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.

 

THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT: Concerning the Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I must interject here and say that the obvious subjective arguments by BOTH sides is only hurting us. We ALL know the facts and rumours of the case, why continue to argue?

I'm done....Just saying....




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
We ALL know the facts and rumours of the case


I'm not sure everybody does, but anyone who doesn't can go to the thread link you posted on the last page to read the thread you created about it and they can find all the facts and rumors there...great job on that thread! (as usual)



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Thank you for posting the article, I find Leslie Kean to be one of the best Ufologists of our current time.


Even though what didn't turn up is incredible in it's own right to the extent in my mind it proves a complicit cover-up, the whole incident still leaves me somehow empty. How much valuable information has disappeared, possibly destroyed, that we will never know?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Not only did you not respond to my post, but you insinuated something unseemly, considering that I've never posted a response to you before (in any forum, public or private).

For the record, I came to this board through a public invitation posted in a thread I was participating in, since you're driving at something....



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
NASA stonewalling? When have they ever done that?



No one seems to have records of events like these when you know damn well they do.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


So basically your argument is that the FOI request should be for military documents relating to recovery of an object at Kecksburg.

Or that it was a distant meteor.

Or that when a further FOI request to the military turns up blank that's to be expected because the military often tell civilians they are from the FBI. So the FOI request should be to the FBI.

Or that it was a distant meteor.

Do the photos that were taken show the smoke trail of the meteor or of some authority figure trying to blow smoke up the arse of the public ?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Spacevisitor asked Oberg "If the object that crashed there was nothing more than a acorn shaped meteor......." but where in Oberg's article does he mention an acorn shaped meteor?

So it wasn't an issue with grammar skills, but with reading comprehension, which it appears is not an isolated incident.

If you want him to reply you might want to at least read his article and demonstrate you understand it, and if you're asking about an acorn shaped meteor which the article doesn't mention, maybe you should re-read the article to see what it really says?

Or did Oberg say there was an acorn shaped meteor and I missed it? If so then I'm the one who needs the remedial course in reading.



It was mentioned in the link www.debunker.com... he provided in his statement.

The Kecksburg, Pennsylvania "UFO Crash" - actually the Great Lakes Fireball of December 9, 1965



Jokingly named, "An alleged replica of an artifact supposedly recovered, erected in Kecksburg. Those aliens who flew it must have been pretty darn small!".

Also jokingly used there for making it all look ridicules, which debunkers usually do or has done with cases like this.



So I don’t understand what is so wrong then with the phrase acorn shaped I used for it, I could also have used the phrase bell shaped, or saucer-shaped because all those phrases where used for trying to describing the shape of the object/meteor.




[edit on 13/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


don't worry spacevisitor , we are all on your side except for the ones that follow Jim around licking his boots. it does say acorn appearance in the pdf and the article you linked to in your first reply say's everything else too. Jim didn't want to address your post because this case is a huge embarrassment for NASA and he defends them on a daily basis.

just remember not to waste your time expecting any normal discussion from him, he's not normal. after all this is the guy who said ...


"i suggest everyone go out and buy strawberry ice cream and maybe the ufo guy will go away !"


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So I don’t understand what is so wrong then with the phrase acorn shaped I used for it, I could also have used the phrase bell shaped, or saucer-shaped because all those phrases where used for trying to describing the shape of the object/meteor.


OK here's a hint. It appears that referring to an acorn shaped meteor doesn't acknowledge the folllowing sentence in Oberg's article:

www.jamesoberg.com...

"In the end, the same-day fall of the super-secret Venus capsule, and the bright meteor, must have been coincidences. That happens, too."


Do you get the impression the meteor and something else falling are 2 different events?

Nobody claims Venus capsule didn't come down that day, it did. Where is a matter of some debate. And nobody claims there wasn't something in the sky that would have been visible from Kecksburg (The alleged meteor). But is there an implication there that there could have been 2 separate events? A satellite falling, and a meteor falling on the same day?

Maybe it wasn't a Russian satellite (a NASA spokeman said it was), but the point is I don't see how you can read that article and conclude that Oberg is claiming it's part of a meteorite that fell in Kecksburg, to phrase your question the way you did.
The other thing you may want to consider is these eyewitnesses stating the object looks like a Russian satellite:


If it really looked like an acorn then why didn't they object and say: "no, it didn't look like any of those, it looked like an acorn"?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So I don’t understand what is so wrong then with the phrase acorn shaped I used for it, I could also have used the phrase bell shaped, or saucer-shaped because all those phrases where used for trying to describing the shape of the object/meteor.


