Alternate View on NASA

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 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...

What color is the sky on YOUR planet, buzz?

There must be some fantasy cartoon character there going by the name 'James Oberg', because it sure isn't me you're talking about.

Thanks for illustrating the UFO True believer's "Explain-Away Mantras", this one is, if I remember correctly, #6.

@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 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.

I am not speaking for Jim Oberg but Jim and I have been "sparring" since the '90s on other, gone and forgotten, UFO forums and Jim never gave in to the fact that some NASA videos show downright UFOs! But Jim always made it sound that no one outside of NASA was familiar with ice particles, shuttle debris, shuttle engine firings, shuttle orientation, whether the videos were shot in night or day, etc.

For some reason, Jim sees things differently and has NEVER admitted that there are unknowns in space as there are unknowns seen from Earth. His explanations sometimes defy logic. His work for NASA, during and after, may have been admirable but he has never come over to our "side" regarding what we are convinced are non-human objects in space. I've quoted untold sequences taken far from the shuttle and having no connection to shuttles but it doesn't seem to get through.

But he seems to be a nice guy and we have enjoyed a mutual respect for each other so I'm not badmouthing him, just stating what seems to be at least my reality.

I'm putting the finishing touches on a special section of my home page that will be based on "99 FAQs About Space UFOs". that draws heavily on my experience here and elsewhere in seeing how there is an experience gap that allows a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations to flourish.By bridging that gap we can create a productive, powerful strategy with, at last, the prospect of a successful search plan.

My primary concern is that unusual visual stimuli on space flights could well -- and have on occasionally actually BEEN -- indicators of vehicle malfunction or other operational anomalies that need urgent action to continue the mission or even save the lives of the crew. That's what makes the entire notion that NASA would try to HIDE unusual apparitions from the flight control team, and through them, the public, so silly. In space, that could be suicide.

Other reports are suggestive of potentially interesting phenomena -- such as the original 'light flashes', such as Andy Thomas's 'flickering fiery ring', or such as Kovalyonok's morphing clouds over South Africa -- worthy of serious investigation. We go into space to be surprised, so again it's self-defeating to dismiss reports of things we don't expect. 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.

Lastly, there is the non-zero and never disprovable possibility that this new environment opens new human opportunities for detection of hitherto unavailable stimuli, of ANY origin.

All of these REAL possibilities argues strongly that 'noise' and 'false positives' need to be filtered out -- but not TOO vigorously or the pearls might be tossed out with the oyster shells. It's what makes the subject interesting AND important.

How does that make my views, and my suggested search strategies, all that different from most other folks around here?

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.

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 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.

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
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.

A lot of people believe this, but all they seem to do is keep repeating it to each other. How well has that worked in terms of advancing real understanding? If you're satisfied by sitting around in an intellectual ghetto reassuring each other how smart and super-informed you all are, be my guest and keep it up. A few others of us are trying to GET somewhere.

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".

So, given that this is all we have as a defense, we'll look at an author like Dr. Violette, a physicist and cosmologist. He is held to be creditworthy by anyone who claims to know him. In one of his books he discusses a conversation he had had with another USAP scientist ( a.k.a."Ray") who reports that physics, as it is taught in today's schools and universities is regarded as "antiquated", "old, classic" and "wrong". Much more modern physics is held closely by the aerospace industry. Things like the aether and gravity have already been solved for. If this is true, it would explain how a man like one of the recent directors of the Skunkworks (whose name eludes me at the moment, Ben King, maybe?) said in a speech at his retirement that anything we can imagine scientifically in terms of spaceflight has already been done (as of 1995) and that we already have the technology to take ET back home, among other things.This was not a flip joke made to get a laugh in a speech.

How many similar reports by credible people need to be made before we can no longer be accused of speculating? In this country we can convict people of murder without a body, a motive or an opportunity, in other words, completely on circumstantial evidence. (I am not saying this is right or wrong to do, mind you.) My point is that reasonable people can arrive at reasonable conclusions given enough credible reports of something by credible people in a credible manner. Or as somebody else put it, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Clever? Yes. True? Certainly.

At some point, it became reasonable to argue for the position that important information is withheld based on ongoing arrival of new, credible examples. I think this is where we have been at on the subject of the extraterrestrial presence and on the idea that much more information has been withheld than national security would ever require in order to have integrity.

I think it is a given that, unless something truly extraordinary of an extraterrestrial nature should occur, something so big it just cannot be "contained and controlled", it is quite, quite unlikely that an "official" disclosure will ever come from a governmental organization. This has the effect of placing the responsibility for a similar disclosure to come from non-official sources. For example, the implants which a Dr. Leir has removed from nearly a dozen patients which are functional transmitters and which are made of alloys which cannot be made on Earth, or maybe the Starchild skull of LLoyd Pye which has a stunningly peculiar variation of a critical gene will be the foundations of new public opinion that ET is here, has been here and does interact with us. That is, we are going to have to convince each other, then we are going to have to decide how to handle our trusted public servants who have betrayed us by keeping life-enhancing technology and information away from us to the point of ruining professional careers, and worse.

Lastly, we are so resistant to being candid that despite President Obama's executive order for government agencies to review and revamp all of their classification procedures in the name of getting out from under what has become a very expensive and dangerous management crisis of many tons weekly of new secret documents that in a recent check to see how the agencies were doing with complying with the executive order, most agencies had yet to start and I think the deadline to comply has just passed.


