Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

fair points Boon, although when it was set up wasnt it for space exploration....

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...

EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

I guess this is what Hoagland thought it was for at least....and maybe Edgar too judging by his response....

Perhaps including NASA as a defence agency of the United States, was a just-in-case clause? Just speculating here. I'm sure when NASA was first created, no one could imagine the direction that the agency could be taking, regarding what discoveries and/or technology might be developed once space exploration had really taken hold.

I recall at least one shuttle mission (I'm sure there were others) which was cloaked in secrecy as it was (IIRC) deploying a military satellite. Maybe including NASA as a defence agency is necessary in order to, if need be, implement executive orders to exempt portions of missions, or their entirety, from FOI requests?

Seems to me that the majority of NASA work is done quite openly and with a drive towards making discoveries and data available whenever possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

telescopes for surveillance; spy missions? i'm confused... at what resolving power?

a030.gif

Interesting; so what were they used to surveille before? The secret alien bases on the Moon, or Mars, or indeed the Asteroid belt? So why were they no longer needed for surveillance? Do they have something even more exciting to use now? :clap:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps including NASA as a defence agency of the United States, was a just-in-case clause? Just speculating here. I'm sure when NASA was first created, no one could imagine the direction that the agency could be taking, regarding what discoveries and/or technology might be developed once space exploration had really taken hold.

I recall at least one shuttle mission (I'm sure there were others) which was cloaked in secrecy as it was (IIRC) deploying a military satellite. Maybe including NASA as a defence agency is necessary in order to, if need be, implement executive orders to exempt portions of missions, or their entirety, from FOI requests?

Seems to me that the majority of NASA work is done quite openly and with a drive towards making discoveries and data available whenever possible.

I agree that such an organisation will be changing course throughout its developement however I would envisage the 'core' principals and directives to remain constant, which leads into your last point on which I agree again. I think ultimately their 'directive/purpose' was research and data gathering...but with that clause that allowed daddy to say ok we will handle this part...please now do continue your research (just in case clause?!?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps including NASA as a defence agency of the United States, was a just-in-case clause? Just speculating here. I'm sure when NASA was first created, no one could imagine the direction that the agency could be taking, regarding what discoveries and/or technology might be developed once space exploration had really taken hold.

I recall at least one shuttle mission (I'm sure there were others) which was cloaked in secrecy as it was (IIRC) deploying a military satellite. Maybe including NASA as a defence agency is necessary in order to, if need be, implement executive orders to exempt portions of missions, or their entirety, from FOI requests?

Yes, there were quite a few of those; they were going to use Vandenberg AFB, (under the jurisdiction of the 30th Space Wing, Air Force Space Command), for those, but they never did in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting; so what were they used to surveille before? The secret alien bases on the Moon, or Mars, or indeed the Asteroid belt? So why were they no longer needed for surveillance? Do they have something even more exciting to use now? :clap:

I believe the donation involves two surplus MIRRORS that still would need to be installed in a telescope in orbit. It's the sort of hardware used for astronomical observations, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did NASA decide to comment on the back of the Kerrang interview......

could this be why

Kerrang! Radio reported at its website:

“Producer Alex contacted NASA to confirm Dr. Mitchell's story, this was their reply:

‘Dear Alex,

NASA does not track UFOs.

NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.

Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinion on this issue.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.’

although I have seen this phrase banded about also:

A rep for NASA told CNN: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else - period."

NASA was even lying about that because they have indeed tacked UFOs in the past and gotten plenty of reports about them, even though they do not like to admit anything to the public at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA was even lying about that because they have indeed tacked UFOs in the past and gotten plenty of reports about them, even though they do not like to admit anything to the public at all.

Like on Apollo-14, such as your recent post claimed? Where is the slightest evidence that there was a UFO incident on that mission -- with Ed Mitchell, who seems to have not noticed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

telescopes for surveillance; spy missions? i'm confused... at what resolving power?

That's one of the most interesting posts I've ever seen on here.

In fact, I am VERY interested in that whole subject of the military space program.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like on Apollo-14, such as your recent post claimed? Where is the slightest evidence that there was a UFO incident on that mission -- with Ed Mitchell, who seems to have not noticed it.

You're right, and I said that even before you did. Remember?

Mitchell never mentioned any UFO incident on Apollo 14, although those "blue light" pictures have been publicly known for quite a while.

