X-15 Rocket Plane - UFO Encounters on the Edge of Space

Originally posted by flyingfish
It came from transcripts of a thread .The thread began with a November 29, 2001 posting by James Oberg, which objected to a reference to the X-15 sighting in Filer’s Files 16 from April 1999.

Don Ledger made the initial reply to Oberg’s posting by saying, “Flakes of ice in the vacuum of space I can buy into but not within the atmosphere at supersonic speeds – and thirty to forty feet away tumbling in front of the pressure wave – which incidentally should be well aft of the X-15. That’s one strong piece of ice flake. NASA et al seem to be getting away with the ice flake explanation for a lot of sightings and to be honest-I think it’s getting a bit old.” [3] This issue, the dynamic pressure on the X-IS at the time of the sighting, became central to the subsequent debate the following day, November 30.

Good read. Source:magonia.haaan.com...

In the end, I get feeling that although no one could say "exactly" what it was White had seen. It seems that White's statements about the objects were highlighted by the Media to fluff up the historical flight.

Yah, so unclear it seems. According to this transcript, it's unclear what White saw. By the way, thumbs up for this great thread, 'flyingfish'

If we assume the objects were approximately the size of his hands, and approximately 30 - 40 feet away, then wouldn't these 'objects' be too small to even be noticed?
Or if we assume the 'objects' were much bigger, and at the distance of 30 - 40 feet away, then perhaps they looked to be approximately the size of his hands?
Lack of visual references.
So again, it's unclear what that transcript actually is trying to say ufoupdateslist.com...
I'm afraid that that transcript about White's flight is subject for speculation only.

Here are examples showing NO Ice Flake on these planes, any time during their flights:

www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... SU-37 The best fighter in the world! A master of the sky!

www.youtube.com... Vladimir Putin about SU T-50 PAK FA Stealth Plane www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com... MIG-25 - Earthviews - To the edge of Space - 92.500ft

www.youtube.com... The SR-71 Blackbird

www.youtube.com... Dryden's 60 Years of Flight Research: The X-15 Era www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... NASA X-15 Hypersonic Research at the Edge of Space www.youtube.com...

The above footages show NO Ice Flake, any time during their flights. It's not just because of these footages, the laws of physics also should tell that it's impossible for any ice flake to be created on the X-15s (except the thin layer of frost on the underside, before launch from the B-52, outside of the liquid oxygen tank), due to friction between the air and airframe that generates too much heat, both during climbing and re-entering (especially during re-entering). Maybe the cold air in the Mesosphere cooled down the airframe of the X-15s a bit during flight through the Mesosphere, just maybe, there is however still a little bit air pressure at these hights, apparently enough air pressure to heat up and destroy Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003 www.daysaheadnews.com... yowusa.com... www.jamesoberg.com... www.youtube.com...

That's my take on it.

Thank you for posting links to video of the X-15. The footage very clearly shows frost on the fuselage in the vicinity of the liquid oxygen tank. The frost appears as white rectangles on the top and bottom of the fuselage. I took the time to look up a number of still photos, as well, that clearly show that frost often remained even after landing (sometimes melted into various patterns but always present as long as there was fuel in the tank). It is easy to see how flakes of frost might break loose as the metal fuselage flexed during flight.

As far as the "UFO" sightings go, Robert White's comments (from the original mission debrief transcripts) make his position on the subject is clear:

White said, "While I was level I started noticing some things and I said, 'Now wait a minute, they must be inside the cockpit,' but they were outside the cockpit. It looked like perhaps it might have been residue or frost or very small little things going by."

He described the largest object as looking "like a piece of paper" about the size of his hand, just off to the left side and level with the cockpit window. He thought that several smaller objects on the right side may have come from the nose of the vehicle. This would be consistent with ice forming around the hydrogen peroxide fueled reaction-control thrusters.

Sometime between 23 July and 7 September 1962, the Public Affairs Office at NASA's Flight Research Center issued NASA News release 11-62 stating that NASA Officials had released photographs taken during White's flight. Still images were printed from 16mm film shot with a motion picture camera mounted in the aircraft's lower tail fin. The pictures showed "an undetermined sized object of a grey-white color tumbling slowly above and behind the X-15."

