NASA secret files

Originally posted by draco49
I know the "official" story about the two incidents, and I'm not convinced of anything nefarious taking place. However I am left with a feeling that something about those two exchanges is a bit.... off.

Draco, I don't see how I can help you on this.

Sensing something is 'off' is a powerful tool of good Flight Controllers who monitor complex systems that can always devise new and subtle ways to fail, or mask a neighboring system's failure. So that 'sense' is a well-respected attribute of the MCC team members.

But it usually relies on long experience watching 'normal' operations and 'off-normal-but-still-OK' operations. Then when something 'off' -- when something not quite right -- creeps into their awareness, they pounce on it and dig into it to ascertain the degree of wrongness, and its threats to the mission and the crew.

I've no recollection of encountering anybody in the EVA branch or related disciplines who ever found the 'dinosaur' terminology for a scissors that LOOKS like a T-Rex in profile, any ways odd at all. You'd be just as suspicious over discussions of a 'Penguin' aboard the station, when the cosmonauts talk about that animal. Or a squid. Or a mermaid ['rusalka']. Those are other creature names, real and legendary, for hardware often used and discussed.

Now how about the issue I've tried to raise about the VERY rare and specific lighting conditions for the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos'? I think that offers a very compelling insight into the nature of the origin of such videos.

Originally posted by AlonzoTyper
Regardless of what these images, or objects are in the videos....we all know there are unexplained unidentified craft that have been reported for thousands of years, and referenced in literally every culture, on every continent.

And NASA claims they have no knowledge of such things? Why have they not lost their credibility when their own astronauts have come right out and said they saw things, and that NASA basically avoided the topic, or ignored it all together?

Answer that.

Their own astronauts?

I know of Cooper's stories, from before he joined NASA -- but as already mentioned, I actually did independently research into those stories, so that naturally influences my conclusions. Everybody else, as far as I can tell, refused to check out those stories. They seemed to not WANT them investigated. Correct me if i'm wrong, please.

But what other NASA astronauts have said they saw UFOs, in space, while serving with NASA?

Please take a little effort to determine that the names you provide are legit, not internet hoaxes.

A very large number of names claimed on the internet are hoaxes by ... well, by reality-challenged individuals, aimed at others.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Just to throw this out there but why do people assume that every unidentified craft belgons to the US government or must be alien? Contrary to popular belief there are other countries on this planet who are just as capable as the US is.

Just because we have not figured out anti gravity doesnt mean some other country has not figured it out.

Lol they're probably pictures of Iceland's space fleet then.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've no recollection of encountering anybody in the EVA branch or related disciplines who ever found the 'dinosaur' terminology for a scissors that LOOKS like a T-Rex in profile, any ways odd at all. You'd be just as suspicious over discussions of a 'Penguin' aboard the station, when the cosmonauts talk about that animal. Or a squid. Or a mermaid ['rusalka']. Those are other creature names, real and legendary, for hardware often used and discussed.

Thanks for the response I don't think there's anything odd with the nickname "dinosaur scissors" for the tool in question. I think it's quite appropriate. The part I found unusual was the manner in which it was being referenced. Granted I'm not an expert in space flight, but I've listened to quite a bit of NASA audio and the exchange between Kaleri and Moscow is highly irregular compared to 99% of all the other audio I've heard. I come to no conclusion on the matter and just find the exchanges to be interesting.

Now how about the issue I've tried to raise about the VERY rare and specific lighting conditions for the most famous 'shuttle UFO videos'? I think that offers a very compelling insight into the nature of the origin of such videos.

Unfortunately, anything I have to say about the STS-80 footage is subjective because I am not qualified to make any knowledgeable premise based on alleged lighting phenomena in space, and how they may or may not deceive the observer. What I will say is that footage is awfully compelling from the POV of a layperson, and the notion that it was a byproduct of a rare lighting condition strains credulity. What are the odds that this rare and specific lighting condition would occur at the precise moment that the shuttle and camera were passing by, and were at the proper perspective and configuration to capture it in all it's befuddling glory? A million to one? A hundred million to one?

reply to post by JimOberg


Out of curiosity, what, if any, is your response to the testimony of USAF Sergent Karl Wolf?