I find that very interesting too, but have no more information about it than what I already posted.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like on Apollo-14, such as your recent post claimed? Where is the slightest evidence that there was a UFO incident on that mission -- with Ed Mitchell, who seems to have not noticed it.

do you agree that NASA do not track UFO's? and /or never have done?

ps: I am off home now so will catch up tomorrow.....I have a feeling this debate could turn rather interesting tonight :)

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo=14? That's Mitchell's mission.

What earthly reason -- or unearhtly reason -- can you possibly have to claim there's some 'unexplained' UFO event on Mitchell.s flight when he's explicitly stated he has NO personal experience with UFOs.?

How defiantly counter-fact [or deliberately ignorant of available explanations] do you insist on being?

I have already posted quote a few things about the "blue light" pictures from that mission, and I already said that I was aware of no UFO reports from Apollo 14.

You can go back in the thread and look for them if you want.

No one responded to those posts at all, even though there were quite a few pictures in them. I'm not going to keep posting the same things over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you agree that NASA do not track UFO's? and /or never have done?

In my experience and research I've come to realize that NASA

ALWAYS

examines unusual visual phenomena outside their space vehicles.

Aside from scientific curiosity, the dominating motive is flight and crew safety.

What does that have to do with 'UFOs'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmk...

IF Edgar Mitchell had got his info from a couple of girls you might have a point..... :P

Especially because those girls must be long gone by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey McG, could it be that one of these members of the group went on to assist in setting up NASA?

also what do you make of Hoaglands discussion with Edgar on NASA being there for National security as a main

Before there was NASA there was NACA, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Started in 1915, it was always heavily military in orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps including NASA as a defence agency of the United States, was a just-in-case clause? Just speculating here. I'm sure when NASA was first created, no one could imagine the direction that the agency could be taking, regarding what discoveries and/or technology might be developed once space exploration had really taken hold.

I recall at least one shuttle mission (I'm sure there were others) which was cloaked in secrecy as it was (IIRC) deploying a military satellite. Maybe including NASA as a defence agency is necessary in order to, if need be, implement executive orders to exempt portions of missions, or their entirety, from FOI requests?

Seems to me that the majority of NASA work is done quite openly and with a drive towards making discoveries and data available whenever possible.

At the time, its purpose was to take the lead over the Soviets or at least try to catch up to them in space, by landing the first men on the moon and so on. It was basically created because of the Cold War, concern over the Sputnik launch in 1957 and so on.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already posted quote a few things about the "blue light" pictures from that mission, and I already said that I was aware of no UFO reports from Apollo 14.

You can go back in the thread and look for them if you want.

No one responded to those posts at all, even though there were quite a few pictures in them. I'm not going to keep posting the same things over and over again.

Didn't mcrom respond to those with links to the original images? Weren't these "blue lights" conspicuously missing from the original images?

Or did I miss something?

If they weren't in the originals, what does that tell you MacG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think of blue light UFOs, I always recall the first UFO investigation in US history, when Congress looked into the blue lights seen off the coast of New England during the War of 1812. At the time, it was thought that British spies and Loyalists were using blue lights to signal British ships.

In fact, there was a pro-British group known as the Blue Lights, although the results of the Congressional investigation were inconclusive so far as I can recall.

"During the War of 1812, they were called "Blue Lights" because of the common belief and reports from the United States Navy that they would shine blue lights to alert the British blockading ships of escaping American ships, or to alert British ships to come ashore and carry out illegal trade. They supported the Hartford Convention's disaffection with the War of 1812 and proposed secession of New England. Some members of the Essex Junto were Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Francis Dana, Nathan Dane, Benjamin Goodhue, Stephen Higginson, Jonathon Jackson, John Lowell, Israel Thorndike, Nathaniel Tracy, and Theophilus Parsons."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthcontrol.com%2Fessex-junto&ei=8carUMKpNJOs8ATGw4DgDA&usg=AFQjCNGGTdhMeeh-xfcbG-YdGRn--Qw1eQ&sig2=p0ZpIDGwZ_UvJ16NR4-aRw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience and research I've come to realize that NASA

ALWAYS

examines unusual visual phenomena outside their space vehicles.

Aside from scientific curiosity, the dominating motive is flight and crew safety.

What does that have to do with 'UFOs'?

Well, they are UFOs until identified, right? They wouldn't need to examine them if they knew what they were.

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me think of this...

tumblr_m2n6rkJpEV1qi88keo1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At New London, Connecticut in 1813-14, Stephen Decatur reported that British spies and agents were using Blue Lights to signal enemy ships, and it became a big public scandal.