NASA technicians correlated the frames of film showing the object with other flight data and determined that the photos were taken as the X-15 climbed through 270,000 feet. They could not say for certain whether the object in the pictures was the same one reported by White.

The news release also noted Joe Walker's sighting at an altitude of 246,700 feet on 30 April 1962. According the to release, "After a detailed examination and study, NASA officials found these objects to be particles of ice flaking off the frosty sides of the research aircraft."

Radio transcripts from Walker's flight do not mention any sighting. Walker never mentioned anything about it in his postflight comments either, perhaps because he didn't think about it until after hearing White's comments following the later flight.

In any case, the X-15 UFO sightings seem to have generated little scientific or professional interest among NASA scientists and engineers, and apparently NASA officials saw no reason not to release the photos.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Thank you for posting links to video of the X-15. The footage very clearly shows frost on the fuselage in the vicinity of the liquid oxygen tank. The frost appears as white rectangles on the top and bottom of the fuselage. I took the time to look up a number of still photos, as well, that clearly show that frost often remained even after landing (sometimes melted into various patterns but always present as long as there was fuel in the tank). It is easy to see how flakes of frost might break loose as the metal fuselage flexed during flight.

As far as the "UFO" sightings go, Robert White's comments (from the original mission debrief transcripts) make his position on the subject is clear:

White said, "While I was level I started noticing some things and I said, 'Now wait a minute, they must be inside the cockpit,' but they were outside the cockpit. It looked like perhaps it might have been residue or frost or very small little things going by."

He described the largest object as looking "like a piece of paper" about the size of his hand, just off to the left side and level with the cockpit window. He thought that several smaller objects on the right side may have come from the nose of the vehicle. This would be consistent with ice forming around the hydrogen peroxide fueled reaction-control thrusters.

Sometime between 23 July and 7 September 1962, the Public Affairs Office at NASA's Flight Research Center issued NASA News release 11-62 stating that NASA Officials had released photographs taken during White's flight. Still images were printed from 16mm film shot with a motion picture camera mounted in the aircraft's lower tail fin. The pictures showed "an undetermined sized object of a grey-white color tumbling slowly above and behind the X-15."

NASA technicians correlated the frames of film showing the object with other flight data and determined that the photos were taken as the X-15 climbed through 270,000 feet. They could not say for certain whether the object in the pictures was the same one reported by White.

The news release also noted Joe Walker's sighting at an altitude of 246,700 feet on 30 April 1962. According the to release, "After a detailed examination and study, NASA officials found these objects to be particles of ice flaking off the frosty sides of the research aircraft."

Radio transcripts from Walker's flight do not mention any sighting. Walker never mentioned anything about it in his postflight comments either, perhaps because he didn't think about it until after hearing White's comments following the later flight.

In any case, the X-15 UFO sightings seem to have generated little scientific or professional interest among NASA scientists and engineers, and apparently NASA officials saw no reason not to release the photos.

Have you ever heard of the sentences >>Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind’s made up>They are too lazy to do any proper research work>There are files for every X-15 flight that include Flight Requests, tracking charts, mission transcripts, post-flight debriefs, and other informationTwo UFOs just passed overhead!

Originally posted by JimOberg

What's the matter, are you afraid to answer 'Violater1's post?

You need to learn the concept of Equivalent Airspeed ['EAS'],
en.wikipedia.org...

and figure out actual speed and air density at the X-15 apogee, where the outside objects were noticed.

Heating did not destroy 'Columbia' at that altitude, by the way -- another gross factual error that you so eagerly conjure up to support pre-conclusions. It was the heightened air drag caused by turbulence from the wing damage [damage that was exacerbated by the localized heating from turbulent flow over the wound -- no such turbulence with the undamaged X-15s] , that caused it to yaw to the left, hit the Mach 15 slipstream sideways, and quickly tear apart from mechanical stresses far above its design limits. The fragments, including the crew cabin, rapidly fell into thicker air where the non-laminar turbulent compressive heating [not friction] scorched some pieces before they slowed down and fell to the ground.

It's amazing how many new things you can announce you 'know' that just ain't so. If your arguments were more reality based they would be more persuasive, because your research determination is first rate when it comes to finding stuff that seems to support your views.

