X-15 Rocket Plane - UFO Encounters on the Edge of Space

Based on your uninformed comments, it is apparent that I know a good deal more about X-15 and SR-71 flight characteristics and materials than you do. The X-15 underwent aerodynamic heating for brief periods during its flights, particularly during the lower-altitude speed runs. The SR-71 was designed to cruise for long periods of time at speeds above Mach 3 and at considerably lower altitudes than the X-15.

Also, the liquid oxygen fuel for the X-15 was extremely cold, leading to build-up of ice on the exterior of the tank areas. Youtube is not the best source for research because the footage is often edited together from various unrelated fragments. Not all X-15 flights were fueled because a number of them were planned as glide flights only, without engine power. The climb top launch altitude beneath the wing of the B-52 took a long time and subjected the X-15 to cold-soaking.

The comments by Bob White and Joe Walker come directly from original transcripts of mission audio and postflight debriefings. There is nothing "stupid" about them. The pilot comments regarding not knowing whether the objects were inside or outside the cockpit make a great deal of sense. Under microgravity conditions, all sorts of debris tended to float around in side the cockpit. The pilot's visual perceptions were affected by the poor lighting (alternating light and dark with changing sun angles), cramped confined area, and reflections from the windscreen and the pilot's visor.

All of the X-15 flight records and documents are unclassified. Much of it was never classified to begin with. Any material that was originally confidential or secret has been downgraded to unclassified. Everything about the so-called UFO sightings by X-15 pilots is available to the public for the asking. There is not even a need to file a FOIA because the material is not restricted in any way.

I'm tired of people on this board accusing NASA of lying (or saying, "This must be a a lie because NASA has lied before") but then never offering any substantive proof. I have seen NASA at its worst (Challenger/Columbia) but have never found the agency to be deceptive.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Based on your uninformed comments, it is apparent that I know a good deal more about X-15 and SR-71 flight characteristics and materials than you do.

The comments by Bob White and Joe Walker come directly from original transcripts of mission audio and postflight debriefings. There is nothing "stupid" about them. The pilot comments regarding not knowing whether the objects were inside or outside the cockpit make a great deal of sense. Under microgravity conditions, all sorts of debris tended to float around in side the cockpit. The pilot's visual perceptions were affected by the poor lighting (alternating light and dark with changing sun angles), cramped confined area, and reflections from the windscreen and the pilot's visor.

I'm tired of people on this board accusing NASA of lying (or saying, "This must be a a lie because NASA has lied before") but then never offering any substantive proof. I have seen NASA at its worst (Challenger/Columbia) but have never found the agency to be deceptive.

Are you sure you know more about the X-15 and SR-71? Can you prove you know more about them than i do?

Nothing stupid about White's comments? I don't think you know that. I don't think you know for sure what NASA actually is hiding from the public.

Are you tired of people accusing NASA for lying? Well, i think there is a very good reason for accusing NASA for LYING!

www.youtube.com... From about 2:22 in this part 1, clearly show footage of a fast moving UFO making a turn in space, and just after that, another footage show another UFO making a sharp angle turn, and thereby change direction, then speeds up and heading towards deep space. And from about 3:30 the UFO Hunters pay former NASA engineer John Schuessler a visit who claim to had Top Secret Clearance, who show them secret NASA documents, also including documents about astronaut James McDevitt's UFO sighting in space www.orreman7.com... bufogsightings2.blogspot.com... (This photo shown to the public by NASA is NOT what Astronaut James McDevitt saw in space, he said)

UFO Hunters:The Nasa Files (Part 2 of 5) www.youtube.com... During the first part of this Part 2, they explain that the photo shown to the public is NOT what James McDevitt saw, and denies NASA's light reflection from the window explanation. So that's another good example that shows NASA is LYING! From about 0:54 they explain astronaut James Lovell's and Frank Borman's UFO sighting in space in 1965. From about 3:50 the UFO Hunters pay former NASA employee Donna Hare a visit, who explain the CoverUp of UFOs by NASA, and that her phone was TAPPED and that she was watched/followed by 'National Security or CIA agents'-looking dudes.