Originally posted by draco49
Unfortunately, anything I have to say about the STS-80 footage is subjective because I am not qualified to make any knowledgeable premise based on alleged lighting phenomena in space, and how they may or may not deceive the observer. What I will say is that footage is awfully compelling from the POV of a layperson, and the notion that it was a byproduct of a rare lighting condition strains credulity. What are the odds that this rare and specific lighting condition would occur at the precise moment that the shuttle and camera were passing by, and were at the proper perspective and configuration to capture it in all it's befuddling glory? A million to one? A hundred million to one?

I've known and worked with Story Musgrave for thirty years. When his STS-80 mission 'dot circle' UFO got to be the darling of the internet, I did a technical report on it and sent him a copy. He authorized me to quote his reply:

From: "Story Musgrave" To:

Originally posted by draco49
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Out of curiosity, what, if any, is your response to the testimony of USAF Sergent Karl Wolf?

Is any of the work I've done on famous space cases at all credible to you? Or do you plan to proceed with an infinite series of 'but-what-about-THIS-one' challenges?

This story can be a useful discussion point. Please show me ANY ufo website investigation of it -- checking up on the basic claims, checking out whether they were consistent or inconsistent with known particulars about this program.

Or is it just another claim that confirms existing beliefs, so no verification is required -- and might be too risky, so it should be avoided?

Has anyone -- a single example would suffice -- made the slightest effort to check out the story?

If not, why is that situation satisfactory?

reply to post by JimOberg
Jim, no doubt you have done some good work and investigation in the past but the bottom line is that you are able to explain some plausibly, some you have not explained well and there are some you avoid explaining altogether.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, no doubt you have done some good work and investigation in the past but the bottom line is that you are able to explain some plausibly, some you have not explained well and there are some you avoid explaining altogether.

Well, it's a start. Which explanations do you find plausible, and which not? And why not?

As for 'avoiding', I'm not a kneejerk debunker who has to explain everything. Some cases I'm happy to concede people haven't found explanations for. The implications of that -- we can debate.

But we're discussing 'space cases' here.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've known and worked with Story Musgrave for thirty years. When his STS-80 mission 'dot circle' UFO got to be the darling of the internet, I did a technical report on it and sent him a copy. He authorized me to quote his reply:

The admitted subjective statement by a former astronaut that there is no evidence to support the existence of UFO interaction with Earth is irrelevant. You got Musgrave, I got Mitchell. Where does that leave us? Right where we started. If your responses are going to be misdirections that don't address what I am asking you, there's no sense in trying to continue a rational conversation. You have a lot of knowledge and experience in this area, and it would be just swell if you could apply that wisdom the the specific issues I asked you about.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've known and worked with Story Musgrave for thirty years. When his STS-80 mission 'dot circle' UFO got to be the darling of the internet, I did a technical report on it and sent him a copy. He authorized me to quote his reply:

The admitted subjective statement by a former astronaut that there is no evidence to support the existence of UFO interaction with Earth is irrelevant. You got Musgrave, I got Mitchell. Where does that leave us?
.

It leaves YOU with hearsay for a non spaceflight story,
and ME with a direct eyewitness to the STS-80 'circle' story.

See the difference?

Now re the Wolf story claiming he was a direct eyewitness -- do we have even the most basic documentation that he was actually THERE in 1965, say, his military records? They are public records and can be FOIAed with basic data such as a person's DOB.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is any of the work I've done on famous space cases at all credible to you? Or do you plan to proceed with an infinite series of 'but-what-about-THIS-one' challenges?

Pity-inducing indignation... another by-the-book deflectionary tactic. You don't miss a beat, Jim. I gotta ask you... did you receive more education on persuasion techniques, or "rocket science"? I wasn't launching a "but what about this one" challenge. I was merely asking what your opinion was. If your answer to that question is to question whether or not Sgt. Wolf has been appropriately vetted, then I think you've made clear your agenda here. Seriously, why are you here if you're only going to belligerently respond to people who have questions with your own deflectionary questions? Either answer the question or don't; but don't respond to questions with self-serving, irrelevant talking points and ad verecundiam arguments that have nothing to do with the question.