The links you've come up with are extremely helpful to the overview website I'm working on. Thank you!

What a morbid and distasteful line of questioning, Anunnaki. These men and women died fully aware of the risks involved in their endeavors and I find it rather odious to try to shoe-horn in a bunch of the typical conspiracy quackery in an attempt to buttress a belief in visiting ET races. These people died.

Shadowhawks facts check out. You could figure that out for yourself, but you clearly aren't going to.

Somebody obviously has their mind made up and has shut out reasonable inquiry, but it certainly is not Shadowhawk.

Edit: Nevermind. It appears Mr. Oberg has set you straight, regardless.

Originally posted by WilburWheately
What a morbid and distasteful line of questioning, Anunnaki. These men and women died fully aware of the risks involved in their endeavors and I find it rather odious to try to shoe-horn in a bunch of the typical conspiracy quackery in an attempt to buttress a belief in visiting ET races. These people died.

Shadowhawks facts check out. You could figure that out for yourself, but you clearly aren't going to.

I think you misunderstood the debate, i'm not trying to convince anybody about ET visitation, and to your information, this is a conspiracy theory forum (in case you didn't know, or forgot that), but also a place were it is a good idea to post links / references from books / sources/documents that shows clear and detailed informations on who is behind them, and so far so good 'Shadowhawk' have been unclear about his sources, he have not even provided one single link to support his views, and it's not yours or my job to provide them for him. In case you didn't read 'flyingfish's posts then i suggest you to go back and read them, as 'flyingfish's posts also show that it is required to be clear about the sources, and so far so good 'Shadowhawk' have been unsuccesful.

I've been very kind trying to explain it to him, but he obviously have a big problem to understand that. Maybe you could try convince 'Shadowhawk' to be more clear about his sources, but are you willing to do that? Trust me, it doesn't hurt to try...
Look, it's of course up to him how he wants to present his posting work, but in case he wants to continue to post the way he does, his reliability will be questioned.

One thing you have to learn is that NASA as source can not always be trusted, which have been proven time and time again that NASA is covering up UFO sightings, and i have also showed some good examples during this thread as well that prove NASA is covering up UFO sightings.
And i'm also going to tell you this as well, the official transcripts about UFO sightings from the X-15s shown by NASA is as much as trustworthy as the incredible and amusing X-15 abduction story i previously presented (it tells a LOT about NASA's reliability), and to your information, IF the public is supposed to believe NASA's official transcripts of the UFO sightings from the X-15s then it's UNCLEAR what Bob White saw up there, too unclear to draw any conclusion. So based on these very UNCELAR transcripts from NASA, it's wrong to draw any conclusions, as the Ice Flake theory is based on a very thin base. The theory is not even proven.

The reason why i asked 'Shadowhawk' some questions about the death of the astronauts and a X-15 pilot is in attempt to shed some lights on what caused these deaths, and might shed some lights on how the conditions in the Mesosphere really is, and it's a fact that meteorites melt or vaporize in these heights, were satellites also burn up, the Mesosphere is also called "critical heating region", which also make the Ice Flake theory very doubtful. Even if we assume there was no air pressure in the Mesosphere, the Ice Flake theory can still not be proven.

reply to post by Anunaki10


You continue to be an insulting troll, Annunaki. I posted my sources: the original NASA flight records. Those are my sources, as well as interviews with people who worked on the program (engineers, pilots, etc.). Original transcripts are much more reliable than articles written after the fact. There are not always Internet links to such data because it exists only as a hardcopy in archival files. The documentation is available to anyone who requests it from NASA. Maybe you should try that instead of making outrageous claims based on YouTube videos and stupid shows like "UFO Hunters" that play fast and loose with the facts. (And yes, the UFO Hunters production people do sometimes fake things to make their shows more exciting. I have watched them do it. Mark Easter of MUFON exposed it on ATS.)

You have also ignored your own evidence that the X-15 was actually coated with frost before launch and even during landing. The frost is plainly visible in videos and still photos. You can not claim that there is no frost on the X-15 as there very clearly is. You supplied the evidence that shoots down your own argument.