UFO Hunters:The Nasa Files (Part 3 of 5) www.youtube.com... During the first part of this Part 3, they explain that some of the sightings is caused by small 'debris' between the layers of the windows of the Space Shuttle. So at least this one shows a natural explanation of some of the sightings. But, from about 3:00 they explain unusual sightings shown by cameras attached on the outside of Space Shuttle, and from about 3:30 the camera show the fast moving object that make a turn in space (also shown in Part 1). NASA's official explanation is ice flake breaking off from Space Shuttle, but Dr. Jack Kasher DISMISS NASA's ice flake / ice particle explanation! From about 6:49 the another footage show the sharp angle turning object in space, and thereby change direction, then speeds up and heading towards deep space.

www.olive-drab.com...

This photo was taken at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California on 6 May 1960 as part of an elaborate effort by the CIA to cover-up the true nature of the U-2 spy plane program. On 1 May 1960 CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union during a spy flight. Cooperating with the CIA, NASA issued a press release with a cover story about a U-2 conducting weather research that may have strayed off course after the pilot "reported difficulties with his oxygen equipment." This photo shows a U-2 that was quickly painted in NASA markings, with a fictitious NASA serial number, and put on display for the news media at the Edwards NASA facility.

In reality, up to that time NO U-2 was EVER used by NASA. Unfortunately, Powers was captured by the Soviet Union and espionage equipment was recovered from the wreckage. Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev EXPOSED the COVER-UP and made MUCH propaganda use of the American DECEPTION!

The upper section of this image is the black & white photo while the lower section has NASA logos in color and the wording: "Dryden Flight Center E-5442 Photographed 6MAY1960 / U-2 with fictitious NASA markings to support cover story for CIA / pilot Gary Powers, shot down over Soviet Union May 1 (NASA Photo)". In the photo, the sign on the building says "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Flight Research Center".

Click here for more information.

Well, there's that old Borman UFO canard again. It's always lurking out there to ensnare the weak-minded and it's done so, again. sigh....

The following is an excerpt from an article "Flying the Gusmobile" about the Gemini missions. Published at "Air and Space" magazine July 14, 1998. www.airspacemag.com:80...

(snipped)

At almost twice the length of Gemini 5, Commander Frank Borman's Gemini 7 mission may have been even more trying, but it grabbed the attention of at least one Hollywood producer.

"Right after we got into orbit we were supposed to 'station keep' or fly formation with the booster," Borman says. "We were flying formation and taking photographs and infrared measurements and I started calling it a 'bogey,' which is an old fighter pilot term. Well, a lot of the UFO freaks on the ground picked this up and said we had seen a UFO because we had referred to our booster as a bogey.

"Just this past year I got a call from a producer at 'Unsolved Mysteries' and they said, 'We read your account about your seeing a UFO on Gemini 7 and would you come on the program?' I told them: 'I'd love to come on your program because I'd love to straighten that out.'

"I explained what it was I saw, and I said, 'I don't think there were UFOs,' and the producer said, 'Well, I'm not sure we want you on the program.' "

Interview with CBC News space reporter Bill Harwood:

HARWOOD : Were there any other things from your Gemini mission that—and they specifically want you to tell, maybe things that weren’t in your book Countdown? Any stories that you’ve—?

BORMAN : No. I—the interesting thing—one of the interesting things was flying formation with the second stage that put us into orbit and using an infrared sensor to track that. We referred to it as a “bogey” all the time, which was natural, normal parlance for it. And when we got back, True magazine wrote a big story about how we’d been tracking a UFO and all that nonsense. So I’ve been plagued with that ever since. People say, “Well,”—if you run into UFO circles today, they’ll still tell you, well, we saw a UFO. Which is just foolish

Originally posted by JimOberg
The following is an excerpt from an article "Flying the Gusmobile" about the Gemini missions. Published at "Air and Space" magazine July 14, 1998. www.airspacemag.com:80...

(snipped)

At almost twice the length of Gemini 5, Commander Frank Borman's Gemini 7 mission may have been even more trying, but it grabbed the attention of at least one Hollywood producer.

