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.
Originally posted by buzzEmiller
Jim, you never saw anything at NASA & that is because you are not on any NASA need to know/show list. You say what they need you to say about NASA UFOs. They show you only what they want you to see.
Just like they won't show you or give you any of the Tether Incident videos!...Just sayin...
Originally posted by Malkuth
@MR. OBerg, There is a post following this one which state that you never had the "need to know" and becuase of this status, you were never brought into the loop that includes suspicious anomalies. Now, I don't know the poster personally. He sounds as if he is speaking to you informally, as if you were acquainted.
Regardless of the "need-to-know" aspect of secret matters, I would think that anyone who has been where you have been working for 22 years (Mission Control), that you would likely be among the very first to notice is something was going on that seemed not right.
BY its very nature, when working in an environment where very few human beings ever get to go, I have to think that on an intellectual level, there must be some acknowledgement of the possibility at least that some non-Earthly intelligent presence may be discovered. This is not unreasonable, far out, ridiculous or what have you. It is prudent to recognize this possibility and- at the very least - a safety concern it poses. We leave the surface of the planet and we make an assumption that A) nobody else will be there and B) if somebody else is, then they are trespassing and, therefore, they're a possible security threat.
If I am understanding you as I think I am, you have never, not one time, seen anything from your vantage point as a NASA employee in Mission Control for 22 years you could call an alien spacecraft or evidence thereof--of NASA origin. All levels of authority had plenty of non-NASA data to chew upon, but you are not making any representations one way or the other about what those data had shown. You personally never saw a possible non-earthy vehicle and then subsequently observed other NASA officials lie about what they had seen.
OK. I am good with this. This sounds entirely plausible. It does not mean it has not happened, just not from what you have witnessed yourself. I have long argued that people are capable of keeping confidences for very long periods of time and under great duress. I want to write more but I need to go no. I'll be back later.
Originally posted by JimOberg
But in terms of actual explanations, the supernatural or paranormal or ETI options exist way, WAY down the probability spectrum, after a very long chain of 'usual suspects' as well as unusual suspects.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Originally posted by JimOberg
But in terms of actual explanations, the supernatural or paranormal or ETI options exist way, WAY down the probability spectrum, after a very long chain of 'usual suspects' as well as unusual suspects.
You mix the extraterrestrial hypothesis in with words like "supernatural" and "paranormal," but on what basis? Doesn't it seem a bit odd, in 2012, to be labeling extraterrestrial intelligence as 'beyond natural' or 'beyond normal'? Even Fermi said intelligent ET life SHOULD be here by now, so... I'm honestly not sure how 'it's too far!' could possibly ever have been considered an acceptable rationale for preemptive rejection of common-sense UFO evidence. (The many strong radar-visual cases, for instance.) Sorry, but I just don't think that modern, mainstream science shares your slightly old-fashioned assumptions.
Originally posted by 1967sander
NASA knows more than they can tell and the US knows more than they want to let us know. This has always been the case and it will never change. You don't give too much away. Especially when this information gives you an advantage.
How many of you EVER go the extra mile and actual email or phone someone at NASA or a military site to ask real questions?
Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the thoughtful, constructive, soft-spoken response. You're quibbling over terminology, but worse, I think you're falsifying my own words. I never said the ET hypothesis was 'too far', just that it was farther out than other more likely explanations. As for radar-visual cases, I'm unaware of any associated with spaceflight or NASA -- please provide details.
Originally posted by 1967sander
Hi,
As far as we know only the US landed on the moon with astronauts.
Suppose they found alien technology or even better they got in touch with them and they now exchange data.
Would the US share this information / technology with the rest of the World. Or would they use it for their own good and therefore stay way in front of their competition and "enemies"?
When I was part of NATO's Air-defense during the last decade of the cold war, we had this "they do not need to know policy". "They" was the public. No one was told about daily interceptions of N.V.A. (Nationale Volks Armee - East German Forces) MIG aircraft crossing the East German Border, or Russian Bear spy planes flying over the sea. No one officially knew about these jets weekly flying with "small" nuclear weapons (no dummies) to train pilots mentally in case of war. Daily flights of the SR-71 Blackbird and TR-1 spy planes from Lakenheath. So much happening up there and no one knew, except a few who were allowed to know.
NASA knows more than they can tell and the US knows more than they want to let us know. This has always been the case and it will never change. You don't give too much away. Especially when this information gives you an advantage.
Governments have other (bigger) interests than their people. The individual does not count. They see the bigger picture.
Can NASA be (fully) trusted as it is a government agency with direct ties to the DoD? One simple answer: NO.
Greetz,
Sander
Originally posted by Chadwickus
What do I win?
Originally posted by Malkuth
Mr. Oberg. I think this post just above mine here underscores the problem rather well. The informed do keep the uninformed at something of a disadvantage. We (the uninformed) cannot cite specific examples of information that should be given to us because such information CANNOT be given to us. What a perfect conundrum. What a perfect defense for those who have done the withholding. So, all that is left then, is hearsay and speculation. The whistleblower who brings us the information is now a "lawbreaker" and , therefore, has no cred. There will then be a more or less proportional effort made to discredit the whistleblower. This is the tried and true approach to managing information that has "gone rogue".
snip