I'm not sure why you are asking how long the crew of Columbia suffered during the reentry mishap in 2003 but you need only look at the "Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report" (NASA SP-2008-565). Investigators found five events with lethal potential to the crew, starting with cabin depressurization during break-up of the vehicle. The second event would have been exposure to a dynamic rotating load environment while wearing nonconformal helmets and lacking upper body restraint. A third event, separation from the crew module and seats with associated forces, material interactions, and thermal consequences, was least understood by investigators due to limited knowledge of these mechanisms at high Mach numbers and altitudes. Exposure to near vacuum, aerodynamic accelerations, and cold temperatures had fatal potential, and obviously ground impact. Since the crew members were all recovered without any of their survival equipment (pressure suits, helmets, thermal undergarments, etc.), it is fair to say that they were most likely deceased early in the mishap sequence.

This is backed up by the fact that during atmospheric entry from orbit, one crew member was not wearing a helmet, others had their visors open, and three were not wearing gloves. Investigators determined that there was a 40-second period after orbiter loss of control and before cabin depressurization when the crew was conscious and capable of action. Depressurization occurred so quickly that the crew would have been incapacitated before being able to fully don their gear. The report stated that, "Although circulatory systems functioned for a brief time, the crew could not have regained consciousness upon descent to lower altitudes due to the effects of depressurization."

You can't compare the Columbia mishap to the X-15-3 mishap of November 15, 1967. The space shuttle broke apart at an altitude of 200,000 feet while traveling at Mach 18. The X-15 broke apart at 65,000 feet while traveling at Mach 3.93 as a result of limit-cycle oscillations that caused the aircraft to engage in excessively severe pitch oscillations. According to the X-15 Accident Investigation Report, the forces on the aircraft were 12G vertically and 8G laterally – possibly more – and it is unlikely Mike Adams was conscious at this point.

You have never proven that NASA covers up UFO sightings. The ice flake hypothesis was based on the most likely scenario since ice was observed on the vehicle (photos and motion picture footage confirm this) and the objects looked more like ice flakes than anything else. Simple application of science and Occams' Razor tells us that it is much more likely that White and Walker observed ice flakes than anything else. Had the objects been anything more interesting, NASA scientists would have been very keen to study the phenomenon. Instead, they concluded it was ice and moved on to other things. You should, too.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Heating did not destroy 'Columbia' at that altitude, by the way -- another gross factual error that you so eagerly conjure up to support pre-conclusions.

Satellites enter the Earth's atmosphere at approximately 20,000 mph, and burns up in the Mesosphere, while space shuttles enter the Earth's atmosphere at approximately 24,000 mph, the space shuttles is usually heat-shield protected, to protect the astronauts against the heat from the air pressure in the Mesosphere, during re-entry.
Due to the defect on the heat-shield of Columbia, it's enough to make the rest of the construction to burn up, so yes, there is a very very good chance that the heating from the air pressure caused the astronauts' bodies to burn up together with Columbia, in the Mesosphere.

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Originally posted by JimOberg
Heating did not destroy 'Columbia' at that altitude, by the way -- another gross factual error that you so eagerly conjure up to support pre-conclusions.

Satellites enter the Earth's atmosphere at approximately 20,000 mph, and burns up in the Mesosphere, while space shuttles enter the Earth's atmosphere at approximately 24,000 mph, the space shuttles is usually heat-shield protected, to protect the astronauts against the heat from the air pressure in the Mesosphere, during re-entry.
Due to the defect on the heat-shield of Columbia, it's enough to make the rest of the construction to burn up, so yes, there is a very very good chance that the heating from the air pressure caused the astronauts' bodies to burn up together with Columbia, in the Mesosphere.

Not a single assertion in this passage is accurate -- it's just random space jargon gobbledegook, like a ransom note composed from newspaper clippings where the kidnappers sneezed before the glue set.

Your problem is not your ignorance of actual spaceflight -- it's your warped mis-knowledge, that you are so certain of.

Heck, even Coolottie learned some reality in her sojourn among us -- why are you so stubborny immune?

