There's no such thing as a NASA UFO

Big deal...


"Oh My G"

I saw something i cant explain...
Have to keep that a secret..
Cause, you know, we HAVE to...

UFO is comon, mainstream, happens ALL the time.

Cops, robbers, pilots, truckdrivers, hoockers, houswives, pimps,
lawyers, presidents you name more and they have ALL, without ANY
doubt seen something they cant explain, at some time.

That said, NO, i dont mean they have seen Aliens in fancy flying ships.
Cause then they would have seen something they CAN explain. RIGHT?!?

So, ENOUGH with this UFO secret hush hush. UFO´s is comon PERIOD..

Alien fansy flying ships on the other hand im not sure about.
Dont know, havent seen any yet, but UFO´s, lots..

As in

UNIDENTYFIED FLYING OBJECT

reply to post by tpg65

I don't know where you are going with this thread OP

Me either I'm just along for the ride lol. (I'm joking)
The thread title was meant to be serious but also sarcastic and show there is irony or duality in the subject of NASA UFOs. Kinda deep isn't it ? Let me try to explain

The PTB want everyone to believe there is no such thing as a NASA ufo. The problem with that is, there are millions and millions of UFO reports and thousands and thousands of Pilot-Aircraft UFO reports and those facts make it logically impossible for NASA to have never had any kind of anomalous UFO encounter.

If there are millions of UFO reports and civilians and Pilots and the military have encountered them how is it possible only NASAs flight vehicles and their personnel throughout history have become invisible or immune to the phenomena ?

Like I said in the Op ... Do UFOs see the NASA logo and then run and hide ?

There are plenty of NASA ufos. Keep in mind, spacecraft are engulfed in a cloud of debris, and it is a mess out there from previous flights. So, there is a better than average chance that most NASA ufo's are nothing more than space debris, and not all of it is 100% verifiable.

But I don't think that is the issue here. I think the real issue here is, due to the ignorance that surrounds the UFO subject, NASA will do anything and everything to distance itself from it. That's our own fault, not NASA's for crying out loud........

There probably are some real nice gems that NASA could comment on, if it wouldn't cause a brush fire on conspiracy sites and hurt their chances of funding.......

But I don't think NASA knows anything about aliens or UFOs anymore than you and I do.....

Originally posted by easynow
Maybe since none of us were there and nobody can truly identify that object we should just say "I don't know" what it is ? I'm ok with that how about you ?

Easy, that's my main complaint with your approach -- 'none of us were there'.. and then you cover up the testimony and views of the astronauts who WERE there to keep promoting your misinterpretations. The Gemini-11 photos are a prime example, Why don't you tell this thread what the astronauts Conrad and Gordon said about the object they saw with their own eyes? You can't possibly be ignorant of the direct eyewitness testimony.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
There was a bit of debate between Jim Oberg and Brad Sparks about what the Gemini 11 object was. Oberg opted for a Proton 3 stage and Sparks calculated that it couldn't have been that as it was some 3000 miles away. From reading around, it looks like the object remained unidentified but they agreed it was something terrestrial even as they disagreed what it was. Reading a NASA transcript shows that pretty much all agreed it was a terrestrial UFO.

Over the years, the only NASA-associated UFOs that have caught my attention are the Skylab 3 'red satellite' and some of those odd lights in a handful of STS clips. Maybe it's a dumb point, but I wonder if NASA plotted the course of the 'red satellite' and tried to identify it on later orbits?

Sparks suggested the Gemini-11 object was a jettsioned package of surplus EVA gear that the crew had thrown out the hatch a few hours earlier, which I found plausible. It was drifting and rotating in space like 'space junk'. And it could have been the Proton, too, because tracking data was too 'noisy' to determine exact positions.