Conclusion of all this:

An Iphone makes better pictures as the multi million dollar NASA equipment.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is any of the work I've done on famous space cases at all credible to you? Or do you plan to proceed with an infinite series of 'but-what-about-THIS-one' challenges?

Pity-inducing indignation... another by-the-book deflectionary tactic. You don't miss a beat, Jim. I gotta ask you... did you receive more education on persuasion techniques, or "rocket science"? I wasn't launching a "but what about this one" challenge. I was merely asking what your opinion was. If your answer to that question is to question whether or not Sgt. Wolf has been appropriately vetted, then I think you've made clear your agenda here. Seriously, why are you here if you're only going to belligerently respond to people who have questions with your own deflectionary questions? Either answer the question or don't; but don't respond to questions with self-serving, irrelevant talking points and ad verecundiam arguments that have nothing to do with the question.

I specifically asked, do you have any evidence backing up his story, such as documentation that he even WAS at Langley in mid-1965.

Do we presume that you don't, and don't know of anybody that does, or cares?

Originally posted by JimOberg
It leaves YOU with hearsay for a non spaceflight story,
and ME with a direct eyewitness to the STS-80 'circle' story.

1) it's not hearsay if I've got a video of Ed Mitchell claiming that, without a doubt, we are being visited and observed by extraterrestrial craft.

2) The only statement you provided from Musgrave was his personal opinion that the evidence for visitation doesn't exist. Nowhere in his statement does he directly address the UFO/light aberration that took place on his mission. If your witness doesn't provide any specific, relevant details about the incident, his statement lends nothing to your case.

Now re the Wolf story claiming he was a direct eyewitness -- do we have even the most basic documentation that he was actually THERE in 1965, say, his military records? They are public records and can be FOIAed with basic data such as a person's DOB.

So again, your answer to my question about the Wolf story is a question about his legitimacy? Ok, let's move to the realm of hypotheticals. Hypothetically, let's assume that he's been fully vetted and all his credentials check out, as well as his service history. Given that hypothetical, what is your response to his statement? Do you think he's a liar? Do you think he misinterpreted what he saw? So you think he had the flu that week and possibly hallucinated the whole thing? Do you think he's a secret government disinformation agent? Please, I am genuinely curious as to your response to that hypothetical question.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by JimOberg
It leaves YOU with hearsay for a non spaceflight story,
and ME with a direct eyewitness to the STS-80 'circle' story.

1) it's not hearsay if I've got a video of Ed Mitchell claiming that, without a doubt, we are being visited and observed by extraterrestrial craft.

I don't shoot fish in a barrel -- I'll pass on the temptation.

I don't think 'hearsay' means what you think it means.

2) The only statement you provided from Musgrave was his personal opinion that the evidence for visitation doesn't exist. Nowhere in his statement does he directly address the UFO/light aberration that took place on his mission. If your witness doesn't provide any specific, relevant details about the incident, his statement lends nothing to your case.

He was THERE, when the 'UFO sighting' was supposed to have heppened. Doesn't his statement tell you that he be,lieves it did NOT happen? Just as Tom jones, in his blog, said the same in a much more explicit fashion?

Now re the Wolf story claiming he was a direct eyewitness -- do we have even the most basic documentation that he was actually THERE in 1965, say, his military records? They are public records and can be FOIAed with basic data such as a person's DOB.

So again, your answer to my question about the Wolf story is a question about his legitimacy? Ok, let's move to the realm of hypotheticals. Hypothetically, let's assume that he's been fully vetted and all his credentials check out, as well as his service history. Given that hypothetical, what is your response to his statement? Do you think he's a liar? Do you think he misinterpreted what he saw? So you think he had the flu that week and possibly hallucinated the whole thing? Do you think he's a secret government disinformation agent? Please, I am genuinely curious as to your response to that hypothetical question.

OK, hypothetically, he was there in mid-1965 as he claims. What does that tell us about the chances he saw 'secret' far-side photographs from Lunar- Orbiter 1? Do you find it even marginally plausible?

