NASA is studying UFOs again

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: turbonium1

Hey, good to see you putting some big boy pants on and venturing out of the Flat Earth threads.

Alas, still the same quality of content to your posts though.

Regardless of one's opinion's of NASA and their intentions I think its fair to say they employ some of the greatest minds on earth.

Mainly to lie and deceive the world, but what great minds they have!

If you could post something of quality, that'd be a start. Any pants would do....

a reply to: turbonium1

If you could post something of quality, that'd be a start.

Surely you see the irony in this?

Shouldn’t the op title read ‘NASA is officially studying UFOs again’?

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: easynow


Nice catch mate - posted it on another thread but there is a NASA Information Sheet below selling the line that no government agency has engaged in UFO research since 1969.

Also some contradictory documents found in this book.


PDF File


There's also this interesting letter from Colonel Senn to Lieutenant General Crow of NASA regarding (the prevention of reopening) international UFO investigations,

September 1st, 1977:

link

originally posted by: easynow

Aren't UFO objects a launch and flight safety risk ?

If so, how is it possible they actually stopped investigating the UAP phenomena ?

Two very good questions for Bill Nelson.

Image link - files.abovetopsecret.com...






Nice finds karl 12, thanks for posting !


Pg.1 Image:








Indeed they wanted to stop the flow of information, so the work could continue hidden in SAP's

originally posted by: JimOberg
Lots of wild imaginations, not one single verifiable piece of evidence. Sigh.

Actually it's the opposite,



A wild imagination is the only way you could fool yourself into thinking there's no evidence.

This thread is about NASA. Everybody seems to want to forget that. Why?

Thread topic is about NASA studying UFOs, so any UAP case study information is relevant.








Example:

Headline from when NASA was looking at the 1973 Pascagoula case

















.

a reply to: easynow

I’m late to the races here, but after giving this some thought I think this NASA announcement is indeed preempting some form of disclosure.

Why?

If disclosure came now there’d be the obvious accusations of this having been covered up for years; the cries of secrets kept from us - what else are they not telling us?

To us in ATS this is no surprise, but to the vast majority of tax paying voters it would come as quite a shock that they’ve been lied to for decades.

Disclosure would cause huge damage to the public’s trust in the establishment and therefore the establishment’s ability to manage and manipulate its citizens. Such a state of mistrust couldn’t come at a worse time, when governments are trying to convince the public to contain the pandemic and get vaccinated ...

[Note: this poses the question: does the timing of this suggest a potential effort to derail these Covid measures. If so, by whom and why?]

I digress... So, if the establishment now want, or need to disclose evidence regarding UFOs then they need to make it look like they’ve only just now solved this themselves. So the first move would be this ludicrous announcement that NASA are now investigating this (like they haven’t been looking into this since their inception).

That way NASA and our leaders make themselves look like the heroes when they reveal the truth, while simultaneously establishing a narrative in which they’ve not been covering this up for decades.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: JimOberg
Lots of wild imaginations, not one single verifiable piece of evidence. Sigh.

So many scientists and high level military officials and trained fighter pilots lying...sigh.

There is recordings. ground radar recordings, aircraft radar recordings and visual by trained observers ( you know, people that took us millions of dollars to decipher between balloons, swamp gas and man made aircraft) along with visual recordings all on the same UAP. Just because the Et's don't stop, hop out and hand us over one of their fingers doesn't mean they don't exist lmao.

This thread is about NASA. Everybody seems to want to forget that. Why?

Jim you ask for verifiable evidence right? What about recordings. ground radar recordings, aircraft radar recordings and visual by trained observers ( you know, people that took us millions of dollars to decipher between balloons, swamp gas and man made aircraft) along with visual recordings all on the same UAP.??

Surly I don't need to provide a link for these things to you, the scientist that has done his due diligence in his investigations right?

What say you, do you count this as evidence? There is more too, like civilian video recordings and photos, civilian eye witnesses, scientist's eye witnesses.

We don't have physical evidence because 'they' don't let us have it. It's not up to us, we don't have a say if we can have one of their ships or one of their fingers dude. I think its pretty obvious that 'they' only allow us to record them if they let us. We are lucky that we even get what we have. The human ego is a bitch and you are a prime example of that fact.