The Skylab 'red' object which in one of four images showed a 'squiggle' is a curious case that looks like a camera artifact to me -- the first shot could have been at a longer exposure time and any hand-held jerkiness causes exactly such an image. As for identifying it, I've recently done some new analysis and there does NOT appear to be any other tracked satellite in the area -- my thinking is that it was another of a long series of stuff flaking off the Skylab thermal protection system, and dozens were spotted over those weeks drifting across the field of view of the solar telescope the crew was using. Why did it 'go out' shortly before Skylab entered shadow, suggesting it was some distance ahead of Skylab in its own orbit? I checked the orientation of the window and the line of sight -- it could easily have just entered Skylab's own shadow as the crew watched it drifting nearby. I'm not ready to make any conclusions but the case is 'open.' All three crewmen saw it and are adament it was pretty bright but it was NEVER anything BUT a point source of light -- the 'squiggle' is an illusion.
'

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I can't comment on any of the photos as I am no expert in these matters however,

If any sane individual were to look at the evidence that is in the public domain it is clear, without a shadow of a doubt that NASA does not tell the whole truth when it comes to 'strange' events in space concerning its crew and sharing these events with the general public

This we can all agree on.

I agree you define 'sane' as 'agreeing with me'. Determining what has been seen, or reported as having been seen, can be accomplished through contacts with dozens of different sources, far beyond any official NASA spox. If there is any persistent, relentless distortion of reports of space sightings, it is on the part of UFO proponents such as easynow and, maybe, you?

Originally posted by Miccey
Big deal...


"Oh My G"

I saw something i cant explain...
Have to keep that a secret..
Cause, you know, we HAVE to...

UFO is comon, mainstream, happens ALL the time.

Cops, robbers, pilots, truckdrivers, hoockers, houswives, pimps,
lawyers, presidents you name more and they have ALL, without ANY
doubt seen something they cant explain, at some time.

That said, NO, i dont mean they have seen Aliens in fancy flying ships.
Cause then they would have seen something they CAN explain. RIGHT?!?

So, ENOUGH with this UFO secret hush hush. UFO´s is comon PERIOD..

Alien fansy flying ships on the other hand im not sure about.
Dont know, havent seen any yet, but UFO´s, lots..

As in

UNIDENTYFIED FLYING OBJECT

Frustrating when people automaticly connect aliens to UFO's right

Originally posted by easynow
If there are millions of UFO reports and civilians and Pilots and the military have encountered them how is it possible only NASAs flight vehicles and their personnel throughout history have become invisible or immune to the phenomena ?

You've accidentally put your finger on EXACTLY the importance of these specific reports. It explains the ferocity with which proponents defend the reports and attack their explainers.

If ALL the famous and highly-praised and always-touted 'space UFO reports' are simple misidentifications and misinterpretations, and fictionalizations by UFO proponents, then why NOT all the others as well?

Can't allow THAT possibility!!

reply to post by JimOberg


Say for example, an astronaut did see something in space and that something was 'identifiable' as being 'foreign' to normal viewpoint such as a craft of some proportion moving at incredible speed then stopping and changing direction. can they tell all to the public? or do they have to sign any form of documents restricting them from doing so, like confidential agreements between the astronaut and their superiors?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Over the years, the only NASA-associated UFOs that have caught my attention are the Skylab 3 'red satellite' and some of those odd lights in a handful of STS clips. Maybe it's a dumb point, but I wonder if NASA plotted the course of the 'red satellite' and tried to identify it on later orbits?

Sparks suggested the Gemini-11 object was a jettsioned package of surplus EVA gear that the crew had thrown out the hatch a few hours earlier, which I found plausible. It was drifting and rotating in space like 'space junk'. And it could have been the Proton, too, because tracking data was too 'noisy' to determine exact positions.

So you're both guessing because neither of you are certain. That looks like one NASA UFO in space.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm not ready to make any conclusions but the [Skylab 3 'red satellite'] case is 'open.' All three crewmen saw it and are adament it was pretty bright but it was NEVER anything BUT a point source of light -- the 'squiggle' is an illusion.

That looks like 2 NASA UFOs in space.

Originally posted by easynow
If there are millions of UFO reports and civilians and Pilots and the military have encountered them how is it possible only NASAs flight vehicles and their personnel throughout history have become invisible or immune to the phenomena ?

