It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA "Coverup" Theory Debunked? Space Agency resisted DOD urge to cover up Skylab photo of Area-51

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:38 PM

reply to post by JadeStar

That post has little relevance to the subject of this post. You claimed to be able to debunk the NASA cover-up theory in your subject, yet you offer only a single instance of a vaguely comparable situation. You're going to need considerably more evidence and much more sound logic if you're going to convince anyone that anything is 'debunked'.

Perhaps you have the burden of proof upside down.

Accusations and insinuations are easy, proving them is a lot harder. And for most folks who enjoy feeling smugly smarter than the gummint scientists, proof is hardly needed to garnish the ego-enjoyment of make-believe 'insider knowledge'.

People in government agencies keep secrets for many reasons, some good and some not. My own involvement with NASA was in whistle-blowing to Congress over top-level secrets about the decay of the 'safety culture' in the mid-1990s, a process NASA self-denied and hid, inevitably leading to a replay of the Challenger disaster, with Columbia.

I've just not run into any UFO secrets while working inside the Johnson Space Center, at Mission Control. The accusations I've read over the years don't hold water, but it doesn't mean anyone should pre-decide there are no secrets, or alternately are vast secrets. Or if not that much, maybe more likely half-vast secrets.

Keep looking, and weighing the evidence, and make them earn your trust scene by scene. And follow the trail to secrets of all kinds.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

I have a great deal of respect for the work you have done Mr Oberg, and as I've stated several times during this thread I have no intention of weighing in on the NASA cover-up debate specifically. I just have issue when someone claims a certain question is debunked without sufficient evidence to support that claim.

I actually strongly believe that much of ATS has the burden of proof bass-ackwards. They come to every debate with the idea that claims that have been made elsewhere on ATS are accepted as default claims for every single thread. Yes, others have made the claim on ATS that NASA are engaged in a cover-up. This is not a response to such a claim.

This is a stand-alone post which makes a claim of its own: NASA refused to cover-up once, therefore NASA would never cover-up. That is the most simple breakdown of the claim made in the initial post, and it is that claim which needs to be supported by evidence. Sure, the claims made elsewhere need to be supported by evidence too - but there is a claim being made here, and it requires supporting evidence as much as any.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

I just red your what are you saying...not in so many words...

Cooper's narrative -- the prematurely developed film with visible license
plates, the forbidden peek at a super-secret installation, the cover-up from
the highest levels of the government -- is by far the more exciting version of this incident. His sincerity and self-confidence remains unquestioned.

Obviously you want to say he's a liar...but in prettier terms. After all, he is the American hero.

Not going in to the Gemini 5 trajectory...since I know jack about that...but it sounds plausible to me...that if the Pentagon was aware that he took some photos of the area...that they would confiscate the film and classify it. They couldn't be sure what he photographed...they had to take a look.

Maybe after they took a look...they declassified most of the harmless photos. If there were any to classify...they could have done that and returned the rest.

I'm wondering...

Two rolls of 55 shots each, and 28 more from a third roll, had been
catalogued in the NASA photo system on September 23, 1965, just a month
after the flight, according to archivist David Sharron

Do we know the exact number of rolls of film that was used on board ?

2 x 55 +28= 138 photos

Surely there weren't exactly 138 photos. The third roll had 28...what about the rest of the photos from that roll ?

What are you thoughts on:

Nor did Cooper ever claim
"he flew directly over Area 51" -- the camera really "had a range of view of
about 1500 miles".

Does this make sense ? For the camera in question ? If true that would nullify your "trajectory nowhere near Area 51".

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:41 AM
I tried to understand but this thread jugs takes off as if mid way through a conversation.

Starting a thread with random cites from a source, leads me to the assumption you believe everyone already has a good base of knowledge on what ever this is about.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by JadeStar

You are looking in the wrong place. Focus on the anomolies on the Far Side of the Moon. Although, Apollo 17 might have been at a very interesting place. Just to start.

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:37 AM



Alright, I've had it....

Please read my response in this thread:

Oh, "you've had it", huh?
Sorry you used faulty logic.

It's not faulty logic.

I provided a real world incident which took place which refutes the "NASA Cover up theory,"

And unless I am mistaken it has more documentation going for it than ANY NASA Cover up theory you can put forward.

You make the allegation that NASA is covering something up, its up to you to support it with evidence such as what I pointed out.

So far I've seen none in this thread or others like it.

Tinfoil hat time I see.... Trust me, I may be just a student but I have participated in NASA sponsored workshops in the past and those people would be thrilled to find life and EVERYONE in astrobiology wants more missions, more robust science, more targeted searches for extant and CURRENT life however there are political forces, parties and people opposed to science who see any mission to Mars or anywhere else as a "big government program that is a waste of time and my tax dollars".

How many times have YOU scoffed at stories about "scientists looking for life in frozen lake in Antarctica" or "scientists receive grant to study the sex habits and migration of ants"? Don't lie. You probably did it because you didn't understand the science or where such research fit into the larger search for life in the universe or equally big quests in the sciences.

