet another contradiction to the claims in this 1997 magazine article by Popular Mechanics?

This is why I have serious questions about what the intention of this more recent article really is.. This is not really a time when UFO's are all over the media exactly. There hasn't been a major UFO flap/wave in the U.S., that I know, of since Stephenville, Texas in January of this year. So the timing of this article is suspicious in itself. Noone's in the MSM is really talking about UFO's and they haven't for a while. A perfect time to release a debunking effort to silence UFO believers and the public at large. Alot of people are pretty frustrated over this subject ever since the government and the military blatantly lied about events unfolding near Stephenville, Texas in January 2009. But alot of people don't know that or care.

The military initially lied about aircraft being airborne that night. When they discovered that FOIA information and radar data from the FAA proved military aircraft WERE in the area that night, only then did the military change their story. And even then.. ALL other FOIA requests for information regarding radar data and other information (that was being requested by MUFON so they could complete their official report on the events that night) were stonewalled by the military and the government. This was an area surrounded by military installations and probably dozens of military radars. And they didn't record any radar data from the night in question? Not even from any of the, evidently, airborne military aircraft which were proven to come in close proximity to one of the unknown radar hits?

One of the FOIA responses from the military said that the data tapes containing said radar data had all been "written over" inadvertantly. How convenient for them. And not only that, the FAA radar data proves that military aircraft were also flying in a pattern around the unknown radar track and that military aircraft also came dangerously close to inbound and outbound aircraft at Dallas FW airport.
All of this should really make us question what we're really being told here.

And you WON'T see this stuff being talked about in a magazine article bent on debunking the phenomenon and discrediting all the NASA personnel that have come forward over the years.
I also think it important to note here how the youtube videos selected to be discussed by the author of this recent Popular Mechanics article are not the whole story. There are so much more videos out there that are so much more interesting. And there is so much more information out there that proves we aren't being told the whole truth by the government the military, OR NASA..

We have military officers, engineers, commercial and military pilots, astronauts, police officers, and people just generally from all walks of life reporting, photographing, and videotaping UFO's. None of that is valid?

We have SOME physical evidence related to UFO's and the abduction phenomenon. Everything from implants removed from abductees and UFO witnesses that appear to move within the human body to avoid extraction. Implants that emit Electromagnetic fields and radio waves on very specific frequencies.

One very specific piece of physical evidence was talked about on this episode of "UFO Hunters" called "UFO Relics". This particular object was observed by a witness to have fallen off of a UFO just prior to instantly accelerating or "blinking-out". The object was analyzed by a solid state physicist (an expert in aluminum alloys) and it was proved to be an aluminum alloy of unknown origin "NOT LIKE ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN BEFORE".

More on this object is talked about here @ about 3:15


Continued here..


ALso, NASA radio transmissions have been recorded of astronauts saying things like

"Houston, this is Gemini 7. We have a bogey at 10 o'clock high."

"Houston, this is discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance"

"We have an unidentified flying object"

Hear those transmissions, for yourself, here:


It doesn't really take much to realize that there's more to this than we've been told and are being told here...

We now know that NASA uses a secure comm channel for talking with houston about UFO's in orbit. But we still sometimes get the occasional "slip of the tongue". That channel is talked about here in a little more detail:



-ChriS



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
"Houston, this is discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance"

Pretty shocking. Damning evidence that NASA are traitors to Humanity.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
"Houston, this is discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance"

Pretty shocking. Damning evidence that NASA are traitors to Humanity.


is that quote real?..i thought is was fake?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
"Houston, this is discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance"

Pretty shocking. Damning evidence that NASA are traitors to Humanity.


Shocking indeed, that this ham operator's prank, long ago refuted even by the man who originally publicized it (Don Ratsch), should still infect your brain and elicit such venom. Why are you so helpless in the face of these UFO frauds, and why will you so strongly defend those who have deceived you into this sad state of mind?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by contemplator
"Houston, this is discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance"

Pretty shocking. Damning evidence that NASA are traitors to Humanity.


Shocking indeed, that this ham operator's prank, long ago refuted even by the man who originally publicized it (Don Ratsch), should still infect your brain and elicit such venom. Why are you so helpless in the face of these UFO frauds, and why will you so strongly defend those who have deceived you into this sad state of mind?