"Right after we got into orbit we were supposed to 'station keep' or fly formation with the booster," Borman says. "We were flying formation and taking photographs and infrared measurements and I started calling it a 'bogey,' which is an old fighter pilot term. Well, a lot of the UFO freaks on the ground picked this up and said we had seen a UFO because we had referred to our booster as a bogey.

"Just this past year I got a call from a producer at 'Unsolved Mysteries' and they said, 'We read your account about your seeing a UFO on Gemini 7 and would you come on the program?' I told them: 'I'd love to come on your program because I'd love to straighten that out.'

"I explained what it was I saw, and I said, 'I don't think there were UFOs,' and the producer said, 'Well, I'm not sure we want you on the program.' "

Interview with CBC News space reporter Bill Harwood:

HARWOOD : Were there any other things from your Gemini mission that—and they specifically want you to tell, maybe things that weren’t in your book Countdown? Any stories that you’ve—?

BORMAN : No. I—the interesting thing—one of the interesting things was flying formation with the second stage that put us into orbit and using an infrared sensor to track that. We referred to it as a “bogey” all the time, which was natural, normal parlance for it. And when we got back, True magazine wrote a big story about how we’d been tracking a UFO and all that nonsense. So I’ve been plagued with that ever since. People say, “Well,”—if you run into UFO circles today, they’ll still tell you, well, we saw a UFO. Which is just foolish

And where do you see that magazine July 14, 1998 from that link? Or is it something you just faked?

If you watched UFO Hunter's Nasa Files Show then they confirmed this ronrecord.com...

In December 1965, Gemini VII astronauts James Lovell and Frank Borman also saw a UFO during their second orbit of their record-breaking 14 day flight. Borman reported that he saw an unidentified spacecraft some distance from their capsule. Gemini Control, at Cape Kennedy told him that he was seeing the final stage of their own Titan booster rocket. Borman confirmed that he could see the booster rocket all right, but that he could also see something completely different.

And you can read the rest from that provided link

Given the choice of believing Frank Borman, or believing a TV show that makes its money attracting advertisers who want a target audience of gullible morons who will believe anything, I'm not really on a fence.

Calling me "stupid" is a clear violation of the T&Cs. Your pugnacious attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your fallacious arguments indicates that you are what is known as a "troll" on these discussion forums. Your arguments seem to be based entirely opinion and ridiculously poor quality sources. My knowledge is based on decades of research and direct access to original documents, technical publications, program personnel, and hardware (i.e., the aircraft themselves).

Stop using YouTube and UFO Hunters as sources. A lot of the YouTube material has been selectively edited to be more sensational that it really is, or is patched together from unrelated parts to make a seeming whole that is not accurate. Also, a lot of people seem to interpret very ordinary things such as small (and even large) space debris as alien spacecraft in NASA video footage despite overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary. I have personal experience with the UFO Hunters television production, as well. The "investigative methods" (and I use the term very loosely) of the UFO Hunters team were geared more toward tawdry entertainment than ferreting out the truth, and they weren't above fabricating certain story elements, as Mark Easter of MUFON (and others) have pointed out in other threads.

The NASA U-2 cover story is the best example of a documented case of NASA "lying?" Really? I probably know more about that event than most people. It was instigated by the Central Intelligence Agency to shield their U-2 training operations at Groom Lake, Nevada, and eventual deployment around the world. In February 1956, the CIA's U-2 project director Richard M. Bissell Jr. favored a cover involving high-altitude weather research by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA, the predecessor to NASA).

On March 15, representatives of the CIA, USAF Air Weather Service, and NACA held a meeting to finalize the details. Plans were discussed to include actual weather research instrumentation on the U-2 aircraft when it was not carrying mission equipment, or to include small permanent instrumentation. The NACA was selected to be the prime sponsor and it was decided to paint the aircraft in NACA markings.

On May 7, NACA director Dr. Hugh L. Dryden issued a press release announcing a program in which U-2 aircraft would conduct high-altitude weather research for the NACA with Air Force support while operating “from Watertown Strip, Nevada.” The statement added that “USAF facilities overseas will be used as the program gets underway, to enable gathering research information necessary to reflect accurately conditions along the high-altitude air routes of tomorrow in many parts of the world.” (Dryden's biographer has said that the former NACA director later regretted supporting the cover story but had felt at the time that it was the patriotic thing to do, as this took place in the middle of the Cold War.)