OK here's a hint. It appears that referring to an acorn shaped meteor doesn't acknowledge the following sentence in Oberg's article:

www.jamesoberg.com...


"In the end, the same-day fall of the super-secret Venus capsule, and the bright meteor, must have been coincidences. That happens, too."


Thanks for the hint, because that is the confirmation for me that those people who claimed then that there was a military presence at the crash site and the retrieval of an object transported by an army truck where absolutely right.

But could it have been a super-secret Venus capsule, because look what investigator Stan Gordon said about that.


It has been confirmed that a faulty Soviet Venus probe identified as Kosmos 96, reentered in Canada on the same date, but at about 3:18 A.M. The sightings around Kecksburg occurred at about 4:47 P.M. many hours later. The Russian's have told me that Kosmos 96 was not the source of what fell that day.


www.ufoevidence.org...

That’s quite a long time-lapse don’t you think?

Then I have a question about that supposedly crashed super-secret Venus capsule.

Suppose for one moment that it was some sort of super-secret Soviet Venus capsule that also came down that day, do you think it is really possible that when it came down from out space then, force itself true the atmosphere and smashed with great force into the ground of those woods it really could be despite it had to sustain an immense heat still could be so undamaged that any guy from the street could still recognize it as some sort of Russian super-secret Soviet Venus capsule with even intact outside Russian markings on it?

Here is what the eyewitnesses stating the object looks like.


The object was a bronze-gold color, and appeared to be one solid piece of metal, displaying no rivets or seams. At the back of the acorn shape was what witness Jim Romansky calls the bumper area.

Upon this area were unusual markings that Romansky says looked similar to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Romansky who has been a machinist for many years, says the object itself, looked as though it had been made from liquid metal and poured into a big mold. Since the object was impacted in the ground, the bottom portion was not visible, but what could be seen appeared well intact.


www.ufoevidence.org...

Not in any way looking like a crashed satellite don’t you think?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Nobody claims Venus capsule didn't come down that day, it did. Where is a matter of some debate. And nobody claims there wasn't something in the sky that would have been visible from Kecksburg (The alleged meteor). But is there an implication there that there could have been 2 separate events? A satellite falling, and a meteor falling on the same day?


Why do you consisting in holding back the real possibility these day's that it could be also a UFO [read ET craft] that came down that day?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The other thing you may want to consider is these eyewitnesses stating the object looks like a Russian satellite:



If it really looked like an acorn then why didn't they object and say: "no, it didn't look like any of those, it looked like an acorn"?


Seriously, how on Earth can you ask me to even consider what is showed in nota bene a military produced video regarding UFO/ET subjects?


Do you really think that they would telling me the truth of it all, come on, we live in 2009.

You must also know that the military is telling us nothing more than lies about that subject for decades now, so how on Earth can you think then that that position is suddenly changed?


[edit on 15/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe it wasn't a Russian satellite (a NASA spokeman said it was), but the point is I don't see how you can read that article and conclude that Oberg is claiming it's part of a meteorite that fell in Kecksburg, to phrase your question the way you did.


My hypothesis is that the 'acorn-shaped' Kosmos (Venus capsule) fell to Earth many hours earlier and thousands of miles away, and witnesses never described what they claimed to have seen in PA as 'acorn-shaped' until years later after they had been SHOWN photos of the acorn-shaped Venus capsule.

But I missed the 'NASA spokesman' saying that whatever was reported to have fallen near Kecksb was 'a Russian satellite'. Where was that statement cited and who made it, please?



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
But I missed the 'NASA spokesman' saying that whatever was reported to have fallen near Kecksb was 'a Russian satellite'. Where was that statement cited and who made it, please?


Could this be the answer you are looking for?


2005: NASA changes story to "Russian satellite"
In December 2005, just before the 40th anniversary of the Kecksburg crash, NASA released a statement to the effect that they had examined metallic fragments from the object and now claimed it was from a re-entering "Russian satellite". The spokesman further claimed that the related records had been misplaced. According to an Associated Press story:

The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s.

As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and give our expert opinion," Steitz said. "We did that, we boxed (the case) up and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced.
—Steitz, [7][8][9]

This new explanation from NASA contradicts the official Air Force explanation in 1965 of the fireball being from a meteor and of nothing being found.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Thanks -- Wikipedia says 'NASA released a statement'. Good enough for you?

