NASA is studying UFOs again

for your amusement...

a reply to: JimOberg


For your amusement ...



Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) - image #AS11-36-5319 with object


Link - www.hq.nasa.gov...





Lunar and Planetary Institute #AS11-36-5319 (same image but no object)


Link - www.lpi.usra.edu...







Enhancement of the LPI version reveals the object was removed


Link - files.abovetopsecret.com...






Cropped portion of the deliberately obfuscated LPI image


Link - files.abovetopsecret.com...






If it's just a Moon Pigeon, why remove it ?

.



Apparently the Pigeon report was inconclusive ...

However, the quality of the imagery precludes a precise definition of the object under question.

Essentially, most of the no comments came from responsible engineers who felt that it would be misleading to hazard a guess.

www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: easynow

Nice catch! There's some 16-mm sequences of the same flight phase showing tumbling small junk coming off the separating modules. The crew commented on them and noted they were small nearby stuff -- they used their two-eye depth perception abilities to reach that assessment. Cleaning up the photo was tacky -- my only explanation was somebody was exasperated with UFOria over claims of 4-inch-wide alien spaceships in the news media. But badly played, NASA-PAO.

originally posted by: easynow

Apparently the Pigeon report was inconclusive ...

Yep, the possibility of inch-wide alien visitors could not be eliminated.

originally posted by: easynow
If it's just a Moon Pigeon, why remove it ?

For the same reason people use photoshop to whiten teeth, brighten eyes and remove the occasional artifact from their personal photos I would imagine. It just makes for a "prettier" picture.

a reply to: JimOberg



FYI - Your on record defending the idea that Pilot testimony is not credible.



Link - www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
What I was asking for was Hynek's assessment of pilot reports as a category of UFO reports -- since there is a very common view that pilots, who are professionals of the skies, are highly accurate observers of unusual visual stimuli. Hynek discovered to his surprise that the opposite was true, and in hindsight, it makes sense:

www.zipworld.com.au...



Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from "The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint). (271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on to perceive familiar objects -- aircraft and ground structures -- very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat: "Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects." Dell page 271

Why are observational assessments from Astronauts more credible than those from earthly Pilots ?







.

originally posted by: easynow
Why are observational assessments from Astronauts more credible than those from earthly Pilots ?

The question is related to identifying something seen outside, or simply reporting on the raw components of the observation. People can accurately judge distance to objects out to 50-100 ft using a lifetime's experience with having binocular vision from two eyes.

originally posted by: JimOberg

The question is related to identifying something seen outside, or simply reporting on the raw components of the observation. People can accurately judge distance to objects out to 50-100 ft using a lifetime's experience with having binocular vision from two eyes.

So you believe close-range ufo reports from Pilots are credible ?







.

originally posted by: easynow
So you believe close-range ufo reports from Pilots are credible ?
.

You're putting an excessive amount of effort into misunderstanding my comments.

I believe close-range estimates of range are reliable for most people.

Estimates of range BEYOND two-eye-depth-perception limits become dependent on assumptions of object size.

Other factors such as atmospheric attenuation or shadowing also can provide clues.

The separate issue of IDENTIFICATION depends very largely on going-in assumptions, and military pilots are trained to see ambiguous things as potentially dangerous until non-hazard is assumed. It's what you WANT them to think of first.

This factor is perfectly illustrated by the idiotic notion from Leslie Kean who claimed the intelligence of UFO pilots was proven because UFOs behave differently as reported by different classes of pilots -- military pilots report hostile behavior, civilian pilots do not. She actually claims this is because they ARE behaving differently, in response to the nature of the human pilots that the UFOs detect observing them. Instead of the pilots interpreting the random ambiguous behavior in the most familiar form of their career experiences.

a reply to: JimOberg


It's a simple question ... that you avoided answering.




So I'll ask again ...




Do

You

believe

close-range

ufo reports

from Pilots

are credible?






Here's an example ...

When Top Gun Pilots Tangled with a Baffling Tic-Tac-Shaped UFO

As Fravor flew around it, he says the craft ascended and came right at his plane: “All of a sudden it kind of turns and rapidly accelerates—beyond anything I’ve seen—crosses my nose, and…it’s gone.”

Link - www.history.com...

Video - www.youtube.com...




Do you believe this report is credible ?

a reply to: easynow

To put it in perspective, I always keep this in mind:
www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: easynow
a reply to: JimOberg


It's a simple question ... that you avoided answering.




So I'll ask again ...




Do

You

believe

close-range

ufo reports

from Pilots

are credible?






Here's an example ...

When Top Gun Pilots Tangled with a Baffling Tic-Tac-Shaped UFO

As Fravor flew around it, he says the craft ascended and came right at his plane: “All of a sudden it kind of turns and rapidly accelerates—beyond anything I’ve seen—crosses my nose, and…it’s gone.”

Link - www.history.com...

Video - www.youtube.com...




Do you believe this report is credible ?

Any report like this where size and distance are unknown should be considered questionable with respect to estimates of size and distance. I don't see where he said it came within 50 feet or whatever range human binocular vision has, I think 100 feet may a limit for people with great eyesight but probably less than that for the average person.

Also consider that his report has some internal contradictions, as well as contradictions with other pilots who were there and saw the same thing, which any seasoned investigator will tell you is common when different people see the same event, they don't all see exactly the same thing, which is why without a video or something we don't know exactly what happened.

