Reopening the case file: NASA UFOs

reply to post by bekod


bekod, Regan stuck in my head ever since that speech. "how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask" -- here comes the clincher -- "is not an alien force ALREADY among us?"

The video, I agree also, is great. Disclosure is in the near future.

For all of those who have posted their opinions as to why they feel the way they do both pro and con.

This thread has proven how this topic is controversial. Many are adamant about their views and or opinions, obviously to some no amount of circumstantial evidence [that's apparently all we have at this point] can be presented to ever change their minds. This thread wasn't meant to change anybody's opinions and or stance. But simply to discuss the possibility that not everything presented is simply Space junk/crumpled Mylar/Ice Crystals etc.

Some may very well be just that [About 90% or more] however, I do feel that there is a very good chance that a small percentage of it is either ET sourced or Military black budget projects. Remember, I too am still on the fence about some of the video and photographic evidence.

Phage brought up a good point when he asked...

But for fun let's say they are visiting clandestinely. If they are so advanced and trying to stay hidden, why do they seem to get busted as much as they do?

This is a fair assessment, However, for argument sake lets discount 99% as being space junk, Mylar debris and or ice crystals etc. That still leaves us a 1% possibility [or more] of either secret military projects or ETs in their intergalactic or inter-dimensional hot rods etc. I'll take that 1%. So, where does this leave us?

Even if only 1/2 of that 1% turns out to be non-terrestrial in origin then that proves hands down that we are not alone. Simply put, There doesn't need to be hundreds or even thousands of sightings, videos and or photographs. All there needs to be is just one that's possibly hidden or purposely obscured in all the Space junk evidence etc. We the general public are not privy to what some of the higher ups [Those who are IN the Know] over at NASA or in the Pentagon and or even the Russian space command etc may be aware of.

This still leaves us with some rather interesting video and photographic evidence that they cannot simply explain away as swamp gas/Space junk. Having said that, I must admit that most of the remaining truly unexplainable "Evidence" cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be non-terrestrialYET...

Let's determine the context of this scene, what the shuttle was doing at the time, what the crew was saying on air-to-ground, what the illumination conditions were (day or night), all the basics that lay the groundwork for a true investigation.

So -- what is the time/date of this event so it can be independently investigated?

Well, this specific part doesn't have any information, unlike many other missions in the same video. On top of that, the audio track doesn't contain air-to-ground messages; only music. Mission code would be a good start. However, what I meant by analysis is to calculate the distance between the spacecraft and the objects, maybe their sizes, masses, and speeds/time.

Given that kind of information, we can examine the science that claims to explain how debris can behave counter-intuitively if they pass near a spacecraft as mentioned in the PDF you provided. What does it mean by near? Which factors determine the amount of that effect? Distance? Mass? Speed? All the above? And most importantly, can any combination of the above generate the kind of movement we saw in those videos?

The problem is that this PDF seems a bit too advanced. I would draw some conclusions but it's just hard. Thanks for posting it anyways, I am gonna take my time on this one.

reply to post by JimOberg


You provide some good and humorous explanations as expected Jim, I guess, this is the net and I don't know you really. Many UFOs may fit right into them, some of the objects on those missions seem to exhibit intelligent control though, not to mention some are kind of odd-looking (for lack of a better term) to be "space junk".

I can understand that thrust from a spacecraft would alter the path of debris, given it was close enough. Some of the unidentified objects seem to change direction a good distance away from the camera, and in a manner that doesn't appear to be caused by another spacecraft. Some of them appear to fade in and out, if this was caused by the shadow of the Earth/Moon or another solar body would they not only just fade one way unless they rapidly changed the direction of their trajectory?

As with some other explanations of UFOs from the USAF, NASA or whoever, from Chinese lanterns, swamp gas, test dummies to even decent ones like you provide, common sense screams that this is not what some of these objects are. The accomplishments of the human race are widely publicized and a general idea of what a potential experimental craft would look like (give or take) can be assumed, even with a little assumption, some UFOs are just plain and simple too alien-like to be a secret terrestrial spacecraft.

