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

Also of interest is another document, dated April 11, 1974, from the deputy director of the NRO to the chairman of the director of central intelligence's Committee on Imagery Requirements and Exploitation. This memorandum discusses what to do about a photograph taken by Skylab astronauts of Area 51, outlining the issues to be considered in deciding whether or not to release the photograph.

Dwayne Day, an American space historian, policy analyst and author, has previously written on Area 51, as well as the 1974 Skylab image flap.

It turns out that the Skylab shot of Area 51 was placed in NASA's collection of Skylab photographs, Day said, but nobody had noticed. So, in the end, NASA won its argument with the intelligence community over the image, he said.

More here:


www.space.com...


So, does this put an end to the idea that NASA would cover up ETs or photographs of alien craft or artifacts in space?

If they could resist the DOD and NRO (back when the NRO officially didn't exist) on this back then, then don't you think it's unlikely they are hiding anything or airbrushing photos as some have alleged?

reply to post by JadeStar


Ah, but idiots are still idiots so it doesn't matter what you reveal some will believe what they want.

JadeStar
So, does this put an end to the idea that NASA would cover up ETs or photographs of alien craft or artifacts in space?

If they could resist the DOD and NRO (back when the NRO officially didn't exist) on this back then, then don't you think it's unlikely they are hiding anything or airbrushing photos as some have alleged?

Doubt it. It's one more imaginary conspiracy which gets tossed together into the pile of all the other less-than evidence. In lieu of an actual piece of physical evidence, collectively I guess believers feel it gives more weight to the UFO/alien claim. When in fact it's still only a bunch of unsubstatiated claims.

Ectoplasm8

JadeStar
So, does this put an end to the idea that NASA would cover up ETs or photographs of alien craft or artifacts in space?

If they could resist the DOD and NRO (back when the NRO officially didn't exist) on this back then, then don't you think it's unlikely they are hiding anything or airbrushing photos as some have alleged?

Doubt it. It's one more imaginary conspiracy which gets tossed together into the pile of all the other less-than evidence. In lieu of an actual piece of physical evidence, collectively I guess believers feel it gives more weight to the UFO/alien claim. When in fact it's still only a bunch of unsubstatiated claims.

And in doing that they probably miss very real, interesting information in the process.

This story illustrates something I've suspected all along. Anything truly interesting on this subject is likely in an archive somewhere if researchers know where to look.

Anyone in 1974 could have found that photo and said, "AHA! there's a secret base there!" but they didn't, either because pre-Lazar researchers of the time didn't know about Area 51 or because they didn't go through Skylab photos and footage with a fine tooth comb.

I suspect that plenty of real world mysteries are likely in an archive like that one right now as we speak while the UFO believer crowd goes nut over some hoax video on Youtube or put their pareidolia into overdrive over a rock photographed on Mars.

strawman !!!!

neeeeext....

So just because NASA refused to cover-up something when requested by another agency they would never cover anything up ever? Seems like specious reasoning to me.

I'm not weighing in for or against the NASA cover-up theory, but at best this suggests that NASA might be unlikely to cover-up something else. But even then it's a solitary event. Theory debunked? Hardly.

I only trust Nasa when it can be verified from another source. Re-coloring pictures of Mars serves no purpose other than to misinform. It only takes one lie for me to question everything else you say.

So because at one point NASA felt it okay to release photos of a classified government installation against the wishes of the military is proof NASA isn't hiding anything else from us? I don't follow that logic.

Quite a slippery slope there.
Because they didn't cover up one thing, we can expect them to release anything and everything?

I'm not the type to scream about NASA cover ups, but this is faulty reasoning and is being used as a soap box to shout down "believers". Get real.

I trust all Government agencies impeccably , after all they only have the public's interest at heart.

True story!!

Kaiyuss
I only trust Nasa when it can be verified from another source. Re-coloring pictures of Mars serves no purpose other than to misinform. It only takes one lie for me to question everything else you say.

ALL color images from Mars are "re-colored" or rather they are colored.

Because they are all taken from Black and White cameras.

Argh. Clearly you'd don't understand the use of filters. But hey, I guess that means NASA is "hiding" something right?

Alright, I've had it....

Please read my response in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would expect NASA to be more likely to fake finding like than cover it up. When they find it, their budget is going to expand massively.

Self censored.

Taking my ball and going home. No need to see people take stabs at "believers". Just serves to rile people up.

JayinAR

JadeStar
Alright, I've had it....

Please read my response in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, "you've had it", huh?
Haha
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!

SERIOUSLY!!??!?!?!

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" - www.space.com...

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.

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'.

reply to post by JadeStar


I think you're a little confused. You are the one who has made the claim: 'NASA cover-up theory debunked', therefore you are the one who is required to provide evidence. None of us are really making any claims about a NASA cover-up, we're simply pointing out your flawed logic.

Providing a single example and extending it to prove a pattern is flawed logic.

TheStev
reply to post by JadeStar

 

I think you're a little confused. You are the one who has made the claim: 'NASA cover-up theory debunked', therefore you are the one who is required to provide evidence. None of us are really making any claims about a NASA cover-up, we're simply pointing out your flawed logic.

Providing a single example and extending it to prove a pattern is flawed logic.

Would you like other examples?

BTW: It's called extrapolating. That example was an example of agency policy. You can provide nothing to the contrary.

The extraordinary claim is a civilian agency tasked with among other things, finding life out there would cover it up.

Where is your extraordinary evidence that supports that claim?

I provided evidence that refutes it. You've done nothing but say, 'nah, I don't believe it."

Quite ignorant.

reply to post by JadeStar


Well I've posted several times now indicating that part of the problem with your argument is that you have only provided one piece of evidence. So yes, I would like more evidence please.

Had you been replying to a post where the OP had made claims about NASA cover-ups, then absolutely the onus would be on the OP to provide evidence to prove his claims.

In this case, you are the OP. You are the one making the claim: 'NASA would not cover-up anything'. It doesn't matter whether the claim is extraordinary - any claim requires more than one piece of evidence to, as you say, extrapolate a pattern from that evidence.

You are putting words in my mouth, friend. I have not once claimed that NASA have covered up anything, I am simply pointing out the flaws in your claims that NASA would not cover anything up. Perhaps if you could focus on your own argument, rather than calling me ignorant, you might get a little further...

EDIT: Let me provide an example. I've been sky-diving before. There is definitely proof of me having been sky-diving. If you saw me in a plane, could you assume that I was going sky-diving? If someone invited me sky-diving, could they assume that I would always say yes no matter what? Just because someone has done something once, doesn't mean they always will in every similar opportunity. A single example is not enough to extrapolate a pattern.

There's another Area-51 astronaut story, involving Gordon Cooper. Here's my take on why I find Cooper's tale unworthy of belief:

www.jamesoberg.com...