NASA and UFOs

Originally posted by corsair00
I am very interested in finding out more information about this particular sighting as recorded by NASA cameras and presented by Santiago Garza and Jaime Maussan in 2008.

STS-116 - June 2008

A good place to start would be the date/time of the event. Without it, context info such as illumination and other normal activities can't be determined.

Can you provide the date/time so the video can be verified and the NASA live commentary can be heard?

Originally posted by stirling
Jesbus did you watch the footage or not.?Thgist of the movies is to tell you ET is out there as far as they are concerned.They surely arent gonna be able to make it much plainer what they think.
Who hasent seen this stuff by now, and the disclosure testimony too.
I dont know why the witnesses arent called up to congress by now, but id say that alone is evidence that the Gov boys dont want you to know about it.

What is Mitchell a witness to? According to him, nothing.

What about the cases Cooper reports on? Where have they been investigated and documented, or is it all just his account with no corroboration or verification? What do other witnesses to his events have to say about them?

Of course NASA knows about UFOs and ET. They know more about the subject than anyone else on this planet more than likely.

reply to post by JimOberg


Santiago says it was the STS-116, 3 in the morning. I am sure he has the specific date. The mission was between June 9th and 21st. Perhaps until that information comes out we can only analyze the video itself.

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Santiago says it was the STS-116, 3 in the morning. I am sure he has the specific date. The mission was between June 9th and 21st. Perhaps until that information comes out we can only analyze the video itself.

Well. without even basic info such as solar illumination, I think it's pretty hopeless to develop any potential prosaic explanations. But that's probably Santiago's intention in withholding the info, as well as in suppressing the NASA mission commentary audio track. He's the one claiming there's no possible prosaic explanation -- but he's also sabotaging any effort to develop such hypotheses. Pretty self-serving, seems to me.

Originally posted by planetzog
Personally, I suspect NASA know more about UFOs and ETs.

I found this from NASA's website.

www.nasa.gov...

From the story:

The thing was described as "a saucer-shaped object with a dome on top."

This is a pretty sloppy comment subject to easy misinterpretation, so I was probably too harsh in ascribing reading comprehension inadequacies to anyone who thought it might mean that the CREW so described the object. Snarky jab retracted with apologies.

Bigger question: what's the problem with the NASA explanation that the shape is the boom-mounted lamp?

Why isn't that explanation credible?

I first saw this video in 1978 when I requested a series of 'UFO-related' scenes from the Houston press office. Don Piccard, one of the photo techs, included this puzzling scene with the explanation it was actually the crescent Earth, and I repeated that assertion -- without checking -- in the scene list of the film, 'CL-862', that I showed around at UFO conventions over the years.

Link to 'scene list'
www.jamesoberg.com...

But further checking showed Earth wasn't in that position relative to the Moon, and the shadows were inconsistent.

I wondered if it might be an internal reflection, but remained baffled until a private researcher came up with the lamp suggestion, and NASA verified it.

I wrote it up for the MSNBC.com science website here:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Generic page of my research results on astronaut UFO cases here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


Jump the gun, why don't you? I just shared this less than 20 minutes ago and you're already attacking Santiago Garza for sharing the video, the time, the date, the shuttle mission. Have you talked to him in the past 20 minutes to confirm that there is no audio commentary - or are you just doing your job debunking everything that is anomalous associated with NASA and Shuttle footage of potential UFOs?

Watch the video and tell me what you see. I am just looking for a guess as to what the anomaly could be. Space debris? The sun? I am sure your observation of the video itself can give you some impression of what it could be.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Cooper's and Mitchell's opinions still, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with their experiences at NASA. What am i missing?

The fact that they still want to collect their NASA pension?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Can you provide the date/time so the video can be verified and the NASA live commentary can be heard?

Yeah that sure is an inconvenience, NASA not putting time and date stamps on their videos... Wonder why?

Originally posted by corsair00
I just shared this less than 20 minutes ago and you're already attacking Santiago Garza for sharing the video, the time, the date, the shuttle mission. Have you talked to him in the past 20 minutes to confirm that there is no audio commentary - or are you just doing your job debunking everything that is anomalous associated with NASA and Shuttle footage of potential UFOs?