Along with some of the things that happened right here on Earth throughout our history, it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume some of these things are controlled craft. Unless we are being intentionally mislead for one reason or another, if these videos are legitimate there is definitely some strange stuff in space. Even more so considering some astronauts come back talking about aliens.

Everything seems to point in the same direction: that there are probably extraterrestrials around us. The sheer magnitude of someone or an organization conducting a hoax on this scale would be epic, to say the least, probably almost impossible.

If extraterrestrials do not exist around us, how did this concept of them become so prevalent in us? How did it emerge to begin with? And why do we keep seeing things we can't explain, even among a horde of hoaxes? You could say the same thing about the tooth fairy, but no one believes that is real and there are no real sightings of her I guess. I just have too many questions, but one thing is certain, a large number of various people from civilian to higher military appear to be highly interested in this ETH concept, to the point where it seems very real.

I don't really know what to believe, nor do I care about "believing" anything, but I know what it appears to be: Aliens, plain and simple. Now if we can stop arguing about what is an orbiting washer and what is an interstellar battleship, I think maybe we can figure this out.

Sorry I didn't mean to go off and write a short story, just thinking out loud.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Even if only 1/2 of that 1% turns out to be of non-terrestrial in origin then that proves hands down that we are not alone. Simply put, There doesn't need to be hundreds or even thousands of sightings, videos and or photographs. All there needs to be is just one that's possibly hidden or purposely obscured in all the Space junk evidence etc.

You've perfectly recapitulated the notorious 'residue fallacy', which claims that the existence of unsolved residue of reports is proof of an unexplainable stimulus. In your same reply you describe one reason WHY a report can be 'unexplainable' -- because the person making the claim for extraordinariness does not provide adequate contextual data to allow an independent investigation of a particular scene.

In real life, that fallacy is self-evident when you realize that it allows somebody to suggest it's reasonable to suspect that Jimmy Hoffa is on Mars.

Yet we know from experience that a certain fraction of missing persons, murders, accidents, and even human diseases remain unexplained -- without requiring us to demand the existence of alien kidnappers, saboteurs, and infectious agents. It is a reflection of the limits of human senses, memory, and situational awareness.

I suggest that to prove extraordinariness you need to establish observed behavior inconsistent with any known prosaic stimulus. And such is the proclamation often made in total sincerity -- even on this thread.

Since most UFO enthusiasts remain unaware of what is 'ordinary' on space flights [and characteristically for knowledge substitute guesses, Hollywood fantasies, and convenient assumptions of what space activities 'should' look like], they are not equipped to establish such a conclusion. But I hope the materials I have posted on my home page help in that regard.

I believe there are stimuli of significant interest behind SOME of these reports. At the current level of 'noise', I despair that they can be filtered out.

Originally posted by fusionhunter

Originally posted by jude11
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3ac77852917.png[/atsimg]

Bird.

Are you so sure?

Yes, It could be a bird or something we the public are not meant to see. We just don't know.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7933864d601e.jpg[/atsimg]

Thanks for your constructive and clear essay, it is the kind of helpful explanation of attitudes that can allow all of us to advance our still-partial understanding of this type of phenomenon.

specifically,

Originally posted by RSF77
Some of the unidentified objects seem to change direction a good distance away from the camera, and in a manner that doesn't appear to be caused by another spacecraft. Some of them appear to fade in and out, if this was caused by the shadow of the Earth/Moon or another solar body would they not only just fade one way unless they rapidly changed the direction of their trajectory?

This is an excellent point. Some of these lights POP UP out of 'nothing'. This is truly unearthly.

But it's also WHY one needs to know the illumination conditions under which the scene was imaged.

It turns out -- and nobody found this out before I did the detailed analysis -- that the most famous shuttle UFO scenes were occurring in one very brief and special illumination condition -- shortly after sunrise, as the camera is viewing backwards towards the still dark horizon on a special mesoscale lightning search program.

