June 1st, 2009
The Truth About NASA's UFO Videos
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Image from the STS-80 shuttle mission. Taken from: AboveTopSecret
Perusing You Tube, there are lots of UFO videos, which are usually grainy, shaky videos showing nothing that can be proved definitively. But there are a couple of videos that are different — and have generated a lot of interest — because they were filmed by NASA astronauts during space missions. I'd like to recommend everyone read an article published today by Popular Mechanics where the astronauts who were behind the camera for two of these videos speak out about what is actually in the videos, and NASA's supposed "cover-up." The two astronauts, Tom Jones and Mario Runco "reveal" what the videos are really showing. "There's no way to keep people from using public domain footage for silly purposes," former astronaut Tom Jones says in the article. "If a shuttle beams back 10 hours of Earth views each day, there are bound to be images and scenes that are misunderstood or taken out of context."
And "out of context" is what many UFO theories and proponents rely on, says writer Erik Sofge. And NASA tends to never make official statements debunking any of the UFO claims, which helps fuel the flames. One clip, taken by Runco is of the PAM-STU satellite that Runco and his crew deployed during the STS-77 mission in 1996, outfitted with reflective materials. During the entire clip, however, Runco or mission control never says exactly what they are filming, but keep referring to it as "the target," typical for pilots and NASA astronauts. There are other oddities about the clip, with lights moving in the background, but Runco says the lights are likely to be stars.
Another clip, taken by Jones is simply "ice crystals or flakes of thruster residue in the near field are floating by, get hit by a thruster exhaust plume and zip out of the scene," Jones said.
It's one thing to believe that alien life is a statistical likelihood, and quite another to interpret lights in the sky as intergalactic contact. Check out the great article, and kudos to Jones and Runco for speaking out.
Filed under: Space Flight
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am
opps, i have some ufo videos on youtube too..heh..http://www.youtube.com/user/YoudSayOmg
June 1st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
You know…in a perverse way I suppose U.F.O. fanatics are actually useful in keeping space exploration in the public view, on some level at least. It helps to keep people thinking about what lies beyond out borders and in a way it may help stimulate interest in space exploration.
Granted I am compelled personally to think it's a bit unrealistic that we're being visited by extraterrestrials, but if such shenanigans inspire those who are on the fence who knows what potential good may come of it. I can't imagine a lot of people are duped into actually believing the footage to be real anyhow.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I'll say Nancy makes some good points and certainly there seems to always be the fringe that leaps to conclusions while nonetheless showing an enthusiasm for the subject in general.
That said, there certainly IS some anomalous activity that has been observed and I find the tendency of some to just out right avoid those examples and/or simply skip over them while poopooing the "ufo fanatics" for their poor connecting of the dots, to be just a tad inappropriate.
ok so there must be a decent way to reign in the gang who are a little over the top in the UFO club, but 'please', I have seen some authentic footage of the Tether Experiment and I am sorry, but there is some compelling stuff going on right after that tether broke and I'm not sure 'ufo' is necessarily the word that would best describe, but hey it is a flexible term.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Alright, we're not all stupid. I was a Xerox digital repro tech and trainer. I have scrutinized nearly a thousand NASA photos and videos for skew, resolution, contrast, hue and scale. They are all altered photos, ostensibly to CONCEAL DETAILS. NASA text differs from the photos that they publish; and that is a FACT.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I never thought I'd see the day.
Someone recommended reading Popular Mechanics.
@ eewindsor
Just like you, I've done a whole bunch of stuff that I won't substantiate with any proof too! and I say you're wrong … and that is a FACT.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
One of the worst de bunking articles I've ever read. What a load of garbage, why did you bother? Your score – 1/10
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 am
Until the UFO's identify themselves by landing in a populated city, grabbing a bite and chewing the fat with us humans about space weather these days. Its all just blurry garbage.
Wanting it to be real is does not mean it actually is real. Sadly.
Does make for some good fiction however, keeping it believable adds credibility to our films and books.
Keep up the good work.
Damian K
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 am
In the 16th century sailors would cover their heads when they saw St Elmo's fire. This image always comes to my mind when I hear conspiracy theorists.