Well unfortunately when ever Jamie Muassan or Santiago Garza's name pops up it makes people groan. Best just to stick to the NASA video and find an original copy of it.

It's funny though how a google search for "corsair00 Santiago Garza" brings up a lot of interesting results. Big fan of his eh?

Originally posted by corsair00
You'd be amazed at the collection of NASA-UFO videos that Santiago Garza has. He presents the best ones every year at the UFO Congress. There is some extremely compelling footage there that is worthy of being posted all over. Even better than from David Sereda's NASA film.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by zorgon
That dodgy Buzz Aldrin video should always go with this one to balance the point....



Why do you keep posting that same black triangle as if it's a black project? The image is from NASA, it's hosted on NASA sites and has been identified as tile debris from the shuttle...

NASA Photo ID: STS61C-31-002 File Name: 10062623.jpg
Film Type: 70mm Date Taken: 01/12/86

Title: Piece of thermal insulation tile floats near the Shuttle Columbia
Description:
A small piece of thermal insulation tile floats in space near the Shuttle
Columbia. The cloudy surface of the earth is used as a background.

NASA source

Whether people see it as debris or 'secret black projects' is up to them. It was interesting enough for the guys to take the trouble to photograph it...

ETA: a 3 image sequence from the ISS in 2004.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cd823180cdd.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by planetzog
Personally, I suspect NASA know more about UFOs and ETs.

I found this from NASA's website. www.nasa.gov...

When you read the article, you will see that staff at NASA had a debate regarding an alleged sighting of a UFO by the crew of Apollo 16 in 1972. This article was published on 19 April 2004. Its an interesting article and similar to debates of photos and videos we have here on this forum.

The crew of the Apollo 16 believed they saw a disc shaped UFO flying close to them. They took a photo which was later analysed by staff at NASA who concluded that the 'UFO' was actually the reflection of a part of their module.

I see no evidence at all that the crew saw a 'UFO' and thought anything about it or took any photos of IT.

Let me suggest that you imagined all of these 'facts' out of total incomprehension of the verbal description and the image.

Please read more carefully -- English is your native language, right?

As far as I can tell the half-moon was found after the flight in cine film being taken of the moon as they departed on their way home. They never reported noticing anything unusual -- except, hey, the frigging MOON nearby out the window.

Please correct me with checkable documentation if I need it. I'd do the same for you -- and just did so.

edit on 26-1-2011 by JimOberg because: typo

As you can see from my initial post, I am not bothered about the image in question but for some reason you decided to concentrate your attack on me with this image.

What I am bothered about is the use of words by NASA and why they don't publish the rest of sightings and footages of UFO sightings by space crew. NASA claim we are alone in the universe. Well the best way to prove this is by publishing all UFO sightings, images and recordings they have, giving full explanation of what they are, like they did in this article.

Also, to say that UFOs aren't necessarily alien spacecraft is confusing. If we, like NASA claim, are alone in the universe then UFOs cannot be alien spacecraft.

Like others have said, NASA are very selective about what they show and tell us. We know there are other and better sightings of UFOs so why don't they explain them and prove to us we are alone?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
Cooper's and Mitchell's opinions still, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with their experiences at NASA. What am i missing?

The fact that they still want to collect their NASA pension?

What phony 'fact' is that? Did you dream it up?

Isn't it wonderful that when you DON'T want to believe some astronaut's inconvenient comment you can just fantasize he is a terrified liar?

Why do you even PRETEND your conclusions are reality-based when your "REALITY" is so obviously belief-based?

Is there a SINGLE credible case ANYWHERE of somebody getting their pension interfered with based on their 'UFO revelations'?

I'm speaking straight to you and telling you this because I'm your friend. [grin]

NASA doesn't have pensions for serving military officers, they have their military pensions. And always have had them.