An August 1956 memorandum from the U-2 Project Cover Officer to Richard Bissell expressed concern over the need for NACA research papers supporting the cover story and the lack of enthusiasm on the part of Harry Press (NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory) to publish such material. The Project Cover Officer recommended putting pressure on NACA Headquarters to “emphasize to Mr. Press the need for his taking immediate action toward preparing our much needed research study with completion at a very early date. A letter was drafted to emphasize the need “for a counterpropaganda weapon for use in the event of a compromise to one of our aircraft.”

Despite the fact that the U-2 was primarily a CIA spy plane, it was also used to collect weather research data and the results were published by the NACA for public distribution and use by the scientific community. So, while it wasn't the complete truth, it also wasn't a lie. In March 1957, the NACA published Research Memorandum No. L57A11, "Preliminary Measurements of Atmospheric Turbulence at High Altitude as Determined from Acceleration Measurements on Lockheed U-2 Airplane," by Thomas L. Coleman and Jack Funk. In August 1957, the NACA published Research Memorandum No. L57G02, "Airplane Measurements of Atmospheric Turbulence for Altitudes Between 20,000 and 50,000 Feet Over the Western Part of the United States," by Thomas L. Coleman and Emilie C. Coe. The paper compared turbulence data taken over the western United States with data collected over England and Western Europe. In November 1957, Lt. Col. Robert C. Bundgaard of the USAF Air Weather Service wrote an article titled “The First Flyover of a Tropical Cyclone,” describing a U-2 mission that produced unique photos of a cyclone from directly overhead. The NACA became NASA in 1958. In June 1959, NASA published Memorandum No. 4-17-59L, "Airplane Measurements of Atmospheric Turbulence for Altitudes Between 20,000 and 55,000 Feet for Four Geographic Areas," by Thomas L. Coleman and May T. Meadows.

The NASA cover story was abandoned after Francis Gary Powers was shot down in May 1960. In the 1970s, NASA acquired two U-2C aircraft as dedicated high-altitude research platforms. These were eventually replaced by two ER-2 aircraft, the NASA version of the TR-1/U-2R, that are still used today.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Given the choice of believing Frank Borman, or believing a TV show that makes its money attracting advertisers who want a target audience of gullible morons who will believe anything, I'm not really on a fence.

Nice try Are you aware, or did you simply just forget that the UFO Hunters contact and interview people/witnesses who are 'in the know'? Is it really necessary to remind you of this again and again?
There is even photo of UFOs taken by Frank Borman ronrecord.com...

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Calling me "stupid" is a clear violation of the T&Cs. Your pugnacious attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your fallacious arguments indicates that you are what is known as a "troll" on these discussion forums. Your arguments seem to be based entirely opinion and ridiculously poor quality sources. My knowledge is based on decades of research and direct access to original documents, technical publications, program personnel, and hardware (i.e., the aircraft themselves).

Nice try 'Shadowhawk'. I didn't call you stupid, i was asking you a question. It's of course up to you if you want to answer that question or not. I'm not going to ask you that question again, but remember (or are you able to remember it?) it was you who made this claim >>Everything about the so-called UFO sightings by X-15 pilots is available to the public for the asking.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
My knowledge is based on decades of research and direct access to original documents, technical publications, program personnel, and hardware (i.e., the aircraft themselves).

And who do you expect to believe you on that? Prove it instead of just saying it. And even IF it's true you have that knowledge you claim to have, then do you expect anyone else to trust you on your intensions?

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The NASA U-2 cover story is the best example of a documented case of NASA "lying?" Really?

I already presented good examples of some of NASA Cover stories. You just asked if the NASA U-2 cover story is the best example of a documented case of NASA lying. What other documented cases of Cover stories that show NASA is lying do you know of?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Britain's FSR magazine cabled NASA headquarters REQUESTING further information and copies of stills from the FILM taken by Walker.