Pardon me for pestering, but I'd like to see the original statement, and not what some volunteer Wikipedia enthusiast SAYS the statement said. It quotes an AP article that quotes a NASA guy named "Dave Steitz" -- let me chase that down.






[edit on 15-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks -- Wikipedia says 'NASA released a statement'. Good enough for you?

Pardon me for pestering, but I'd like to see the original statement, and not what some volunteer Wikipedia enthusiast SAYS the statement said. It quotes an AP article that quotes a NASA guy named "Dave Steitz" -- let me chase that down.


Well, you can find information about it all over the place, do you think they all sucked that out of there thumb?


Cosmos 96

There had been some speculation (e.g. NASA's James Oberg) that the object in the Kecksburg Incident may have been debris from Cosmos 96, a Soviet satellite. Cosmos 96 had a bell- or acorn-like shape similar to the object reported by eyewitnesses (though much smaller than what witnesses reported).

However, in a 1991 report, US Space Command concluded that Cosmos 96 crashed in Canada at 3.18am on December 9, 1965, about 13 hours before the fireball thought to be the Kecksburg object undergoing re-entry was recorded at 4.45pm [4] .

In addition, in a 2003 interview Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center Nicholas L. Johnson stated:
I can tell you categorically, that there is no way that any debris from Cosmos 96 could have landed in Pennsylvania anywhere around 4:45 p.m.[...] That’s an absolute. Orbital mechanics is very strict. [5]


wapedia.mobi...


By Leslie Kean
The Coalition for Freedom of Information
October, 2003

The Cosmos 96 question is settled once and for all
Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, who is recognized internationally as an authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems, has determined that Cosmos 96, the Russian Venera probe that has been considered a possible explanation for the Kecksburg object for decades, did not land in Pennsylvania on the afternoon of December 9, 1965. Furthermore, he states that no other man-made object from any country came down that day.

Debris from Cosmos 96 has been a leading contender as an explanation for the Kecksburg object, due to the fact that it came down early that morning over Canada. Perhaps part ended up in Pennsylvania later, the theory went. The Air Force stated at the time that no space debris entered the atmosphere that day, and that all aircraft and missiles were accounted for.

Johnson examined the orbital data for Cosmos 96 and was able to calculate when it would have passed over Pennsylvania if it had been in orbit that day. The time, when it traveled from north to south, was at approximately 6:20 am.

The Kecksburg object came down at 4:45 p.m. “I can tell you categorically, that there is no way that any debris from Cosmos 96 could have landed in Pennsylvania anywhere around 4:45 p.m.,” said Johnson in an interview on October 10, 2003. “That’s an absolute. Orbital mechanics is very strict.”


www.freedomofinfo.org...


"Numerous eye-witness accounts coupled with local newspaper and radio reports clearly indicate that something crashed," said Kean.

"New forensic evidence also supports this finding, while the elimination of Cosmos 96 from the picture only heightens the mystery." Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, a recognized international authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems, recently analyzed orbital data on Cosmos 96, the Russian Venera probe that has been considered a viable explanation for the Kecksburg object for decades.

"In a recent interview, Johnson told me that no debris from Cosmos 96 could have possibly landed in Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965," Kean stated. "Furthermore, he states that no man-made object from any country came down that day."


www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim,you didn't even bother to address anyone's points - all you realy did was make sarcastic,evasive remarks.


Some great poster hereabouts used to say, "Brutal honesty is better than
gentle deception."

But he evidently didn't really MEAN it.



another sarcastic remark. instead of pretending to be smart why dont you actually answer some questions and maybe include the conclusion, i dont see any.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks -- Wikipedia says 'NASA released a statement'. Good enough for you?

Pardon me for pestering, but I'd like to see the original statement, and not what some volunteer Wikipedia enthusiast SAYS the statement said. It quotes an AP article that quotes a NASA guy named "Dave Steitz" -- let me chase that down.


Yes Wikipedia can be kind of "hit-or-miss" regarding accuracy, but I find a lot more "hits" than "misses" though it depends on the subject, whether the article is flagged as not meeting Wikipedia standards, etc.

I found it in the article linked in the OP, which I don't consider to be a reliable source, however that linked to the following:

www.freedomofinfo.org...

Which has a link to the following article apparently on the AP wire which is somewhat more credible :

www.news24.com...