And Cooper sure needed his after being eased out of his NASA position for inadequacies -- after then losing all his money and millions of dollars -- literally -- of investments from associates and organizations he had lobbied on behalf of a series of cockamamie aviation development schemes that people had trusted his super-dooper astronaut intelligence advice about. Sad story, but since it didn't fit the square-jawed astronaut 'national hero' narrative, it wasn't widely reported. He was so discredited that in the end the only place he was welcome was the UFO convention circuit.

But to repeat -- both Cooper and Mitchell talked about UFO experiences outside of NASA and have been quite clear that during their tours of duty with NASA they neither had, nor heard of, all these marvelous 'space UFO' stories that fill the internet. To dismiss those statements as forced lies is silly.

Originally posted by planetzog

As you can see from my initial post, I am not bothered about the image in question but for some reason you decided to concentrate your attack on me with this image.

What I am bothered about is the use of words by NASA and why they don't publish the rest of sightings and footages of UFO sightings by space crew.

Dozens of such stories have been and will be discussed on ATS, and analyzed to see if they are misperceptions, misinterpretations, or entirely fictitious fables -- or evidence for manifestations of unusual technology or other phenomena. Since the OP started with the Apollo-16 image, it is proper to settle that question before wandering off. Why do you doubt that it was an image of the boom-mounted light?

NASA claim we are alone in the universe.

I doubt you can actually cite a documentary source to prove this. Perhaps you just imagined it.

Also, to say that UFOs aren't necessarily alien spacecraft is confusing. If we, like NASA claim, are alone in the universe then UFOs cannot be alien spacecraft.

Show us where anyone at NASA ever said that. I bet you can't.

Like others have said, NASA are very selective about what they show and tell us. We know there are other and better sightings of UFOs so why don't they explain them and prove to us we are alone?

Agreed -- people keep saying this and saying this and saying this. It may even be true. But then why is the evidence provided by the enthusiasts and the promoters so pitifully ambiguous?

And recall the old cautionary proverb from Will Rogers: "It ain't what you don't know that makes you look like a fool -- it's what you DO know that ain't so."

"Knowing" something is true doesn't MAKE it true. Evidence does.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by planetzog

As you can see from my initial post, I am not bothered about the image in question but for some reason you decided to concentrate your attack on me with this image.

What I am bothered about is the use of words by NASA and why they don't publish the rest of sightings and footages of UFO sightings by space crew.

Dozens of such stories have been and will be discussed on ATS, and analyzed to see if they are misperceptions, misinterpretations, or entirely fictitious fables -- or evidence for manifestations of unusual technology or other phenomena. Since the OP started with the Apollo-16 image, it is proper to settle that question before wandering off. Why do you doubt that it was an image of the boom-mounted light?

Like I said, I have no problems with the image in question. It was well explained by NASA. Why dont they do this with the rest of footages?

NASA claim we are alone in the universe.

I doubt you can actually cite a documentary source to prove this. Perhaps you just imagined it.

Well seeing as you are the oh so knowledgeable one, why don't you set the record straight and prove I am wrong?

Also, to say that UFOs aren't necessarily alien spacecraft is confusing. If we, like NASA claim, are alone in the universe then UFOs cannot be alien spacecraft.

Show us where anyone at NASA ever said that. I bet you can't.

Do you work for NASA? You claim to know everything about NASA. Again, instead of attacking me, prove I am wrong and I will be very happy to accept.

Like others have said, NASA are very selective about what they show and tell us. We know there are other and better sightings of UFOs so why don't they explain them and prove to us we are alone?

Agreed -- people keep saying this and saying this and saying this. It may even be true. But then why is the evidence provided by the enthusiasts and the promoters so pitifully ambiguous?

And recall the old cautionary proverb from Will Rogers: "It ain't what you don't know that makes you look like a fool -- it's what you DO know that ain't so."

"Knowing" something is true doesn't MAKE it true. Evidence does.

And you claim to know everything but provide no evidence.

No matter what anyone says, NASA withholds information from the public. Anything from them is sanitized and altered. Still, they don't really have access to the 'good' stuff... which is in the realm of black military and yes, joint ET operations taking place here. More specifically, on the moon, Mars, and DUMB.

Originally posted by planetzog
... And you claim to know everything but provide no evidence.