A thousand evidence could be brought right in front of their noses they'd always smell something fishy.
Sigh.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Sadly humanity can not see up under their noses. Sadly most humans can not seem to do a lick of study for themselves nor see things that are a fact when they are right under their noses. Also sadly this world is full of ignorant people, just a Sigmund Freud had said.I have listened to many who have went through the Rosell incident. OMG UFO CONSPIRACY!!! Guess what peeps. They do exist. Anyone that honestly thinks we are the only beings in this galaxy alone is a moron.let alone the whole dam universe. OH thats right CONSPIRACY!! Every dam rebuttle i have heard is that everyone is conspiring against the governments or non believers supposed truths. Well guess what honeys. Look in your dam religious bibles and truly read the crap for yourself and not through a preachers understanding. You will see that many many MANY DAM times ufo's are mentioned. Plus many ANCIENT ANCIENT history documents prove the existance of other beings visiting this planet. OOPSS ANOTHER CONSPIRACY!! Grow up people and do your own dam research and start gaining some freaking knowledge of all things. Before you going calling LIFE A DAM CONSPIRACY..Gesh Sig was right when he said that humanity needed to be done away with. WE are to dam ignorant to do crap. Have a great day non believing individuals,who only believe in invisible g-d's…Do your own research and not take other peoples words as truth.Find the dam facts for yourself………………………………………………………………………………………
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 am
I don't think the question is "is NASA covering something up"…they're a government agency, it's a safe bet they are covering -something- up somewhere for whatever reasons. As far as government agencies go, I would like to believe that NASA is more forth coming than most though.
That said, I think the issue that most conspiracy theorists and UFO fanatics tend to over-look is the simple common sense of all of this…after all, common sense isn't always all that common. "The universe is a BIG place…really big" (read some Douglas Adams for the rest of that quote if you're not already familiar with it). Now assuming that faster-than-light travel is possible…which hasn't been proven…the first obvious question should be, why would ANY advanced civilization capable of intergalactic travel be even remotely interested in "us"? With all the wonders in the universe to explore…nebula, black holes, other galaxies, etc., etc., what exactly is it that's so special about "us" that would warrant any degree of investigation at all? Think about it…if you were part of an extremely advanced culture, would you really go 75 million + light years or more out of your way to look at a primitive, backwards culture that still murders each other over petty issues such as religion, money and politics? Is it -really- worth observing a culture that could very well destroy itself in the next hundred years anyways? What exactly would be the point of expending that kind of time, energy and resources??? Only human arrogance would assume that we're -that- special.
Despite popular belief, Earth is NOT the center of the universe…we're not even the center of our own galaxy or our own solar system even. With all of the other comparatively glorious wonders of the universe, there seems to be very little here to warrant any kind of investigation at all on this rock we live on that orbits a rather un-extraordinary star. With the billions and billions of other stars in our own galaxy alone, surely there has to be something more interesting to explore out there than "us".
Now second to that, it should also be assumed that any civilization that is advanced enough to travel the stars (assuming such a civilization does exist to begin with), even -if- they are visiting "us" (which again is highly unlikely and extremely arrogant), such a civilization is also more than advanced enough to keep us from knowing about it!!! How does one travel half way across the galaxy and then be unable to protect themselves from observation from primitive devices such as radar, cameras and camcorders? How does one literally travel the stars yet be so completely inept to be unable to protect themselves from our comparatively primitive monitoring devices?
To that I must also add that even -if- other cultures and civilizations do exist (which has yet to be proven) and even -if- they are advanced enough to travel the stars (which also has yet to be proven), such a species that is so advanced will also know that WE ARE NOT READY. We haven't even learned how to treat ourselves and each other with respect. We still tend to destroy that which we fear or don't understand and many of us have little or no interest as far as how to take proper care of our own planet. We can't even embrace others from our own planet with love and open arms, how can we possibly do it with someone from another planet???