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
You continue to be an insulting troll, Annunaki. I posted my sources: the original NASA flight records. Those are my sources, as well as interviews with people who worked on the program (engineers, pilots, etc.). Original transcripts are much more reliable than articles written after the fact. There are not always Internet links to such data because it exists only as a hardcopy in archival files. The documentation is available to anyone who requests it from NASA. Maybe you should try that instead of making outrageous claims based on YouTube videos and stupid shows like "UFO Hunters" that play fast and loose with the facts. (And yes, the UFO Hunters production people do sometimes fake things to make their shows more exciting. I have watched them do it. Mark Easter of MUFON exposed it on ATS.)

Your references to source/link during this thread have been very poor to prove your points.

Stupid shows you say, you mean only in your mind. Yet, you are still afraid to admit that your unsuccesful debunking attemps is pointless. As i previously presented, UFO Hunters don't fake their interviews with real people who are 'in the know' (including former astronaut Edgar Mitchell who confirm the coverup of UFOs), former NASA engineer John Schuessler showed Top Secret NASA documents, including Top Secret NASA documents about astronaut James McDevitt's UFO sighting in space, were McDevitt also confirm that NASA is lying about his UFO sighting, former NASA employee Donna Hare who confirm that NASA 'airbrush' photos to coverup UFOs, and Dr. Jack Kasher who dismiss NASA's ice flake explanation. NASA even lied about the true nature of the U-2 spyplane program, and the list goes on and on and on...

You have also ignored your own evidence that the X-15 was actually coated with frost before launch and even during landing. The frost is plainly visible in videos and still photos. You can not claim that there is no frost on the X-15 as there very clearly is.

Wrong, i have never ignored the thin layer of frost on the underside, go back and read my posts, and you will see i mentioned the frost. But, the thin layer of frost on the underside is not the same as Ice Flake, and in case your eye sight should be okay, then you will see no ice flaking off at any time during these flights on these video footages i just presented. As i previously said, the thin layer of frost from the underside would more likely vaporize during climbing, quickly left far behind, and the pilot wouldn't have a chance to have noticed that.

I'm not sure why you are asking how long the crew of Columbia suffered during the reentry mishap in 2003 but you need only look at the "Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report" (NASA SP-2008-565). Investigators found five events with lethal potential to the crew, starting with cabin depressurization during break-up of the vehicle. The second event would have been exposure to a dynamic rotating load environment while wearing nonconformal helmets and lacking upper body restraint. A third event, separation from the crew module and seats with associated forces, material interactions, and thermal consequences, was least understood by investigators due to limited knowledge of these mechanisms at high Mach numbers and altitudes. Exposure to near vacuum, aerodynamic accelerations, and cold temperatures had fatal potential, and obviously ground impact. Since the crew members were all recovered without any of their survival equipment (pressure suits, helmets, thermal undergarments, etc.), it is fair to say that they were most likely deceased early in the mishap sequence.

I was not trying to be cruel with that question, sorry if that question was misunderstood, my intention was in attempt to shed some lights on the cause of the deaths of the astronauts. You will find my answer to Oberg's post on this page.

This is backed up by the fact that during atmospheric entry from orbit, one crew member was not wearing a helmet, others had their visors open, and three were not wearing gloves. Investigators determined that there was a 40-second period after orbiter loss of control and before cabin depressurization when the crew was conscious and capable of action. Depressurization occurred so quickly that the crew would have been incapacitated before being able to fully don their gear. The report stated that, "Although circulatory systems functioned for a brief time, the crew could not have regained consciousness upon descent to lower altitudes due to the effects of depressurization."

You can't compare the Columbia mishap to the X-15-3 mishap of November 15, 1967. The space shuttle broke apart at an altitude of 200,000 feet while traveling at Mach 18. The X-15 broke apart at 65,000 feet while traveling at Mach 3.93 as a result of limit-cycle oscillations that caused the aircraft to engage in excessively severe pitch oscillations. According to the X-15 Accident Investigation Report, the forces on the aircraft were 12G vertically and 8G laterally – possibly more – and it is unlikely Mike Adams was conscious at this point.

You do realize that satellites travelling 20,000 mph burns up in the Mesosphere due to heat from air pressure, yes? And you do know that space shuttles travel 24,000 mph during re-entry, yes? There was a defect on the heat-shield on Columbia, which according to the laws of physics should be enough to burn up the rest of Columbia due to the heat from the air pressure. It tells how fatal the consequenses can be, just because of a little defect.
But, thanks for the references to the report about the Columbia disaster anyway.