There you go again makiing up phony factoids to butress up your feel-good fantasies.

Did you look at any of the investigation reports on my home page?

I provide dates/times and URLs and checkable by-name citations of specialist opinions, as well as documentation that anybody can access -- no anonymous 'inside sources', no undated uncheckable dancing blob videos, no internet rumors 'validated' by a thousand mindless repetitions, no 'assumptions of must-have-beens', no clever sounding acronym alternate decodings, no ESP-based declarations of the mean-spirited motives of disagreeing sources, none of the sort of pseudo-reasoning techniques that seem to appeal to you.

Can we move on to broader issues only after all agreeing that the NASA website cited at the top of this thread provides a plausible, credible explanation of that Apollo-16 image? Is there ANY argument or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to disbelieve it?

Here's the link again. As always, I seek critical and corrective inputs:

Generic page of research results on astronaut UFO cases here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by planetzog
... And you claim to know everything but provide no evidence.

There you go again makiing up phony factoids to butress up your feel-good fantasies.

Did you look at any of the investigation reports on my home page?

I provide dates/times and URLs and checkable by-name citations of specialist opinions, as well as documentation that anybody can access -- no anonymous 'inside sources', no undated uncheckable dancing blob videos, no internet rumors 'validated' by a thousand mindless repetitions, no 'assumptions of must-have-beens', no clever sounding acronym alternate decodings, no ESP-based declarations of the mean-spirited motives of disagreeing sources, none of the sort of pseudo-reasoning techniques that seem to appeal to you.

Can we move on to broader issues only after all agreeing that the NASA website cited at the top of this thread provides a plausible, credible explanation of that Apollo-16 image? Is there ANY argument or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to disbelieve it?

Were you holding it in your hand when you wrote this?

I started this thread to seek advice and thoughts on the matter. You decided to attack me.

I never claimed to be an expert. I will give my opinion which may be right or wrong. And if I'm wrong I will learn from it.

I raised a valid point why NASA investigates a simple photo which you go on and on about. I'm saying NASA got it right with that photo that its not a UFO. And I'm asking why NASA do not publish their investigations into other sightings and images, which you have clearly ignored.

Saying 'I bet you cant back that up' makes you look silly and ignorant. You claim to be an 'expert' on such issues so feel free to provide your thoughts and advice without the need for being ignorant.

Originally posted by VtaUFO
N A S A means "Never A Straight Answer"

People forget that these astronauts were the best of the best, our most trusted test pilots and technicians.

Best of the Best? That's debateable. How mentally stable is someone who chooses to strap themselves to a modified ICBM and get launched into space. LOL.

As for the statement "'UFOs aren't necessarily alien spacecraft. And some purported UFOs aren't UFOs at all" As someone else mentioned, some UFO's could be other country's craft. And some purported UFO's aren't UFOs at all because they are Identified Flying Objects. Since they choose not to Identify the Identified Flying Objects, those are the alien spacecrafts.

Originally posted by planetzog

I raised a valid point why NASA investigates a simple photo which you go on and on about. I'm saying NASA got it right with that photo that its not a UFO. And I'm asking why NASA do not publish their investigations into other sightings and images, which you have clearly ignored.

Now that is a good question.

Is the problem that NASA does not publish its findings, or that the UFO sites just don't report them?

Judging from a number of snarky posts on this thread, it seems that anything NASA posts won't be believed anyway, at least by UFO buffs -- so where's the value for the effort expended?

Now, we're totally in agreement on the issue -- I believe NASA should spend a little more time responding to wild stories of space UFO sightings, too. Even if most folks hereabouts are too closed-minded to accept any other point of view about what the signtings really involved.

I presume you haven't seen NASA's official position on the notorious 1991 STS-48 zig-zag UFO video. Why do you suppose you haven't been able to locate it?

How abnout Frank Borman's position on the 'space bogie' he's supposed to have reported on Gemini-7?

There is a lot of such information released -- it just doesn't seem to penetrate the filters protecting the UFO sites, except as an object of ridicule and insult.

Thanks for responding patiently and opening an avenue of common interest and joint work.