With all these "if's", it's not all that hard to understand how anyone can thump their fist with all decisiveness and say "UFO's are real…NASA is covering it all up". The one simple fact of all of this is that we humans will believe whatever we want to believe regardless of fact, logic or reason. From religion to horoscopes to tea leaves, if a person chooses to believe in something, to them it will always be "real" at some level. Also, if the internet has shown us anything, it's that people are stubborn and unable to agree on very much and that all the words of logic and reason will not generally sway the opinion of another who believes differently. With that I would say let the UFO fanatics and conspiracy theorists revel in their own ignorance…you're probably not going to change their minds anyways. Maybe (with a little luck) they will eventually be the key to helping others learn the real truth. If we can't learn from our own mistakes, maybe we can at least learn from the mistakes of others.
Perhaps someday…a very long time from now…we will be ready and when that day comes -if- we are indeed being observed, then the watchers will make themselves known to us. Before that day comes though we first must learn to take care of our own and that MUST start here on Earth. Once we learn to take care of our own planet, each other and all the creatures that share it with us then just maybe someone will deem us worthy enough to start exploring everything else that's out there.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
2 quick things:
1. I believe I know what images the astronauts are referring to when they talk about "ice crystals zipping by".
However, I read some research where an author actually looked into that further, and found that the Shuttle's cameras were simply trained on "infinity" at those times, as they apparently usually are when they aren't photographing something specific.
And if the cameras are trained on infinity, it would be impossible for them to focus on ice crystals close to the ship.
2. Even if you visit NASA's own Moon map website, you can find pieces of terrain that appear utterly cropped in, not resembling any terrain around them. On the surface, it appears to be a rather sloppy coverup of structures on the Moon.
JIm
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 am
"UFO proponents tend to dismiss official responses from members of NASA, the Pentagon or any other government agency, but Runco says that even if there was an active coverup, no amount of coercion could prevent an astronaut—himself included—from laying claim to a confirmed sighting of an alien spaceship."
This is just incredibly shoddy journalism on the Popular Mechanics' authors part. He apparently discounts of the testimony of NASA astronauts that admitted to seeing flying saucers themselves, with John Glenn the most noteworthy among them.
Any time I see something that poorly researched- basically turning a blind eye to all of the facts in order to make a piece sound more compelling- it loses a lot of credibility with me.
JIm
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Jim Krug,
Flying saucer or UFO? not the same. When did he say this?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Jim Krug,
"2. Even if you visit NASA’s own Moon map website, you can find pieces of terrain that appear utterly cropped in, not resembling any terrain around them. On the surface, it appears to be a rather sloppy coverup of structures on the Moon."
That sounds like stitching of smaller images from satellites to make a larger image of the moon. Images may not always match up at their edges. This does not even in the slightest imply a coverup of something on the moon! I'll have to checkout the moon map site for myself.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
While I agree, this article gets a 1 out of 10 as a debunk, I do appreciate the comments it draws out. Good stuff.
lomitus: makes some good really points, but I must say in general that I find the phrase so often used "yet to be proven" a lame dismissal.
Yet to be proven by who? Yet to be proven in what way?
Heck most of the so called general public is not 'smarter than a fifth grader'. So who requires what to be proven? It is becoming almost absurdly laughable that there are still ardent deniers at this stage. What internet are some of you looking at? The evidence in various forms is literally piling up now. Look in the right places, listen to the legitimate people who have disclosed their direct and personal involvement.
If you think "yet to be proven" means acceptance by the mid to lower level scientists or the bottom rung public it likely isn't going to occur. For the good reasons "lomitus" commented on.
Hard physical evidence will not be allowed, not only for national security reasons but ownership permissions as well, specially for Government and Military people. But testimony seems to be allowed more and more these days, and many of the insiders ARE talking.
Most simply, there are craft, and many of them aren't ours.
I have posted before, my own father chased a bonafide UFO in about 1955 as a fighter pilot for Canada. It was untraceable from the ground radar and during pursuit its rate of departure was huge. The chase was corroborated by an F86 Sabre who also had sighting over Montreal. Command was quite disturbed and in fact debriefing was handled by the Americans( NORAD?) upon return to Canadian base. There was nothing that was Black OP in those days like this. Repeat NOTHING.
So I say it is time for the head in the sand small minds to look up and open up just a little to see the thinking is very very small out outstandingly naive.
As "Mar" said in his own way, the conspiracy is on the other foot.
The public NASA is just that. A face or facet for the public.