"Objects reported by NASA pilot Joe Walker have now been identified as ice flaking off the X-15 aircraft," NASA replied. "Analysis of additional cameras mounted on top the X-15 led to identification of the previously unidentifiable objects. . . . NO still PHOTOS are AVAILABLE." [Emphasis added.]

Ice flaking OFF the X-15? That's a LIE when the two flying spinning discs were reportedly AIRED on TV in Los Angeles, and obviously are on VHS tape!

In a letter from Colonel CHARLES SENN, Chief of the Air Force Community Relations Division, to Lieutenant General Duward Crow of NASA, dated 1 September 1977, Colonel Senn made the following ASTONISHING statement:

"I sincerely HOPE that you are SUCCESFULD in PREVENTING a re-opening of UFO investigations."

Originally posted by Anunaki10
Ice flaking OFF the X-15? That's a LIE when the two flying spinning discs were reportedly AIRED on TV in Los Angeles, and obviously are on VHS tape!

Well, I don't doubt YOU believe it, but it would be nice for more reality-grounded folks to actually see the video instead of hearing a guy on a UFO documentary SAYING there was a video.

Just the claim that the range was KNOWN is suspicious to me since if it's only on a camera image, how do you really know the size/range? Human binocular vision has a short range (tens of feet) as a distance estimator. And other accounts from X-15 pilots, of stuff closer than that, described the stuff as small, close, and tumbling.

What else are ice flakes supposed to look like?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, I don't doubt YOU believe it, but it would be nice for more reality-grounded folks to actually see the video instead of hearing a guy on a UFO documentary SAYING there was a video.

Believe? The question is not wether to believe it or not. The question is how the UFO documentary base the claim of Walker's UFO sightings, and how the VHS tape obviously was reportedly aired on TV in Los Angeles and leaked online, and reportedly removed afterwards. It could be interesting to try to find that out.

Just the claim that the range was KNOWN is suspicious to me since if it's only on a camera image, how do you really know the size/range? Human binocular vision has a short range (tens of feet) as a distance estimator. And other accounts from X-15 pilots, of stuff closer than that, described the stuff as small, close, and tumbling.

Maybe they were able to judge the distance and sizes by just looking at the video footage? And maybe the UFOs were on radar as well, too? Also that could be interesting to try find out.
We also need someone to come forward, including 'Whistleblowers' to show some Top Secret NASA documents.

What else are ice flakes supposed to look like?

I don't think there was any ice flake, but just thin layer of frost on the underside of the X-15 before launch from the B-52, and more likely vaporized off from the X-15's underside during supersonic speed when the air friction began to heat up the airframe, and left far behind, and the pilot wouldn't have a chance to have noticed that. We are talking about the real world, and it's NOT just because the footages show NO ice flaking off.

Originally posted by Anunaki10

Originally posted by JimOberg
Given the choice of believing Frank Borman, or believing a TV show that makes its money attracting advertisers who want a target audience of gullible morons who will believe anything, I'm not really on a fence.

Nice try

Are you aware, or did you simply just forget that the UFO Hunters contact and interview people/witnesses who are 'in the know'? Is it really necessary to remind you of this again and again?
There is even photo of UFOs taken by Frank Borman ronrecord.com...

Glad you brought up that photograph. About 1975 or so, I was able to demonstrate it was a forgery, made from a real shot that showed two of the nose roll thrusters, airbrushed so the edge of the nose 'faded into' the dark background. I published both the original shot, the ones ahead of and behind it on the roll, and the faked shot.

You're about thirty years behind the time in championing debunked UFO hoaxes, which seems about par for the course. Your course, that is.

Text added:

from www.jamesoberg.com...

Forgeries: Popular writer Robert Anton Wilson (in "Cosmic Trigger", And/Or Press, 1978) describes the 'Fawcett List' used by Hynek as "NASA cases [which] fall in the category of craft that look and act like spaceships from elsewhere, as Dr. Hynek, who collected them from Air Force files, has indicated." Of course, Hynek hadn't gotten them from such a source, as he himself said, but it made a much better story the way Wilson improved on it. For Wilson, his "Item #10" was as follows: "December 4, 1965 - Gemini 7: Frank Borman and Jim Lovell photographed twin oval-shaped UFOs with glowing undersides."