Sadly that's just how it is, and you see plenty of sentiment of that sort right here on ATS.

The fact is, if you want high resolution, high sensitivity basic raw science then it is going to cost money. I saw someone complaining the other day that $600 million that NASA's Kepler Mission (you know the little space telescope which is finding all the earthlike planets?) cost was a waste of money!


Yet we build plenty of $2 billion dollar B2 Spirit bombers (made for the Cold War), billion dollar ships the US Navy doesn't even want (to keep the dollars flowing into certain congressional districts), etc.

NASA due to its high visibility is usually one of the first things cut. And it doesn't matter what party is in the Congress or White House. That's been consistent since Kennedy.

Americans however are fine with over-funding big ticket military and intelligence items.

TRUE STORY: The NRO just gave NASA two space telescope optics that are BETTER than Hubble which your average Joe Sixpack had no idea existed. Just like, "Here take these, we don't need them, they're obsolete and we'd just send them off to the scrap yard so if you want 'em take 'em."

"NASA Mulls Missions for Donated Spy Satellite Telescopes" -

And most everyone in astronomy is drooling over the possibilities for these mirrors.

Drooling over the leftover scraps of dinner off of the plate of the National Reconnoissance Office!

It's like you drooling over an old school monochrome CRT given to you to surf the internet while the person who gave you it is using their flat screen 31" LED!

ANOTHER TRUE STORY: I was at an exoplanet conference last year and I asked one researcher who shall remain nameless, what it kind of optics we'd need to begin to get detailed, rich, spectra back from Super Earths and he told me but then added, "we'd be reinventing the wheel, the optics to do what you want exist but they are looking down at the Earth."

I just shook my head and said, "well they're looking the wrong way."

In other words we have the technology to detect alien life and perhaps even alien civilizations on other planets out there but a good portion of it is looking down at US!

So perhaps stop badgering NASA, a civilian agency and start asking why so much of your tax money is going into a black hole called the black budget?

If I sound a bit angry it is because I am.

I am in college majoring in a field that many people are hugely interested in as evidenced by the plethora and popularity of "UFO" and "Ancient Aliens" type TV shows and forums like this one, but when it comes to the REAL scientific search for ET they have little intereste in funding it. Or worse, accuse the very people who are looking it of covering it up!

It's much easier (and cheaper) to sit back, munching on cheetos and say, "see, they know all about aliens, they're covering them up." while at the same time doing NOTHING to support REAL science in the field.

Look, I love a conspiracy as much as anyone. And I especially love debunking false conspiracies but on this, so many people on this site look at NASA and think of it as this huge government agency.

NASA is not that big at all compared to other government agencies. Neither in manpower or budget. NSA, NRO, CIA, DIA, NGIS all have bigger budgets. Yet NASA is the target of so much B.S. on here and other conspiracy sites! Everything from "Moon Hoax" theories to "They have aliens on ice and airbrush aliens out of photos in the JSC". All of it B.S.

Just from a logic point of view it falls down. Covering up Aliens for a Space Agency who has an ever-shrinking budget MAKES NO SENSE. Not to mention the thousands of independent research teams around the world who gather and use NASA data. I guess they'd rather be a part of a vast conspiracy than collect their millions of dollars and Nobel Prize!??!?!

C'mon really!?

They aren't covering anything up. Most people in NASA would love to find life, even extant life out there. It would help increase their budget and fund more interesting research!

As Sinead O'Connor once said: "Fight the REAL enemy!"

Deny Ignorance.

edit on 12-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2013 by JadeStar because: Fight the REAL enemy!

You just don't get it, do you?

As I said, I'm not the type to scream NASA cover up.
I only came here to address the ridiculous fallacy you presented in your OP.
I didn't make any claims.

For someone who likes to remind people in nearly every post you make how smart you are, you sure have trouble understanding the basics of burden of proof.

I say: "your logic doesn't make sense."

You say: "you're the one making claims!"

Then you post some tireless rant about what projects you've worked on, this that, whatnot and fart noises.

Grow up, kid.

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by JadeStar

I'll still never forget that picture of either saturn or jupiter with something behind it that has been obviously scrubbed out, back during the Elenin days.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:28 AM

reply to post by JadeStar

I'll still never forget that picture of either saturn or jupiter with something behind it that has been obviously scrubbed out, back during the Elenin days.

you just forget whether the planet had rings or not. how reassuring.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

Haha, yeh I reckon it was Jupiter. I don't recall rings. But if the picture was of the upper half of Saturn it could easily omit the rings....but i'm sure it was Jupiter.
edit on 18-1-2014 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:10 PM

reply to post by JimOberg

Haha, yeh I reckon it was Jupiter. I don't recall rings. But if the picture was of the upper half of Saturn it could easily omit the rings....but i'm sure it was Jupiter.
edit on 18-1-2014 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)

fair enough, close-ups wouldn't show rings, my snarkiness was over the top and I apologize.

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

All good Jim. I'm used to you by now and accept you for who you are. The fact you admit you were out of line is good I appreciate that.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in