Anyone, anyone in military knows there is much in many areas that precedes the public notification. I knew about cruise missiles and their testing when I was a kid in the 70's. There were 'tracballs' in aviation and control 10 years before they ever appeared at the arcade or the home computer.
We may be the public 'majority' but we are surely the knowledge…… 'minority'.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
aspaceyguy,
What exactly did your father see of the UFO? was it on his radar? did he make visual contact?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Well, I read the "great article." Your standards are as low as Popular Mechanics. The PM article is classic straw man. I'd love to see a debunking of the Tether incident. "Ice crystals" don't generally pulse rythmically, nor do they make complete direction changes in the vacuum of space.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
The problem with UFO claims is that the evidence is always poor. Where are the hi-res photos and video of UFOs taken by members of the public? Where are pieces of non-terrestrial alloys and spacecraft or the alien bodies?
A couple of pieces of good evidence of UFOs, such as an alien artifact, decent photos or alien bodies in would put an end to decades of speculation. The lack of any such evidence means that we should all be sceptical about such claims.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The NASA videos are a clear example of people's imagination getting the better of them. "OMG that spaceship barely dodged a weapon hit!" Strangely, even though I can step outside every night and see satillites for a couple of hours after sunset, I've never see any space battles. No one else has either.
More than likely, the objects "flying" around are simply micrometeors and debris. I'm betting that the sudden increase in velocity is due to the camera moving relative to the objects. In videos such as this, it is nearly impossible to judge distance, and therefore size, so the "UFOs" could just as easily be specs of dust.
People see what they want to see. They will take a fuzy, low resolution photo or video of a meteor, lense flare, or cloud, often "enhancing" it to show a supposed UFO. Enhancing is really another word for manipulation.
When conspiracy theorist can't find the evidence, they will simply alter it, or simply fabricate it. Crop circles, flying hub caps, stickers on a window, objects dangling from wires, etc. are some of the examples of these hoaxes.
If UFO buffs really want credibility, then they should discourage such activity among the community. Instead they should focus on high resolution videos of these UFO's that they claim to see. If they do exist, then investing in good quality equipment should result in quite a payoff.
Anybody can make a wild claim. People used to claim to have seen fairies, gnomes, trolls, incubi, etc. Such claims have been replaced with 'greys' and 'lizard men' from space. It's the same story, with different characters.
Show us hard evidence. If it's a real as they say, then it shouldn't be that hard to find.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
ND: Thanks for your reply.
This is probably not the best venue to tell his story, but to counter the assanine remarks that seem to continuously ignore the reputations and credentials of the more public disclosers , I'll give a little.
They were on routine cold war patrol and if I recall they picked up the 'ufo' briefly via their onboard radar. They were not at a distance to acquire visual. Ground radar got nothing and couldn't find it..at all. My Father was flying a CF-100 all weather interceptor/fighter with a Navigator. The Navigator could not acquire the 'ufo' via automatic radar. He could only keep the 'ufo' locked manually. They had the means to actually manually direct and focus their radar.
They were at top speed and the 'ufo' had a 'rate of departure' of 500 miles per hour.
They could never gain visual but there was an F86 fighter in flight over Montreal who did have a visual that corroborated with their bogy and the trajectory.
As I under stand it, the Americans were waiting at their return and the debriefing was quite lengthy. My guess is the Americans were there under NORAD but perhaps ..not.
Nothing more fanciful than that.
Sure there is the lunatic fringe out there, but seriously, there are some serious no nonsense military people who have told their stories and are not vulnerable to such lame efforts to discredit. Efforts often generated by thoroughly ignorant lay people who know little and study even less.
You want to hear about metals and technology? Col Corso and his disclosure, principally through his book "The Day After Roswell" was the real deal. No one has discredited his work. He pretty much spells it out….and that was post 1947. We are a very long way past that one story. Col Bearden, Bob Dean the list goes on. Get to the good stuff and stop with the amateur confusions.
To dark gnat: Of course your not going to see 'hard evidence'…ever. Heck they won't even come clean about the real extent of water on Mars. Their still twittering and deflecting about droplets on a little Pheonix leg.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Aren't some of these comments a wee bit to the other side of the recently imposed UT policy on commenter behaviour?