“Blue lights,” the term Decatur used in his damning letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dated December 20, 1813, are defined by the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea as “A pyrotechnical preparation … used at night, in conjunction with gunfire, to transmit orders of the admiral of a squadron or fleet. By counting the number of gunshots fired, and observing the blue lights shown, the captain of a man-of-war could interpret through his night signal book what order the admiral was making.”

To Decatur, the situation was clear: His squadron’s movement had been betrayed to the British. But not everyone supported his conclusion. In the US Congress, Connecticut representatives Lyman Law and Jonathan Moseley, members of the Federalist Party, pushed for a congressional investigation.

The Gazette’s account suggests that the two lawmakers were irked not only by reports that the “blue lights” episode had actually occurred but also by the implication that the citizens of New London might have been party to such an outrageous betrayal. They sought the probe mostly to salvage New London’s good name. In the end, despite a smattering of support from mid-Atlantic and southern congressmen, the motion to launch an inquiry was tabled. Congressman John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, one of the “War Hawks” who had agitated for what became the War of 1812, declared that it was much ado about nothing. “Too diminutive” were the words attributed to Calhoun in the newspaper account, but in New London, the “blue lights” controversy burned on.

http://connecticuthi...us-blue-lights/

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, and I said that even before you did. Remember?

Mitchell never mentioned any UFO incident on Apollo 14, although those "blue light" pictures have been publicly known for quite a while.

I find that very interesting too, but have no more information about it than what I already posted.

The "blue lights" on the Apollo 14 images aren't real objects. They're blemishes on the film. I believe they're static electricity discharge marks. They occur quite frequently on magazine 66 and they're always oriented in the direction of film travel through the camera. Here's a frame where the marks appear on top of the lunar module:

AS14-66-9276

AS14-66-9276.jpg

And a here's a closeup crop from the high resolution version:

AS14-66-9276cropped.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people thought the Blue Lights were just "whim whams" made up to sell newspapers, which only proves that the more things change the more they stay the same:

Because many members of the Federalist Party opposed the war and advocated peace with Britain, those party members were soon labeled, derisively, “Blue Light Federalists,” and there were suggestions they were behind the signals. Samuel Green, the editor of the Connecticut Gazette, confronted by angry townspeople who refused to believe in lights or traitors, was sympathetic to Decatur and chastised the nay-sayers in his newspaper: “Some petulant scribblers of this place continue through the Boston prints to trouble the public and disturb good neighbors with their whim-whams about the blue lights.”

But in his Proceedings piece, Jordan seems swayed by the skeptics: “… many believed the lights were shown from fishermen pursuing their peaceful trade, or perhaps were merely the reflection of the setting sun.… It was said that similar signals were again displayed in January and answered by the British ships, but no one was ever accused of the crime, and no proof was offered on either side to support or disprove the Commodore’s report.” Perhaps Decatur, once a hero, had proven inept and had hatched an excuse to mitigate his failure to run the blockade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blue lights" on the Apollo 14 images aren't real objects. They're blemishes on the film. I believe they're static electricity discharge marks. They occur quite frequently on magazine 66 and they're always oriented in the direction of film travel through the camera. Here's a frame where the marks appear on top of the lunar module:

AS14-66-9276

And a here's a closeup crop from the high resolution version:

Well, well, well, here's someone we haven't seen around here in quite a long while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well, here's someone we haven't seen around here in quite a long while.

I'm on vacation this week, so I have some free time. Care to comment on the image I just posted? Does that satisfy you that these are just film artifacts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on vacation this week, so I have some free time. Care to comment on the image I just posted? Does that satisfy you that these are just film artifacts?

I'm interested enough now to start looking into it some more. On this website, someone claims that the images created on Apollo 14's DAC movie camera were due to lens flare caused by artificial lighting. Have you heard of that before?

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=KOPAgeGd4_3rAM:&imgrefurl=http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D11139%26st%3D195&docid=OOBd5N5qYsvYpM&itg=1&imgurl=http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/straydog_02/DSCF0029.jpg&w=800&h=632&ei=-8-rUNnXC4n49QTwpIGoCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=168&vpy=152&dur=3304&hovh=199&hovw=253&tx=143&ty=73&sig=114704889851551226570&page=1&tbnh=145&tbnw=177&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:77

DSCF0036.jpg

DSCF0034.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.