Small drifting objects near the shuttle -- tens to hundreds of feet -- become sunlit at the same instant the shuttle does, evidence they are nearby. But not ALL nearby objects get bathed in sunlight at sunrise.

There are some which are drifting in the shuttle's own shadow, which as they randomly and slowly move, can cross the shadow line and emerge from full darkness into sunlight.

This effect is most visible in a post-sunrise water dump, in which a stream of particles suddenly APPEARS in mid-field-of-view on its way from the dump nozzle. Sometimes the cloud dispersion is large enough you can make out part of the outline of the shuttle's shadow on the cloud.

It is a truly unearthly and entirely counter-intuitive vision and a phenomenon practically impossible to ever encounter on Earth.

And it's a reminder of how our earthbound sensory interpretation brainware, evolved in one environment over millions of years, can deceive us when moved to a fundamentally alien environment.

This situation is very brief, and lasts a few minutes at most. Soon the shuttle passes over the terminator and then bounce-back light from Earth's surface bathes even the shuttle's shadow zone in brightness. The 'pop up' phenomenon does not occur under these conditions.

So it's important to have that data, or no conclusion is justified regarding the likelihood of a prosaic explanation.

BTW -- the Mitchell quote from his moonwalk about 'having visitors' is really silly as evidence for aliens. It's already been researched and explained. Why do you suppose some youtube posters keep assuming their target audience won't bother to look for -- or be able to find -- such explanations?

Originally posted by JimOberg
You've perfectly recapitulated the notorious 'residue fallacy', which claims that the existence of unsolved residue of reports is proof of an unexplainable stimulus. In your same reply you describe one reason WHY a report can be 'unexplainable' -- because the person making the claim for extraordinariness does not provide adequate contextual data to allow an independent investigation of a particular scene.

I appreciate you posting your opinion.

It's only a "Fallacy" to those who to choose to deem it as such. I on the other hand will respectfully disagree and maintain an open albeit semi-skeptical mind. I also didn't "claim" it as "Proof" I am simply asking questions. As any reasonable and open minded person would. I understand that you and a few others choose to be myopically skeptical. This is fine. I'm not here to change yours or any others opinions as I stated in my previous reply.

I hear, read and see many other former NASA employees discussing out in the open theories and conjecture which conflict with your opinion, views and or stance. Quite a few actually. But we are to take your word over all of theirs?

Seems a bit pompous if you asked me.

In real life, that fallacy is self-evident when you realize that it allows somebody to suggest it's reasonable to suspect that Jimmy Hoffa is on Mars.

I appreciate the context of the example however, You are stating your opinion. Nothing more...

Since most UFO enthusiasts remain unaware of what is 'ordinary' on space flights [and characteristically for knowledge substitute guesses, Hollywood fantasies, and convenient assumptions of what space activities 'should' look like], they are not equipped to establish such a conclusion. But I hope the materials I have posted on my home page help in that regard.

I and many here are not "UFO enthusiasts" and do not have "Hollywood Fantasies" Wow, check that ego at the door. If I have time I'll check out the page you keep plugging.

Again. I appreciate you sharing your opinion on the matter.

reply to post by SLAYER69


as always a magnificent thread

im on the fence also here
some objects look and act strange from all NASA footage
but then how do objects float around in space? ive never been before so i dont know
natural? junk? alien?
?????????????????????????

reply to post by SLAYER69



That is a good picture of the Aurora. I have seen that fly around here in the Las Vegas area a few times. Always flying from the North of Las Vegas coming over the mountains from where Groom Lake is and heading south towards So-Cal. Always the same black shape at the same speed and same altitude during the brink of night fall.

reply to post by Mine Not Yours


realy?
wow man
any chance of filming it?
its never been confirmed it exists so would be great to see it

Originally posted by GezinhoKiko
reply to post by Mine Not Yours

 

realy?
wow man
any chance of filming it?
its never been confirmed it exists so would be great to see it

I'll see what I can do. But it runs almost like clockwork on the weekends.

reply to post by Mine Not Yours



Well if true I'm sure many here would love to see what you captured and post. I'm sure there will be skeptics. It's par for the course.