Now, where did THAT part of the Gemini-7 story come from? I tracked that down some twenty years ago, and published the results, but the story continues to flourish. My main study was in SEARCH magazine, Winter 1976 (issue #129), Palmer Publications, article "Astronauts & UFOs -- The Whole Story", and a shorter version appeared in "Space World" magazine in July 1977.

I wrote: ". . .Only a partisan digging for evidence, and desperate to find such evidence, would make much of this common event. But a sign of desperation is indeed found in connection with the Gemini 7 UFO case. It is not the desperation of government officials trying to cover up the truth about UFOs. Rather, it is the desperation of some outsider trying to manufacture counterfeit 'astronaut UFO' evidence, an activity which should not be necessary if the 'real' UFO evidence were as persuasive as many think."

"It involves a photograph showing two very strange glowing objects. Each is hexagonal in shape, viewed at an angle, and supported by a dazzling 'force field' below it. A cloud covered earth is seen in the background.
"This photograph has appeared in books, magazines, newspapers and pamphlets. It is part of the traveling slide show of UFO lecturers from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and elsewhere. I have heard it described as 'showing a typical UFO force field propulsion system', and 'similar to other UFO photographs taken on Earth the same year.'

"The photograph is a forgery. It is a hoax. What the anonymous counterfeiter did was take an ordinary photograph of Earth made from the Gemini-7 spaceship on December 4, 1965. The nose of the spacecraft fills the lower part of the frame, and on the nose, catching the glare of the sun, is a pair of roll control rocket thrusters used to adjust the attitude and spin rate of the Gemini. The original photo (NASA S65-63722, which I have personally examined) was then retouched by the unscrupulous hoaxter to eliminate the edge of the nose from view, so the dark surface of the spaceship merged into the dark Earth beneath. This left the two now mysterious lights seemingly suspended in space, as it were. A normal space tourist photo was turned into convincing UFO evidence, and thousands of people were fooled."

The photo you linked to was also rotated 180 to make it look even more mysterious.

Why are you so pathetically easy to fool, and then why are you so loyal to those who have conned you?


Add 2:

These versions might help:

Original – edge of nose visible: [jeo: appears to be down for maintenance]
www.ufologie.net...

Altered so Gemini nose not visible:
www.igap.dk...

Fake on fake: Two lights upside down
ronrecord.com...

view of fully lit nose, with thrusters visible
t3.gstatic.com...:ANd9GcSOCy8S-QoNM3xSv01ezsHHh9MDtIcq8u92p8RiQGSW8GkmiWDxIA&t=1

other out-the-window views of nose
stellar-views.com...

Here are some more views of the gemini nose in full lighting:

view of fully lit nose, with thrusters visible
t3.gstatic.com...:ANd9GcSOCy8S-QoNM3xSv01ezsHHh9MDtIcq8u92p8RiQGSW8GkmiWDxIA&t=1

other out-the-window views of nose
stellar-views.com...

shows sunglint off nose, thrusters
gt7view2
www.quickfilepost.com...

earth view with nose, sunglint thrusters (v. sim to original)
gt7u1
www.quickfilepost.com...

another ‘UFO’ version:
www.geubs.com.br...

Originally posted by JimOberg
The photo you linked to was also rotated 180 to make it look even more mysterious.

Why are you so pathetically easy to fool, and then why are you so loyal to those who have conned you?

Trust me, i'm not easy to fool at all. I was in fact expecting someone to comment on that photo. And funny enough i somehow expected that you might come forward to do that. Funny, eh? I never said the photo necessary is the right photo.
Some time back i've posted another photo that didn't showed to be the right photo. Do you know what photo i'm refering to?

Originally posted by Anunaki10
Trust me, i'm not easy to fool at all.

Point. Game. Match. Bye.

well all i can say is i feel sorry fro FlyingFish , the OP........


his thread has been hijacked into a head-banging match between someone who should have a little more manners and courtesy when addressing other members , (esp long-term members who are well known on this site as "knowing" their subjects VERY well. (Shadowhawk as an example. ).



thanks OP and thanks Jim and Shadowhawk and to all who others whom have added real info and knowledge to this thread..

snoopyuk