Don't worry Jim, you are already "in the know", you are just looking for confirmation. Have fun looking. All I can say is start looking up bud, you will see them...if They let you...one day. I hope.

Have a good week bud.

a reply to: easynow

Hey no worries mate, great thread and never knew about NASA's involvement with Pascagoula.

As I'm sure you know already NASA's French equivalent (CNES) held a very interesting CAIPAN UFO/UAP/OVNI workshop at their headquarters a few years ago so maybe there's hope for NASA yet.

NASA Aerodynamicist Paul R. Hill also had a fair few interesting things to say about UFOs.. and even wrote a book about them.

Professor Paul R. Hill (1909–1990) was a renowned American aerodynamicist. He was a leading research and development engineer and manager for NASA and its predecessor, NACA between 1939 and 1970, retiring as Associate Chief, Applied Materials and Physics Division at the NASA Langley Research Centre. He was awarded NASA's Exceptional Service Medal in 1969

a reply to: Alien Abduct

What's your favorite two NASA-related 'unexplainable' cases?

originally posted by: karl 12
.....never knew about NASA's involvement with Pascagoula.
:

What exactly are we supposed to 'know' about that? Some fifty-year-old fuzzy headline?

Does anybody know anything more on this?

a reply to: easynow

Project 1947's Jan Aldrich brings up Bill Nelson's comments in the vid below mate.

Also lots of very interesting aspects of UFO history including how the USAF commissioned scientists at Battelle.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What's your favorite two NASA-related 'unexplainable' cases?

Here's a quote from you from 2009.

There's always a chance that something outside a spaceship window is important -- it's why NASA watches them. Usually it has to do with a malfunction of the spaceship, but it could be of scientific value as well -- all the way up to ET evidence.

found in this thread

Which is your favorites?

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What's your favorite two NASA-related 'unexplainable' cases?

Your website has a great pdf on the STS-48 zig-zag UFO which all makes perfect sense.

Does a similar explanation exist for the following STS-80 video? Some other ATS member, not Alien Abduct, had mentioned this STS-80 video as being hard to explain.

NASA UFOs STS-80 "Smoking Gun" clip UNCUT.


I watched it again and it looks like the explanation of an ice particle entering sunlight largely fits here too, at time index 3:38, which becomes brightly illuminated at 3:43. The behavior doesn't zig-zag like the STS-48 video, it looks to me like maybe atmospheric drag of the thin atmosphere eventually slows down the ice particle more than it slows down the spacecraft, and the ice particle gradually trails behind.

I suppose this comment from the youtube video indicates what seems to get some people excited:

Yep...those were ice particles in synchronous orbit above the lightning. Astronauts always zoom in on "ice particles" because there so rare.

I think the "synchronous orbit" comment is probably a reference to the illusion that begins at time index 4:52 when the relative motion between the object and the Earth seems to stop for a bit. But the illusion is over after a minute as it continues to apparently slow down and fall father behind the photographer. After 6:00, the photographer does zoom in on that and two other things which all three could well be ice particles.

I tried looking on your website but it's apparently been under repair for the past few days.

When I was in HS, I went to a vo-tech and had an electronics teacher who had worked at NASA during the moon landings.

He told us one thing that has always stuck with me.

"Trust me, there is other life out there, we saw some of it on the moon, and it scared us.."

The truth really may be out there.

Fred..

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
"Trust me, there is other life out there, we saw some of it on the moon, and it scared us.."

The likelihood of other life in the universe seems high. The likelihood of life on the moon seems very low, since the water there is likely frozen. Mars might have liquid water under the surface; we might find life there.

An anecdote such as yours is practically worthless; there's no name, no evidence, no way to verify if he even told the truth about working at NASA. At least with Richard Hoagland, we have a name so we can investigate his background and verify that he actually was awarded an Ig Nobel prize in astronomy in 1997, in part for identifying "ten-mile high buildings on the far side of the moon".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Does a similar explanation exist for the following STS-80 video? Some other ATS member, not Alien Abduct, had mentioned this STS-80 video as being hard to explain.

Tom Jones discusses and explains this video on his own blog.
skywalking1.wordpress.com...

Story Musgrave also discussed that video here:
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur .....Astronauts always zoom in on "ice particles" because there so rare.