So yes, there is air pressure enough to burn up satellites in the Mesosphere, so there had to be little bit air pressure on the X-15s, but of course not enough to burn them up.
Even if we assume there were zero air pressure in the Mesosphere, the Ice Flake theory still can not be proven. Simple as that.

You have never proven that NASA covers up UFO sightings. The ice flake hypothesis was based on the most likely scenario since ice was observed on the vehicle (photos and motion picture footage confirm this) and the objects looked more like ice flakes than anything else. Simple application of science and Occams' Razor tells us that it is much more likely that White and Walker observed ice flakes than anything else. Had the objects been anything more interesting, NASA scientists would have been very keen to study the phenomenon. Instead, they concluded it was ice and moved on to other things.

Wrong, Walker and White never concluded it was ice they saw. Beside, as you said, the X-15 UFO sightings seem to have generated little scientific or professional interest among NASA scientists and engineers. So again, this also confirm that based on transcripts of the very unclear UFO sightings by White supplied by NASA it still is wrong to make any conclusion about what White actually saw up there. However, reports also tell that White reported his UFO sighting to NASA Control Room.
And Walker reportedly said to NASA Control Room >>Two UFOs just past overhead!

Originally posted by Anunaki10
.... including Top Secret NASA documents about astronaut James McDevitt's UFO sighting in space, were McDevitt also confirm that NASA is lying about his UFO sighting,...

Who is "James McDevitt"? He doesn't appear on any NASA bio page. Why not?

Originally posted by Anunaki10
You do realize that satellites travelling 20,000 mph burns up in the Mesosphere due to heat from air pressure, yes? And you do know that space shuttles travel 24,000 mph during re-entry, yes? There was a defect on the heat-shield on Columbia, which according to the laws of physics should be enough to burn up the rest of Columbia due to the heat from the air pressure. It tells how fatal the consequenses can be, just because of a little defect.

You do realize that you are a cause for ROTFLOL merriment from spaceflight professionals and even informed amateurs -- of whom there are several dozen respected members here on ATS -- who realize how foolish you keep making yourself look by spouting non-factual nonsense? Your precious quotation about the "laws of physics" was especially a screen-spitting moment.

Your investigative energy is first rate. Learn a little reality about spaceflight and you will become a much more effective contributor to serious arguments here. The subject deserves it.

Clue #1. No space shuttle has EVER traveled anywhere NEAR 24,000 mph, and you never read it anywhere because nobody else in all my wide reading has ever made that claim. It must be entirely dreamed up. Disprove that suspicion by providing a link, if you can.

Regarding the proclaimed impossibility of ice flakes in space, try to catch the video of today's shuttle launch [I just watched it myself] and observe all the ice flakes breaking off at ET sep, and how they whiz around making right angle turns and changing speed.

Here's the link:

www.youtube.com...
starting about 09:20

Originally posted by JimOberg
You do realize that you are a cause for ROTFLOL merriment from spaceflight professionals and even informed amateurs -- of whom there are several dozen respected members here on ATS -- who realize how foolish you keep making yourself look by spouting non-factual nonsense? Your precious quotation about the "laws of physics" was especially a screen-spitting moment.

Your investigative energy is first rate. Learn a little reality about spaceflight and you will become a much more effective contributor to serious arguments here. The subject deserves it.

Clue #1. No space shuttle has EVER traveled anywhere NEAR 24,000 mph, and you never read it anywhere because nobody else in all my wide reading has ever made that claim. It must be entirely dreamed up. Disprove that suspicion by providing a link, if you can.

I got that Columbia 24,000 mph from this link www.spacetoys.com... , but i forgot to go back to recheck these other sources, before i posted that 24,000 mph error spaceflight.nasa.gov...

To achieve orbit, the shuttle must accelerate from zero to a speed of almost 28,968 kilometers per hour (18,000 miles per hour), a speed nine times as fast as the average rifle bullet.

www.popularmechanics.com...