However finding the actual transcript of what Dave Steitz said would be even better, though I haven't really looked for that yet.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Why do you consisting in holding back the real possibility these day's that it could be also a UFO [read ET craft] that came down that day?

Seriously, how on Earth can you ask me to even consider what is showed in nota bene a military produced video regarding UFO/ET subjects?


Do you really think that they would telling me the truth of it all, come on, we live in 2009.

You must also know that the military is telling us nothing more than lies about that subject for decades now, so how on Earth can you think then that that position is suddenly changed?


I don't know what, if anything, fell in Kecksburg, and therefore I'm unable to rule out anything, including an ET craft. In terms of looking at likelihoods, it does seem to make sense to look for common explanations first, but that doesn't mean the common explanations are always right.

As for your incredulity about what you hear being the truth, I agree that when the military lied to us for 50 years about Roswell being a weather balloon, and admitted they lied, it's hard to believe anything the military says. But I also find it prudent to apply some skepticism about eyewitness testimony made years after the fact. Even eyewitness testimony a few minutes or hours after something happens is full of errors in observation and accuracy, but the longer after the event the testimony is, the greater the errors become, and that's true even when the eyewitness isn't lying. So I think it's good to be skeptical about what the military tells us, since they are admitted liars, but I think it's also appropriate to apply some skepticism to eyewitness testimony even when you don't think the eyewitness is lying.

Also I think you're not looking at some key evidence:


Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then I have a question about that supposedly crashed super-secret Venus capsule.

Suppose for one moment that it was some sort of super-secret Soviet Venus capsule that also came down that day, do you think it is really possible that when it came down from out space then, force itself true the atmosphere and smashed with great force into the ground of those woods it really could be despite it had to sustain an immense heat still could be so undamaged that any guy from the street could still recognize it as some sort of Russian super-secret Soviet Venus capsule with even intact outside Russian markings on it?


Here is my answer to your question

Look at this photograph of a space capsule which crashed to Earth, and tell me if you think it's still recognizable:

www.jpl.nasa.gov...



It's still recognizable to me even with the damage it incurred from hitting hard ground. Now look at the terrain in Kecksburg, with the possibility of leaves to cushion the impact, etc, the space capsule could have sustained even less damage than this one, right? Is that so hard to believe? (If it was a space capsule that is, I'm not sure if it was).

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks -- Wikipedia says 'NASA released a statement'. Good enough for you?

Pardon me for pestering, but I'd like to see the original statement, and not what some volunteer Wikipedia enthusiast SAYS the statement said. It quotes an AP article that quotes a NASA guy named "Dave Steitz" -- let me chase that down.


Well, you can find information about it all over the place, do you think they all sucked that out of there thumb?


We're not as far apart as you may have thought.

I finally satisfied myself that the reports of a falling object was inconsistent with Kosmos-96 and any debris associated with it. I agree with Nick Johnson.

I don't agree with Kean, who has a lot of effort invested in the reported object (or objects -- many reports are unreconcilably at variance) being 'real' rather than a folklorogenic reflex based on the mass fervor and apparent visitation to the area by military personnel in response to the press reports.

But there also may be no 'there' there -- no actual object would have been needed, once the mistaken reports based on misperceptions of the Ontario fireball, got out into the news media and took on lives of their own.

Whether the NASA guy quoted on it was basing his comments on his own version of the story or on somebody else's version, I'd like to track that narrative thread back to its origin, too.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Theres some interesting witness testimony on this film around 1:16:55


Google Video Link



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I watched that video when it first aired, nice link, thanks for posting it.

The landowner's son says his daddy said nothing happened, but who knows if his daddy was threatened or not. One would think that would be a good source. At 19m45s they have the landowner George Kovacina say nothing happened.

The guy claiming to be answering the phone in the firestation said nobody called the firestation, which is more convincing than the landowner because you would think the fire station would have been called the way this thing was described as "smoking". But other than those two, there were a few others who said they thought nothing happened, but just like you can't prove a negative, you can't be a witness to "nothing happening" unless you know you were at the right place to observe what was happening (like the fireman answering the phone at the firestation).

The majority of other witnesses seem to say something happened there. But out of all that eyewitness testimony at 1h16m into the video, they didn't record any eyewitness say they saw an acorn-shaped object?

I noticed a couple of the eyewitnesses in this video (Jerry Betters and Bill Bulebush) were the same ones who said in the other video I posted, that the recovered object looked like the Russian spacecraft.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join