Hi Jim, was this proven to be a "ham operator's prank", or is that the assumption seeing as the voice could not be directly linked to any of the astronauts known to be on mission at the time?

You reply seems to state this as if it was proven fact, if so I'd like to see proof. Don Ratch doesn't have such proof, as far as I'm aware, even if that is what he now assumes to be the case (I've read his email). Maybe you can tell us a little more.

Other comments regarding this I have come across:




--------------------------------------------------

"Houston, We still have the alien spacecraft...."

--------------------------------------------------

On 3-13-89, the NASA Space Shuttle "Discovery" was launched at approximately 1000 hours. About 20 hours 35 minutes into the mission, an amateur radio buff in Ohio, USA picked up a "raw" transmission which indicated that there was some type of problem or anomaly that warranted the Discovery to issue this statement; "We have a fire."

Supposedly this was a type of code for Houston to switch to a different frequency, or a code for the sighting of a UFO. There was a NASA select channel which edited shuttle transmissions before they were heard by media requesting the information. Some radio operators were able to forego this filtering and pick up "raw," unedited data.

Subsequently, at precisely 0642 hours, EDT, the amazing message, "HOUSTON, THIS IS DISCOVERY, WE STILL HAVE THE ALIEN SPACECRAFT UNDER OBSERVANCE," was heard.

A text transcription of the transmission:

WA3NAN: We are retransmitting the Space Shuttle air/ground communication.

"This is WA3NAN."

Astronaut James F. Buchli, "Houston, this is Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft... under observance..."


In Baltimore, Maryland, Donald Ratsch, a member of the Goddard Amateur Radio Club, recorded the transmission on his Radio Shack radio. The Goddard Club monitored the NASA communications, and subsequent investigation proved that hams were receiving "raw" transmissions.

The "official" transmission, which first was filtered through Houston, does not, of course, include this statement. There is a blank space instead. There was also an allegation that immediately after the transmission, NASA instructed the crew to switch to a secure mode.

The tape, about 38 seconds long, was soon in the hands of the media, and first broadcast on LBC (London Broadcasting Company) The female voice on the tape is a news broadcaster from the LBC, and the tape as you hear it, repeats the actual transmission several times. The statement was only made once, but repeated for convenience sake; not having to restart over and over again.

For quite some time, NASA denied the very existence of the tape, but eventually did admit that it did, indeed, possess it. However, NASA spokesman James Hatfield says that the astonishing statement was a hoax, and inserted by person or persons not affiliated with NASA.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

--------------------------------------------------

"Houston, We still have the alien spacecraft...."

--------------------------------------------------

On 3-13-89, the NASA Space Shuttle "Discovery" was launched at approximately 1000 hours. About 20 hours 35 minutes into the mission, an amateur radio buff in Ohio, USA picked up a "raw" transmission which indicated that there was some type of problem or anomaly that warranted the Discovery to issue this statement; "We have a fire."


No proof of this -- another anonymous 'ham operator', no name, no place, no tape.


Supposedly this was a type of code for Houston to switch to a different frequency, or a code for the sighting of a UFO. There was a NASA select channel which edited shuttle transmissions before they were heard by media requesting the information. Some radio operators were able to forego this filtering and pick up "raw," unedited data.


No proof, just wild supposition. "Some radio operators" -- no names, places, tapes, documentation -- just an uncheckable assertion.

Subsequently, at precisely 0642 hours, EDT, the amazing message, "HOUSTON, THIS IS DISCOVERY, WE STILL HAVE THE ALIEN SPACECRAFT UNDER OBSERVANCE," was heard.

True, was 'heard' -- on a ham radio rebroadcast frequency, and near NASA's Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

A text transcription of the transmission:

WA3NAN: We are retransmitting the Space Shuttle air/ground communication.

"This is WA3NAN."

Astronaut James F. Buchli, "Houston, this is Discovery, we still have the alien spacecraft... under observance..."

Did you notice the other report says it was spoken by John Blaha? Which was it -- John Blaha, or James Buchli, or Yuri Gagarin, or Jimmy Hoffa? If nobody knows, you can make anything up.