Since i have less than 20 posts to this forum, I'm not allowed to post a new thread. So I'm going to make a stab at a post here, this being the closest topic to what I'm about to say. (it is somewhat related).
What ever happened to the Lunar photos that were stored a a Mcdonal's at Moffit field? I read a post on John Lear's site about the McDonalds' being closed but what happened to the the effort to recover these photos? The last posts I could find were around 2008 but I haven't seen or heard anything lately. Just curious..Anyone know?

Very cool photos

Military aviation has been a hobby of mind since I was about 9. I was so good at I.d. ing aircraft that I was on my ships "snoopy team" in the Navy (Snoppy team is the term we used when doing intel assignments).

Anyway, let me tell you that the angle of attack in the pics makes I.D. -very- difficult. One pic looks like an inverted F-22. Most of the others look like some kind of RPV loaded out with data gathering pods, aerials etc.

The one pic against the dark sky... I have no clue what that is.

SLAYER thank you for posting those amazing and thought provoking pics and videos as I have never seen those before. I believe that aliens do exist as well as secret black budget spaceships. I also believe that the reason we can't make any progress on the issue is because everyone looks at the subject from a human scientific perspective, basically if it doesn't fit with human physics and or experiments then it doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'm sorry but that completely infuriates me that scientist "know it all" and apply all the things we learned as though we are the smartest beings in the universe.

Another peculiar thing I'm also seeing is the fact that people who obviously don't believe they exist, spend years and such trying to "debunk" it. I mean, why is it so important to change the believers minds? If you know so much on the subject and know they don't exist why spend time trying to change the "crazies", instead of focusing on other important topics that your credentials can help solve?

Just seems suspect to me

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I hear, read and see many other former NASA employees discussing out in the open theories and conjecture which conflict with your opinion, views and or stance. Quite a few actually. But we are to take your word over all of theirs? Seems a bit pompous if you asked me.

I'm not disputing here the opinions of folks like edgar mitchell on his belief in stuff people have told him, I'm addressing the theme of the OP -- the vast 'astronaut UFO' genre and its implications for ufology.

Can you cite a few specifics of former NASA employees whose experience is at variance with my opinions? We can get constructive here regarding the kind of genuine investigation which we're all hungry for.

Some names and links, please?

Just space junk.

No further evidence that these are some sort of alien crafts. Their incoherent shapes makes them even less likely to be spacecrafts. They look like ripped trash bags floating in orbit, and perhaps its close to that.

Nothing to see here...

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I am short on time at the moment and will address your reply with the attention it deserves later this afternoon. I have [YARD WORK] to attend to being Saturday.

Before I go though I'd like to ask you the same thing I've asked Phage...HERE

Do you even believe in the possibility of Alien visitation?

Do you believe if it's even possible?

AND

Does JimOberg believe we are alone?

But for fun let's say they are visiting clandestinely. If they are so advanced and trying to stay hidden, why do they seem to get busted as much as they do?

Is this really a fair assessment? Considering that one point we all seem to agree on is that 90% or more of sightings of all kinds can be explained reasonably, that leaves anywhere from .1% up to 10% depending on whose guesstimates you like. So it would seem to me they get "busted" very little in comparison to the number of sightings reported each year around the world.

Add to that, you have more people watching the skies, and everything NASA and other space agencies do around the clock, and around the world, and it's makes being clandestine a little harder to pull off. Especially if one needs to keep up appearances to the public.

However, low profile might be a better way to put it. IF they are ET. Then I seriously doubt that a handful of revelations and/or sightings are going to throw a monkey wrench in their whole agenda.

And if they are Black budget, even less worries of being seen here and there, or a few slip ups. Because there's always someone on the ground prepared to speak with "authority". And tell you that you didn't see what you think you saw.

Kind of like Donny Rumsfeld telling a room full of reporters "I never said that", when they knew damn well he did.

ETA: Not a dig on Phage. Just a few thoughts that came to mind.