Famed NASA Astronaut almost, kind of, (not really) says Extraterrestrials are here!

Originally posted by mcrom901
nasa's general stances re ufos, as quoted on the previous page.... totally paints a different picture.... moreover, all the other stuff which you have pointed out.... are those your personal expert opinions? or were they endorsed by nasa?

Thanks for the observation. This could be a good way of approaching why I think over-eager classification of stuff as 'UFOs' can be harmful, not just silly.

Mission Control has always wanted to find out ASAP about unusual visual phenomena outside the vehicle -- for reasons detailed in the links I provided. They never called this stuff 'UFOs'. They just then -- and now -- looked at it closely to figure out if it meant some sort of hazard.

Meanwhile, many NASA officials judged the subject matter of "UFOs" by the atttitudes of the UFO buffs they encountered: UFOs are real and NASA is lying about it, UFOs could be alien critters or more likely ET visitors and NASA is too stupid to recognize this, or DOES recognize this and is too mendacious or treacherous to admit it, NASA falsifies published information to distort it and deceive the public, oh, a few dozen variations of these themes..

Many NASA officials shape their bureaucratically defensive attitude towards the entire subject on the basis of the loudest proponents, as they encountered them, and frankly, as we've encountered them right here on this thread. As a consequence, they follow a procedure even ameobas have enough brains know is proper: avoidance.

Now, when just about any stuff observed out spacecraft windows (or by external TV cameras) gets labeled as 'UFOs', what do you suppose is the official NASA response to any suggestion the stuff be examined more closely?

Here's a link to a going-against-the-tide report I produced for Mission Control about 1993 reminding everyone to pay attention to ambiguous external apparitions:
www.jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by mcrom901


Do we have the fact sheet to look at or is this it? I would love to see that fact sheet seems like it is an interesting read.

reply to post by JimOberg


thanks for those details.... but are you suggesting there are no such procedures in place involving nasa...

Reporting UFOs - Procedures

The following documents were discovered by The Black Vault that pertain to reporting UFOs by the U.S. Military, Government and Commercial installations.

1. Air Force Instruction 10-206 [87 Pages] - Although contrary to what the Air Force wants you to believe, still on the books is the reporting procedure for UFOs. (Current revision: October 15, 2008)

2. Air Force Regulation 200-2 [8 Pages, 4.76mb] - This Regulation establishes procedures for information and evidence material pertaining to unidentified flying objects and sets forth the responsibility of Air Force activities in this regard. It applies to all Air Force Activities.

3. JANAP 146(E) [33 Pages]

4. UFOB - History of the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron, 1 Jan to 30 June 1955 [74 Pages, 3.76mb]

COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS REPORTING VITAL INTELLIGENCE SIGHTINGS (CIRVIS)

5.1. Subject and Purpose. This report provides vital information to the security of the United States and Canada which, in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive action or investigation by the US and/or Canadian Armed Forces.

5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects.

air force manual 10-206

but according to dod's fact sheet....



www.dod.gov...

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


check the above link....

reply to post by mcrom901


thanks just seen it.Here is something that is interesting it is of Apollo 11 but it shows interesting insight to the way Nasa viewed UFO's at the time and probably still do. The best part for me was from around 2:30 til the end.

again I ask, is this real feetage best can be [email protected]?

reply to post by Rustami


Here is another video on the same thing and this shows the same footage which you can see it is an animated simulation.




Hope this will help answer your question.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


cool- thanks! I had used this video in a thread as a reference to what the angel?/cherub? appearance was like that I and a friend had seen as a kids in as far as it was solid bright white all over even in the eyes and glowed kind of like lightning as in this simulation, anyway a poster had brought up this same question so appreciate it, still very interesting if in fact this is a very close representation to what they had seen

reply to post by Rustami


From the way this was explained I would say it is probably as close to the real event as we will ever see. This is one of those things that is very interesting because we know there is film footage of the event, but you can guarantee we will never see the real footage in our lifetime. I would love to see the footage but I will have to just enjoy the simulated animation for now.

Many NASA officials shape their bureaucratically defensive attitude towards the entire subject on the basis of the loudest proponents, as they encountered them, and frankly, as we've encountered them right here on this thread. As a consequence, they follow a procedure even ameobas have enough brains know is proper: avoidance.

www.ufoevidence.org...

COSMONAUT MUSA MANAROV, MIR:
MIR mission 1991
It is possible that it was a kind of UFO. We can't say with any certainty what it was. It was definitely not a bigger piece of space junk, no rocket part or so, since this would have been located… the space surveillance, ours and the American, locate all bigger objects in space. They are followed, for every minute we know their position and flight direction. If such an object would have come so close to the MIR, they would have located it and informed us. I don't think it was a piece of space junk or debris. There is a lot of that in the Earth orbit - Satellite parts, rocket parts, just everything- but our space surveillance locates them, and according to them there was nothing…

www.spacefacts.de...