Like I said in the Op ... Do UFOs see the NASA logo and then run and hide ?

If the 2 reports above are all we have of substance (officially anyway) then perhaps what you are saying means something. Surely it could be argued that on this (and only this) evidence that the ET hypothesis is weak. Where are the UFOs beyond Earth. Of course there are many more pilots than astronauts but....

On the subject of astronauts signing something - what do you think? Of course they would have to be careful what they say if they had something definite regarding aliens. Whenever there has been a serious study into the implications of disclosure of contact the conclusion has been that it could be a disaster for civilisation or at the very least not great news. There are certainly mechanisms in place to prevent uncontrolled disclosure in the event that there is contact in my opinion. It stands to reason. Jim might know different of course but that is my position.

P.S. If NASA don't call them UFOs then they can honestly say they haven't seen any. MAybe they call them UBAOs (Unidentified Beyond Atmosphere Objects?) or something (probably more sensible than that mouthful). Just a thought. They would probably be orbiting NOT flying after all.

reply to post by JimOberg

Can't allow THAT possibility!!

Jim ... I know something about UFOs you don't or ever will

Can't allow THAT possibility now can you ?


FYI - Your "it's all bunk" approach is not the solution and is part of the problem

reply to post by Pimander

Where are the UFOs beyond Earth

Exactly and that's a good simplification of the point I was trying to make and helps to identify the problem.

Thanks

Here's a MSM video with a discussion about the case

Was this ever debunked? And if not, what exactly does an "alien spacecraft" look like?

www.ken-welch.com...

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Was this ever debunked?

Debunked - No ..... Explained away with guesses ? - Yes

Nobody knows for sure what the object was. Conrad, Oberg and everyone else is just guessing and supposedly the latest theory is "space junk" but after seeing the picture of the object that explanation seems unlikely.

And if not, what exactly does an "alien spacecraft" look like?

That's the million dollar question that very few people know the answer

reply to post by Required01


Sure is frustrating.

I cant understand how an Unidentyfied Object cant exist..
And i sure as hell cant understand WHY gvmts cant
accept the fact that ALL things CANT be explained.

Just accept for petes sake.

And try to find an explanation..

If that outcome is Domestic, scientific phenomenon or EVEN Alien on
origen.."SO BE IT"...


And YES!!!
It is that easy...

PS: Alien in origin does NOT state its Alien Lifeforms driving vehicles...
Alien origin as in meteors, asteroids or some other natural cause.
But that does not say it CANT be Alien lifeforms either..Right...!!!!

Originally posted by easynow
The thread title was meant to be serious but also sarcastic and show there is irony or duality in the subject of NASA UFOs.

heya buddy... nice to see you around... hope all is good with you

in regards to the subject of 'nasa ufos'.... well, i suppose, that includes everything....

Tally-ho is also a term NASA astronauts use in audio transmissions to signify sightings of other spacecraft, space stations, and unidentified objects.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tpg65

 

Aldrin is sure he saw one of the SLA panels on Apollo 11.

that is his opinion i.e. that the ufo could have 99.99% been one of the sla panels... but there is nothing (fact/data) out there to back that contention... you also ignored my post last time re this very issue...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Reading a NASA transcript shows that pretty much all agreed it was a terrestrial UFO.

hrmzz... what is a terrestrial ufo

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tpg65

 

Aldrin is sure he saw one of the SLA panels on Apollo 11.

that is his opinion i.e. that the ufo could have 99.99% been one of the sla panels... but there is nothing (fact/data) out there to back that contention...

You are aware that SLA panels and S4B's were photographed on outbound Apollo trajectories, through Earth-based telescopes? You have seen those photographs, right?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tpg65

 

Aldrin is sure he saw one of the SLA panels on Apollo 11.

that is his opinion i.e. that the ufo could have 99.99% been one of the sla panels... but there is nothing (fact/data) out there to back that contention...

You are aware that SLA panels and S4B's were photographed on outbound Apollo trajectories, through Earth-based telescopes? You have seen those photographs, right?

you are aware that there are many other irrelevant photographs which show all kinds of things, right?