As the Columbia accident so tragically demonstrated, a spacecraft's thermal protection system (TPS) is a matter of life and death. Re-entering the atmosphere generates tremendous heat from air compression ahead of the spacecraft's supersonic shock wave. Orion's re-entry speed from lunar missions will be about 24,000 mph, 40 percent faster than that of the shuttle. This translates into a heat buildup rate five times greater than the shuttle's, with temperatures reaching 4800 F. >>It's a huge challenge

According to 'Jaguarmike', Jim Marrs says that when humans dies, their souls are transported to an alien military base on Jupiter, and brainwashed for about 9 years. Then, the human souls are dumped into the water around California, and scramble to inhabit a newborn human baby.
So in case 'Jaguarmike' is right about Jim Marrs' views, then the souls from the dead astronauts/cosmonauts and X-15 pilots could be taken care of by aliens, were the aliens transport their souls to an alien base on Jupiter, were the souls get brainwashed for 9 years, and then dumped into the water around California, and get reborn into a new baby.

Uh what?

Originally posted by Turiddu
Uh what?

I fully understand you are shocked about this controversial "Aliens takes care of human souls" hypothesis, i wish 'Jaguarmike' and Jim Marrs would come forward and explain this to us all.

Originally posted by Turiddu
Uh what?

Jim Marrs - Anunaki, the creator Alien's hidden agenda Is it possible that the two UFOs reportedly filmed / witnessed by Joe Walker, were piloted by aliens? Yes, that's possible.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Who is "James McDevitt"? He doesn't appear on any NASA bio page. Why not?

What? According to conspiracy theories some Cosmonauts were reportedly erased from the russian space program, despite the fact that the Soviet Government denied such thing. So, may i ask, since when did NASA allegedly began to erase their astronauts from their own records? And do you happen to know when NASA allegedly erased James (Jim) McDivitt from their records? Are you saying that McDivitt never was an astronaut?

www.youtube.com... (The Right Stuff - NASA's failure rockets) Link, NASA - James (Jim) McDivitt According to this NASA homepage they say McDivitt was an astronaut. Is that a mistake by NASA?

There are photos of McDivitt wearing spacesuits, online on the Internet for all to see. What the heck is he doing in these spacesuits, when you claim he is not on NASA's records?

McDivitt was reportedly flying as a chase pilot for Robert M. White's historic X-15 flight. Is that a mistake by NASA too?

Link, John Schuessler MUFON - McDevitt (Former NASA Engineer John Schuessler is also a member of MUFON, the very same organisation that have these MUFON Journals about the UFO sightings from the X-15s, as i previously presented) John Schuessler, mentioned James McDivitt's UFO sighting from Gemini 4, in this TV-program.

www.sott.net... When Ken Storch USAF Retired testifies that UFOs nearly caused WW III at Space Command, he is testifying as an Expert Witness. John Schuessler is testifying as an Expert Witness that he saw the Filed Reports on Several Astronaut UFO encounters, including James McDivitt, Gemini IV, 1965 UFO Sighting.

www.2012changesarenow.com... The space agency is attempting to prosecute McKinnon for hacking into NASA computer files. McKinnon has stated that he saw UFO-related files in NASA’s computers. But NASA has denied any “cover-up”.

www.exopolitics.org...

The strategies for dealing with those former servicemen, corporate employees or witnesses brave or ‘foolish’ enough to come forward to reveal classified information is to intimidate, silence, eliminate or discredit these individuals. This policy involves such strategies as removing all public records of former military service men or corporate employees, forcing individuals to make retractions, deliberately distorting statements of individuals, or discrediting individuals. Bob Lazar, for example, claimed to be a former physicist employed with reverse engineering extraterrestrial craft. He described the disappearance of all his university and public records indicating how military-intelligence agencies actively discredit whistleblowers.

According to this, some of the 'Whistleblowers' either get erased from their records, and/or discredited, and/or threatened in order to silence them, in case they break their secret sworn oath and come forward to reveal what they know about UFO/ET cases.

Is that what could have happened to James McDivitt? That NASA punished him, just because he said that the photo of the UFO shown to the public by NASA is not what he saw?

Well, it's not every 'Whistleblower' who get punished. And maybe McDivitt was either punished or not punished?