Posted it here for you Jim as you had so much trouble finding the site when it was posted previously on this thread. Pesky Russians eh? Being open about things...

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


yes that'd be nice! this scripture below descbribes what Mary & Mary had seen which is also a very close match to how I'd describe what I'd seen

for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. ****His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow****-Matthew28.2

but had wings and this video @2.27 is near exact other than not as glowy bright whitness nor as proportioned but very close in overall look, be cool to know where they or artist got the idea from


i would guess that whoever probably got the wings and white between these two scripts posted although there are others-
The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward-Exodus25.20

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan

Originally posted by The Shrike
Members: I know that you can see the various STS-80 clips at youtube which are no longer downloadable unless you have software that allows you to do so. I have a Rapidshare account. Can any of you post a link to source that has the whole STS-80 footage that can be downloaded?

I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.

I don't accept his conclusions.

You don't accept his conclusions because they contradict the idea that these are alien spacecraft, which is what you want to believe.

edit on 7-11-2010 by Beast Of Gevaudan because: (no reason given)

Of course his conclusions contradict my conclusions. We're both working from the same source. They are anomalous aerial objects, of that there is no doubt. I don't have a belief system.

Count how many replies also disagree with Jim's conclusions. He is almost alone.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan

Originally posted by The Shrike
Members: I know that you can see the various STS-80 clips at youtube which are no longer downloadable unless you have software that allows you to do so. I have a Rapidshare account. Can any of you post a link to source that has the whole STS-80 footage that can be downloaded?

I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.

I don't accept his conclusions.

You don't accept his conclusions because they contradict the idea that these are alien spacecraft, which is what you want to believe.

edit on 7-11-2010 by Beast Of Gevaudan because: (no reason given)

Of course his conclusions contradict my conclusions. We're both working from the same source. They are anomalous aerial objects, of that there is no doubt. I don't have a belief system.

Count how many replies also disagree with Jim's conclusions. He is almost alone.

Fair enough.

I apologise if my post seemed a little rude.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Count how many replies also disagree with Jim's conclusions. He is almost alone.

Right, I've got the actual eyewitnesses agreeing with me, and the folks agreeing with you mostly have announced they will never sully their intellects with even reading my analyses, and if any eyewitnesses provide inconvenient testimony, they're obviously liars. They are more confident, the less they know. A single-source claim of watching an eight-foot-tall alien visiting the space shuttle in orbit -- totally credible! A checkable observation of a peculiar and highly suggestive similarity in the illumination conditions of the most famous 'space UFOs' -- no, no, you said there would be no math, it makes my head explode!

I like the company I keep. You are known by the company you keep.

No complaints from ME!

Regarding the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment whose specific camera set-up captured these most famous 'space UFOs', here are the views of two other experts who apparently have few friends here:

The night-time camera views of Earth’s horizon, which included the scene in question, were undertaken as part of an experiment to observe lightning storms. The ‘Principal Investigator’ of that experiment was Otha (‘Skeet’) Vaughan, who reported he frequently saw such moving dots: “They’re an ordinary part of space flight... It’s obviously just more shuttle debris.”

Senior payloads officer James Bates, a veteran of control center support for manned space missions dating back to the Gemini program, also saw these scenes in ‘real time’: “I was a Flight Integration Manager for the Shuttle Program Office during those days and was manager of the Customer Support Room where most of the payloads and other tests were managed or run. I had also worked with Vaughan to get his lightning survey implemented, and was very familiar with all of the low-light TV ‘phenomena’ we watched for hours upon end during many of the flights. During STS-48 I was in the MCC watching the ‘snow’ or ice particles. For many flights during slow times when the crew was asleep (or awake) we would watch chunks of ice float away from main engine nozzles and ice fly out of RCS thrusters. AND we would watch the small ‘snow’ get blasted by the thruster plumes. If someone saw only a piece of such videos, yes, they could think they were UFOs.”

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've got the actual eyewitnesses agreeing with me,

just like how buzz was....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg
if any eyewitnesses provide inconvenient testimony, they're obviously liars.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JimOberg

Originally posted by JimOberg
They are more confident, the less they know. A single-source claim of watching an eight-foot-tall alien visiting the space shuttle in orbit -- totally credible! A checkable observation of a peculiar and highly suggestive similarity in the illumination conditions of the most famous 'space UFOs' -- no, no, you said there would be no math, it makes my head explode!

and how does that echo in light of the following....