SO, Mr Oberg, we're in a mess. Secrecy is out of hand. It has been abused. The abusers have "STAY OUT OF JAIL" cards. We suffer for it. The public's lack of vigilance combined with a sort of blind trust many place in our 'leaders' has brought us to a place where we need to either start helping each other or distrust gets the better of us, then who knows what happens? All of this is not some fiction born of a bored imagination. This is our reality right now. Thanks for letting me be so windy...or as I sometimes accuse one of my friends--of being incontinent of opinion.

reply to post by zorgon


Number 1 is what we see on ATS all the time, be it from the NASA haters, to the Moon/Mars structures people etc etc.

Number 2 is barely ever seen, you're not gonna see the likes of Arken scouring through thousands of pages of boring data, not while google moon is available anyway.

It's ok though, I avoid it too

Number 3, I have to point out that the NASA freedom of information act is virtually a straight copy of the federal freedom of information act.

So, whilst it is possible there are things NASA aren't telling Joe Public, using the FOIA as evidence of it, doesn't work.

As for your question....

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?

I've emailed a few questions to SOHO and STEREO scientists before. Also helped clarify an article on space.com

What do I win?

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.

I don't see it as quibbling at all. It highlights a fundamental difference that seems to puzzle you. And I'm definitely not "falsifying [your] words." (I'm not sure why you'd make that accusation, since I quoted you directly?)

Anyway, perhaps I missed some subtle humor (quite possible!), but above you conclude by asking: "How does that make my views... all that different from most other folks around here?" And my point was, if you're honestly puzzled by that difference, it can be found directly in your statement (in the very same post) that "the supernatural or paranormal or ETI options exist way, WAY down the probability spectrum."

Supernatural and paranormal are basically synonyms, meaning outside of natural and scientific law, correct? So is it not fair to say that you view "ETI", the 3rd word in your 'or'-separated series, as something that is also outside of natural law, at least as a potential explanation for some UFO's?

I'm not sure that's a question that needs to be addressed, but there are some rather fundamental assumption at play there -- ones that perhaps act as a barrier to a well-calibrated UFO evidence filter? -- and it seemed to be an odd thing for you to toss out there only a few sentences before asking how your views are really all that different, that's all. There's certainly no need to falsify your words in order to point out that your assumptions are showing, and may be a bit dated.

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

I am not a conspiracist because being so means that you are not sure about what you are conspiring. I do not accept that astronauts saw anything out of the ordinary while they were on the moon. What they may have seen, using films (now in video), are unknowns which Oberg calls moon "pigeons" as silly a nomenclature as it gets. They are real, jenoowine, unknown non-human objects fleeting over the lunar surface.

NASA knows more than they can tell us because we are not on the same technological level as they are so to us they speak gibberish. Who cares?

What advantage could NASA gain from admitting that there are non-human craft being seen, photographed, and video'ed all over the planet and in space? They don't know what they are and I don't think anyone is losing any sleep over it. It's only those that want more than they need to know that are up in arms about "disclosure" which will never happen as there is nothing to disclose from NASA or any other government agency. The info they are "keeping" from you has nothing to do with secret info about UFOs or aliens.

IF things were as conspiracists want to believe our world would have changed, our technology would be vastly superior to what it is presently, Corso notwithstanding.

This forum's members do not have any esoteric information that could answer anyone's suspicions.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What do I win?

The third finger



By the way... how ironic is THIS headline today?

Science Journal to Feds: Stop Muzzling Scientists
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Serendipity

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

Your lengthy comments noted, what you really point to is that the U.S. government, as it has been for a few decades, is a mess. It is no longer a citizens' government, it belongs to whoever has the influence and the money to back the influence. Federal agencies have grown by leaps and bounds and there is no contiguous control by anyone over anyone. NASA is one of those agencies that is under someone else's control while making it look like they're in control but we, the unwashed, know better. NASA has problems up the wahoo. Do you really think that they know something that could result in a more efficient agency? I don't think so. Sure, they waste tax payers' money in a lot of silly projects and that is the key word "silly" for if they had out-of-this-world information would they continue to be as inefficient as they seem? Sending shuttles into space with flaws bigger than a breadbox? Sending probes to Mars that get lost or whatever happened to them?

I'm not crazy about what NASA has become and have voiced my negative opinions since UFO forums began in the '90s but I do not accept anyone's opinion when it comes to NASA keeping secrets connected to UFOs and aliens.

I've cleaned up a lot of links at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, but it's still poorly organized and there are a lot of TBS's. The biggest is my '99 FAQs', in final prep. Still, it might amuse a casual browser even now.

Along the lines of cyncial and skeptical views of NASA PAO, expressed here, the following links may help illuminate common ground we all can work from:

My notorious NASA press release by-name attack for ‘wacko’ ideas:
www.nasa.gov...

The full story of that controversy over NASA Mars screw-ups and coverups:
www.jamesoberg.com...

March 14, 2011 – Story about NASA phony excuse to deny my FOIA request re Russian hardware
www.thespacereview.com...

photo: 1997: Jim testifies before Congress about his concerns over flagging NASA flight safety standards, shortly before leaving his 22-year career at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
www.jamesoberg.com...

Prepared statement, September 18, 1997 testimony
www.jamesoberg.com...

Prepared statement, October 7, 1998, return testimony before Congress,
a year after I’d left NASA-JSC
www.jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by zorgon


I too, talked to a friend I had in Nasa years ago, about 20 years to be exact. But it was concerning Space Camp...no conspiracy stuff.

Well, the topic re-arises!!

NASA's Unexplained Files
Premieres Tuesday, March 27 at 10PM E/P
science.discovery.com...