Are those “ice particles” as well for STS-75? .....from behind the tether? If so, then at the distance of the tether, they should not be considered particles. Those would be huge.

STS-75 "tethered satellite" swarmed by UFOs

originally posted by: JimOberg
Tom Jones discusses and explains this video on his own blog.
skywalking1.wordpress.com...

Sort of, but no, not really, he links to the STS-80 video where the objects form a ring, this one:



Right mission, wrong video. The STS-80 video I posted has no such ring, it shows the obviously incorrect "synchronous orbit" illusion noted in the comment I posted earlier, which as I'm sure you know synchronous orbits like geostationary satellites occur at much higher altitudes. It's just one of those coincidences where two unrelated things in the scene at vastly different distances appear to be related, but they are not.

Here's a stationary version of a similar illusion, where objects at vastly different distances to the camera appear to be related, but, they are not:



To create a similar illusion in motion, you could film a car driving say 20 meters away from left to right, and you could put your finger a short distance away from the camera, and move the tip of your finger so it's just behind the car to create an illusion of your finger pushing the car. I don't see where Jones discusses anything like that in his blog.

He does make general comments like this: "The objects seen in the STS-80 videos are ordinary debris particles or ice crystals, some hit by shuttle thruster blasts that cause a change in their motion. Local lighting conditions also change the brightness of some objects as they drift into or out of shadow"

But as the comment I posted suggested, the person writing the comment has no understanding of why ice particles would appear to be in synchronous orbit, which of course they are not, but I can see how someone might think that if they know nothing about synchronous orbits and don't have any idea of the distances involved to the ice particle. Tom Jones doesn't seem to address the other STS-80 video illusion except in that very general suggestion he's reviewed videos, as in plural, meaning others besides the ring video too.

Story Musgrave also discussed that video here:
youtu.be...

The Story Musgrave video unfortunately has such poor audio it's difficult to make out, as two of the three comments on the video noted. The poster posted a link to a transcript 6 years ago in reply to one of the comments, but unfortunately the link is dead, and then in reply to the second comment about that, a year ago he said he'd try to find the transcript and post it somewhere but there's no follow-up to that comment.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Arbitrageur .....Astronauts always zoom in on "ice particles" because there so rare.

Are those “ice particles” as well for STS-75?

Probably, they are small objects close to the camera. There is an illusion that some of them appear to pass behind the tether, but that illusion was duplicated on a television show called UFO hunters. So not only can't we trust our own eyes, but sometimes, we can't even trust what the camera appears to show us, where certain photographic artifacts are concerned. This video first shows the NASA video, then shows a clip from UFO Hunters demonstrating the illusion.

NASA STS-75 Tether 'UFO' Incident 1996 - Debunked


Another interesting effect in the tether video is the "donut shape" which is an artifact of the type of reflector lens used and the fact that they are close to the camera and out of focus. It's a bokeh effect, along the lines of the "triangle" or "pyramid" bokeh video from the navy making the rounds lately.

I’ve updated my previous post with screenshots....the donut I selected ...appears to be clearly and cleanly going behind it.....

“ Probably, they are small objects close to the camera.”

The tethered satellite can’t possibly be that close to the camera...otherwise the tethered would have to be tiny...I suspect.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Arbitrageur .....Astronauts always zoom in on "ice particles" because there so rare.

Are those “ice particles” as well for STS-75? .....from behind the tether? If so, then at the distance of the tether, they should not be considered particles. Those would be huge.

Since you know the length of the tether, and its distance from the shuttle, assume the objects are really behind it. Then calculate how BIG they would look to people down on Earth, as they passed over millions and millions of people. Do the math. NOTE: the moon is half a degree wide as viewed from Earth, how big would these allegedly-behind-the-tether spheres look in comparison?

And since you want to do the tether, let's agree on basics: the dot swarm video is not "uncut" as is claimed, it is dubbed together with the breakaway scene followed FOUR DAYS LATER by the swarm scene. Do you accept that timeline?

Lastly, what do you imagine what the reason is that the UFO authors describing this bizarre-looking event, withheld from their audience the much sharper hand-held 70-mm photos the crew took of the tether and dots, out the overhead window? What might they have shown, that the UFO writers didn't want you to see?