In Baltimore, Maryland, Donald Ratsch, a member of the Goddard Amateur Radio Club, recorded the transmission on his Radio Shack radio. The Goddard Club monitored the NASA communications, and subsequent investigation proved that hams were receiving "raw" transmissions.

This might be a total lie. These 'investigations' have never been documented, their authors have never been named, nobody else has ever been able to duplicate the results.


The "official" transmission, which first was filtered through Houston, does not, of course, include this statement. There is a blank space instead. There was also an allegation that immediately after the transmission, NASA instructed the crew to switch to a secure mode.


Problem with believing it is this: the ham radio rebroadcast was using the officially-released NASA air-to-ground feed, as they have explained (ask them yourself). You yourself quote them saying that. They were NOT receiving any 'secret' conversations on 'secret' frequencies.


...For quite some time, NASA denied the very existence of the tape, but eventually did admit that it did, indeed, possess it. However, NASA spokesman James Hatfield says that the astonishing statement was a hoax, and inserted by person or persons not affiliated with NASA.


How would (and why should) NASA know about (or possess, unless they found it on the Internet) a tape that did not originate from its own activities? The spokesman's name is Hartsfield, by the way, not Hatfield -- getting things 'right' has never been a strong point of pro-UFO claims, it seems.

And you omit the most damnin piece of evidence -- didn't you recognize its significance? Ratsch (which you misspell 'Ratch') says he later heard what sounded like the same voice making strange comments on the re-broadcasting of a later shuttle mission -- a mission that had none of the same astronauts on board.

THAT'S why he concluded it was a ground-based prank, one easy to perform with widely-available ham gear. Sorry you felt you had to OMIT that from your argument.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply Jim. A little touchy tho aren't you? I didn't make an "argument". I simply asked you if you had proof that the voice was definitely a "ham radio operators prank" as you called it and apparently you don't, at least you haven't provided any. I also pasted another comment I found relevant to the issue, the first I came across, to open up the discussion a little rather than immediately accept the "shutdown" that was being attempted, and it itself wasn't an "argument", just an account, and I didn't "omit" anything from it. But thanks for your critique of it. My post was asking you for proof of your statement of fact (still waiting for that).

I said I had read the email by Ratch (or Ratsch), and what I read was that on the two different transmission he thought he recognized the same voice and yet the two missions apparently had all different astronauts and he could not reconcile that and so he concluded it was a hoax and guessed that it was a ham radio operator. This hinges on him believing he recognized a voice he heard for just a few seconds a year earlier (it's a amazing how sketchy "witness testimony" suddenly becomes supposedly cast iron evidence when employed in the services of debunking). I don't think that's actually absolutely conclusive - I don't think it's necessarily the highly significant "damming evidence" you do, so not referring to it in more detail was not some "strategy" on my part as you seem to imply - and, even if true, where he can't or won't think of other possible explanations for this seeming discrepancy, I can. He chooses to conclude it is a hoax and guess that it was a ham radio operators prank. I'm not so sure. I think there are other possible explanations. I don't have a set opinion on this 'transmission".

But again, my point was and is that it's an opinion that this is a "ham radio operators prank". It's not a proven fact. Acknowledgement of this is something you seem to feel the need to omit.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
But again, my point was and is that it's an opinion that this is a "ham radio operators prank". It's not a proven fact. Acknowledgement of this is something you seem to feel the need to omit.


Well explained, thank you. Does the original reporter's view that the voice was the same provide 'proof' of a hoax, without the name and a signed confession of the hoaxer? Nope, I'll concede that point.

But aren't you driving backwards here? This is an extraordinary claim. To accept it as true, a reader needs proof -- or at least preponderance of evidence --it is not a hoax. That's where the burden of proof lies.

Not only is this burden not met, I would argue that the preponderance of evidence that it IS a hoax is a lot stronger than the opposite.

All of the consequences that would be required if the comment was genuine and then covered up create a preposterous and flimsy chain of events. Since the relay station itself called the program a direct replay of NASA's official air-to-ground link (as you yourself quoted), what is the mechanism whereby everybody else listening to that link as it went out live all around the world failed to notice the same phrase? I find that hypothesis of very low probability.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join