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The 'debunker' report is not opinion-based reporting, it is research-based reporting.

since debunker.com has reported false information to the ufo community for over 30 years, i'd say there wasn't any research involved at all.

cheers buddy

the following two reports also do not have any basis in reality....

The crew did indeed report to earth about another tiny object they watched through their monocular. To some of the astronauts, it looked cylindrical, just like their spent rocket stage which was known to be pacing them in a parallel orbit. Said Armstrong, "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." NASA's reasonable assumption was that it was indeed the rocket stage, since it was behaving just like a rocket stage should; other Apollo flights had reported much the same thing.

The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents
by James Oberg
Excerpt from UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries
www.debunker.com...

based on the info available in the public domain, the crew had never reported any sighting to mission control....

Mission Control: 'Apollo 11, Houston. The S-IVB is about 6,000 nautical miles from you now, over.'

Buzz: 'We really didn't think we were looking at something that far away.'

www.youtube.com...

July 16, 1969-Apollo 11: This was a mission on which a UFO reportedly chased the spacecraft. "Reportedly, " indeed, but not very accurate. Actually, several UFO stories have attached themselves barnacle-like to man's first moon landing. A photo of an insulation fragment taken soon after third-stage separation has been widely published as a "UFO." The astronauts watched their booster through a telescope on the way to the moon. A series of "UFO photos" allegedly taken by astronaut Aldrin in lunar orbit are actually forgeries by a Japanese UFO magazine. An alleged "astronaut radio conversation " describing a UFO ambush is a hoax.

Astronaut "UFO" Sightings
James Oberg
www.debunker.com...

anyhooo.....

In over 30 years of UFO investigation I have not studied a single sighting for which I could not find a prosaic explanation. - paraphrase of a statement by Philip J. Klass

The Failure Of UFO Skeptics - Prosaic Explanations (By Bruce Maccabee)




re the above quote.....

UFO debunker/aviation nerd (he was an editor for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine.) Is somehow able to explain all UFO sightings. CSICOP member, toilet seat thinker, general pain to UFOlogy. Needs more fiber in his diet...an anal probe from the aliens wouldn't hurt either. Good old Phil decided to attend a UFO symposium and fell asleep during presentations and was reported to be spending more time outside sucking down cigarettes than inside listening to what was being said. This must be how he conducts all of his investigations...Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZ. So much for paying attention. SEE: CSICOP (NOTE: Mr.Klass passed away on 10-August-2005.) Once you get to CSICOP, search on "Klass" and page through the listings. Several Volumes of Klass writings can be found under the search results.

UFO - HALL OF SHAME

I apologize, but this thread is now 21 pages and I can't find what I am looking for. I want to show a co-worker that US astronauts have fully admitted, on verifiable record that they have direct knowledge of Aliens visiting earth. I don’t want anything that requires the user to “interpret” what they want it to mean either. I want the direct juice, something that leaves nothing up to guesswork. I will not accept anything out of context, such as mission quotes that don’t specifically go into detail, etc.

Can someone point to the areas in this thread, or if they have not been posted yet, can someone give me the shortcut to a place where I can see a fully documented, verifiable admission from a US astronaut that they have first-hand direct knowledge of aliens visiting earth?

Only first-hand knowledge quotes please, nothing else will do in order for me to settle this discussion with a co-worker.

I realize I am asking for a lot, becasue logic dictates if this information was presented within this thread in the manner by which the thread title is written we would not have a 21 page thread trying to "cairify" this. But if I missed it, please point it out! I'm at the ready to eat my hat over here, lol.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Why don't you ask us to show you exactly what the atom looks like and model it. No you won't find the quote's you already know don;t exist. That's not the real question. The question is to what extent NASA is being clever with its' use of words or are they just flat out lying? Because they are, in the final analysis, just another arm of a government that has been proven time and time again to lie about the subject of UFOs. What we do have from this thread is, an ex member of NASA quite blatantly indulging in deception and refusing to answer a straight question, resorting to calling people names and then quoting their opinions as fact without a shred of evidence to back it up.

So nothing changes......

Originally posted by FireMoon
No you won't find the quote's you already know don't exist.

Of course, because as we all know, the lack of evidence is evidence enough, right?

Originally posted by FireMoon
What we do have from this thread is, an ex member of NASA quite blatantly indulging in deception

So, let us get this straight, you are accusing Mr. Oberg of being a disinfo agent? A straight yes or no answer will do. Please don't equivocate.

Originally posted by FireMoon
quite blatantly indulging in deception and refusing to answer a straight question, resorting to calling people names and then quoting their opinions as fact without a shred of evidence to back it up...

Actually, Mr. Oberg is being very straight-forward and providing lots of evidence to back up his arguments. How you can accuse him of being deceptive and not providing evidence is a mystery and very telling.

Click here for more information.