Originally posted by draco49Unfortunately, anything I have to say about the STS-80 footage is subjective because I am not qualified to make any knowledgeable premise based on alleged lighting phenomena in space, and how they may or may not deceive the observer. What I will say is that footage is awfully compelling from the POV of a layperson, and the notion that it was a byproduct of a rare lighting condition strains credulity. What are the odds that this rare and specific lighting condition would occur at the precise moment that the shuttle and camera were passing by, and were at the proper perspective and configuration to capture it in all it's befuddling glory? A million to one? A hundred million to one?

As a fellow layperson, I would say this is easily explainable. It is absolutely 100% due to the way our brain processes imagery. If you look at the "circle" there is no circle to be found. Nota. none. nothing that looks anything like a circle is actually there. What IS there are some points of light. The illusion of a circle is there, but no actual circle. there are some points of light that are brighter than others. How big are they? how far away are they? Our very own brain chooses to ignore some points that are there and just as defined as any other point of light because they don't contribute to the circle illusion.

Damn you Darth Vadar! Damn you to hell!

Originally posted by JimOberg
I specifically asked, do you have any evidence backing up his story, such as documentation that he even WAS at Langley in mid-1965.

Do we presume that you don't, and don't know of anybody that does, or cares?

And to directly answer your question, no, I have not personally vetted him nor have I filed FOIA requests for his personnel file and service history. Do I care if he's credible and his background checks out? Yes. Unlike some people here, I have NO agenda and have no interest in pursuing anything that hasn't been positively refuted by facts. With the acknowledgement that second-hand corroboration doesn't carry the same weight as first-hand vetting, it is my understanding that Sgt. Wolf was vetted by Dr. Stephen Greer with the disclosure project, as were all of the other witnesses he assembled for that conference. Additionally, I'll point out that there has been nothing released that challenges his assertions or credentials.

Originally posted by draco49
... With the acknowledgement that second-hand corroboration doesn't carry the same weight as first-hand vetting, it is my understanding that Sgt. Wolf was vetted by Dr. Stephen Greer with the disclosure project, as were all of the other witnesses he assembled for that conference. Additionally, I'll point out that there has been nothing released that challenges his assertions or credentials.

Well, maybe your faith in Dr. Greer is misplaced.

Tell me, in your universe, how can somebody see lunar farside photographs in 'mid-1965' that weren't even MADE until mid-1967?

So much for Greer's 'vetting', and your misplaced faith in it.

QED.


ADD links:

en.wikipedia.org...

Lunar Orbiter 1
Launched August 10, 1966
Imaged Moon: August 18 to 29, 1966
Impact with Moon: October 29, 1966
Apollo landing site survey mission

…

JimO adds: "The Apollo sites were all on the Earth-facing side of the Moon; during these photo sessions, the opposite side was dark. After the primary mission requirements were satisifed, the 4th and 5th missions were tasked with full moon imaging."

Lunar Orbiter 4
Launched May 4, 1967
Imaged Moon: May 11 to 26, 1967
Impact with Moon: Approximately October 31, 1967
Lunar mapping mission

Lunar Orbiter 5
Launched August 1, 1967
Imaged Moon: August 6 to 18, 1967
Impact with Moon: January 31, 1968
Lunar mapping and hi-res survey mission


Langley Lunar Orbiter Project Office

www.hq.nasa.gov...


rationalwiki.org...

Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority,when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority's expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (the authority is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.

Sounds like Lunar Orbiter far side photography is a topic outside Wolf's expertise.

Thanks for the question, this was fun.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
As a fellow layperson, I would say this is easily explainable. It is absolutely 100% due to the way our brain processes imagery. If you look at the "circle" there is no circle to be found. Nota. none. nothing that looks anything like a circle is actually there. What IS there are some points of light. The illusion of a circle is there, but no actual circle. there are some points of light that are brighter than others. How big are they? how far away are they? Our very own brain chooses to ignore some points that are there and just as defined as any other point of light because they don't contribute to the circle illusion.

I wasn't referring to the perceived circular formation of points of light. Start this vid at 3:33 and watch til the end.