Another complication is that Kevin Day says that Fravor told him a different story the next day, a story I've never heard Fravor tell in public. Day seems confident in his recollection, but that doesn't mean it's correct, all we can say is one or more versions of the story is wrong, they can't all be right. Still, regardless of what exactly happened, it seems interesting and made an impression on the pilots.

But I don't think we can take any eyewitness account of extraordinary UFO events at face value, and even less so when there are so many contradictions and different versions of the story. Add to that a number of extremely suspicious things happening since the formation of TTSA in 2017 when that story was publicized, and the fact David Fravor and that another pilot, Chad Underwood, can both be shown to be wrong when they say the "TicTac" Underwood videod defied the laws of physics with extreme acceleration at the end of the video. That's an optical illusion, and in fact the video shows nothing remarkable at all.

So when we have absolute proof Fravor can't even interpret the video correctly which we can analyze in great detail, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the accuracy of his eyewitness perceptions not recorded on video. By the way, why was his camera off anyway? He knew his assignment was to identify a UFO and he didn't bother to flick the switch on his helmet to turn his camera on?


Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 3)

David Fravor's story would be a lot more interesting if the later video made by Chad Underwood (Flir1 aka TicTac), alleged to be the same thing as what Fravor saw but unconfirmed, actually showed anything interesting, but, it doesn't, it is actually quite a boring video of a fuzzy dot that doesn't do anything particularly interesting. A fuzzy dot that I might add doesn't look much different from these four fuzzy dots, which are four F-15s:


www.youtube.com...

I find it odd that both David Fravor and Chad Underwood appear to be fooled by the illusion of acceleration at the end, and I am faced with asking if they are really unable to see through the illusion to what really happened according to the video, or if they do see through the illusion, but they are telling us that they don't and that they are claiming to be fooled by the illusion. Either way, Fravor's and Underwood's misinterpretation of the TicTac video is not a good situation, and doesn't add any credibility to Fravor's account of what he saw earlier.

Did the FLIR1 UFO actually make sudden moves? (No)


By the way, Did you hear where David Fravor told Joe Rogan about how he liked to fake UFO sightings?

How Cmdr. David Fravor Used to Fake UFO Sightings

a reply to: easynow

"Do You believe close-range ufo reports from Pilots are credible?"

You don't even know the issues well enough to formulate a sensible question. Is it credible pilots see apparently unexplainable stuff? It's true for anybody. Do pilots judge 'close-range' status better than anyone else? Doubtful. Do they IDENTIFY distant stuff better than Joe Sixpack? Probably. Do they misinterpret ambiguous stuff as bandits more frequently than average -- yes, and justifiably so.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: easynow

"Do You believe close-range ufo reports from Pilots are credible?"

You don't even know the issues well enough to formulate a sensible question. Is it credible pilots see apparently unexplainable stuff? It's true for anybody. Do pilots judge 'close-range' status better than anyone else? Doubtful. Do they IDENTIFY distant stuff better than Joe Sixpack? Probably. Do they misinterpret ambiguous stuff as bandits more frequently than average -- yes, and justifiably so.

I chose a simplified question on purpose so you might actually respond to it ... lol



Thanks for replying

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good points thanks,

All that does make the case seem less credible.





a reply to: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: easynow

To put it in perspective, I always keep this in mind:
www.nasa.gov...

Yes they are tracking everything in the Air and in Space.

Anything that's detectable of course.





Something else to keep in mind is this ...

Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified

A recent U.S. military policy decision now explicitly states that observations by hush-hush government spacecraft of incoming bolides and fireballs are classified secret and are not to be released

Link - www.space.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
for your amusement...

Here’s what I find amusing…….

NASA indeed had, and probably still has a UFO Desk for lack of better words for the document below KMI-8610.4 from 1967. Apparently NASA would receive reports from witnesses about man made space vehicles as well as UFO’s. In the reported cases of UFO’s, those would be funneled to what use to be Patrick Air Force Base there in Florida. What’s Humorous …. Is that the new name designation for the base is Patrick Space Force Base…..

Wow! NASA could still be feeding UFO reports to the now, Space Force, is quite interesting

Yes, of course the Management Instruction was signed off by Paperclip Scientist and former Nazi SS Officer Kurt H. Debus.... and yes, by 1997 a revised Management Instruction deletes all references to UFO’s …. It’s to good of a instruction to sever for good, so my gut tells me a UFO Management Instruction on it’s own exists, with a different title and probably has grown to a larger process.

But I also have a gut feeling……that NASA still funnels UFO reports to now Patrick Space Force Base.

I know it would be said that gut feelings aren’t proof…..and that that’s an ancient document and there is no UFO reports being funneled by NASA to anyone.

Well I will eat crow for my gut, if someone can definitively prove me wrong…..

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Good find!! Since we're clearly not going to attempt to show ANY evidence of NASA ever concealing evidence for ETI visits, this kind of trivia will have to do....

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Good find!! Since we're clearly not going to attempt to show ANY evidence of NASA ever concealing evidence for ETI visits, this kind of trivia will have to do....

Where you see trivia….I see more conspiracy. Time will tell.

Your buddy Nelson is in his second 15 minutes of fame

a reply to: easynow

My point is, with 27,000+ pieces of space debris and "Much more debris -- too small to be tracked", what's more logical - someone in the graphics department edits an out of focus nothing object to clean up the photo, that's available online to print HERE, or a random and ridiculously shaped spacecraft visiting Earth? Just purely on the odds alone, even during the time?

Then factor in this object is out of focus and obviously on a different plane than the Earth which is the focus. To me, this:

...jibes with the object being random space junk and out of focus because it's close to the camera.