(and what's a dam research? Research on structural integrity of big water reservoirs?)
This said, of course UFOs exist. Any flying object that is unidentified is a UFO, by definition. The problem is: crackpots jump to conclusions. They see something in the air (or beyond) they can't identify, and BLAM, it's a flying saucer.
Puhleese!
And don't get me started on the military being "no nonsense". I've spoken on occasion with military types. I have military types in the family, sort of (one is married to a cousin of mine). And what I found is that, as in any other line of work, they come in all kinds of flavors, from intelligent to downright imbecile, from educated to utterly ignorant, from mentally sane to hospice-crazy. Indeed, it's quite frequent that nonsense comes out of military mouths and heads. Part of it stems from their condition as military types (all that hyerarchy, exposure to unhealthy environments and following of orders has some consequences, I guess), another part of it is indivudual-based.
No-nonsense facts are that there's absolutely NO credible evidence that UFOs are something more than either natural fenomena or spottings of secret or uncommon aircraft. Without credible evidence, stories and claims are nothing but BS. Some may even be true, meaning that they report real, even if misidentified, fenomena, but the vast majority are fabrications made up by liers, hoaxers and attention-seekers. People that have books to sell, people that prey on the gullible.
And the remainder, what's left after all garbage is flushed down the toilet, is receiving natural explanations all the time. A perfect example is sprites, those high-altitude lightnings that, when first spotted, crackpots also called evidence of alien presence on Earth. Of course. They just had to jump to conclusions, as they always do. After all, there have to be always books to sell, documentaries (mockumentaries would be more apt a name) to make and show on sensationalist media, conferences to speak at, etc. Otherwise they might be forced to, you know, WORK.
Anyone with any hint of what science is knows that there's only one kind of fact: the one that can be backed up by hard evidence. Lacking evidence, all you have is hypothesis. Not even theories. Or myths and lies. And anyone who has even if a faint amount of actual knowledge about how science works knows that all the BS about conspiracies covering up facts in exactly that: BS. Scientists are almost unhealthily competitive. Practically all have the secred aspiration of having their names set in stone for the posterity as discoverers of something of paramount importance. Hopefully with a Nobel attached. So if you believe that anyone could prevent such a discovery to transpire, you're either delusional, on drugs or you've seen way too much X-Files as a kid.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Oh, and by the way, aspaceguy, if you really want anyone to believe what you say do try to make an effort to hide your fraudulent tracks a little better. People around here really aren't entirely stupid, you know?
You see, when you say that nobody has discredited Phil Corso's work written down in "The Day After Roswell", you really don't want people needing just a few seconds of googling to find a piece by Stanton Friedman, himself an ufologist who believes that we actually ARE being visited by aliens, not at all a flying saucer skeptic, doing exactly what you say nobody has done: discrediting Phil Corso's book, with sentences such as "Time will tell, but one of my main concerns is that the book will go down as a fraud, probably after making a small fortune as a movie."
Yes, I know, I'm a thoroughly ignorant person who knows little and studies even less. So be it. Still, you know…
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
And I really wished there was an edit feature in UT. Warning: typo galore above. Sigh… :/
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Jim Krug,
Where is this nasa moon map site you speak of?
aspacyguy,
I don't know what to say about your dad's UFO experience. I was curious about the details of it. I'm in the UFO is an unidentified flying object until proven to be human or ET. And so far there is no convincing hard evidence of ET crafts.
BTW, I think NORAD was formed in 1958.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 am
The problem is that most "UFOlogists" and conspiracy theorists assume everything has a shady explanation, or is part of a grand conspiracy. They can be down right paranoid.
It's rare to see ET believers actively try to discredit UFO reports. More often than not, they simply make an assumption that a particular object was an alien craft.
There is also a lot of money to be made on the hype. I've seen "genuine UFO footage" that turned out to be a blimp with advertising lights. I've also seen "donuts on a rope" left by a commercial airliner. But people will make all kinds of wild claims to make a buck.
When you work though the hoaxes and hype, there's still a lot of poor documentation and jumps to conclusion. No doubt the military has secret black jets, but there is absolutlely no evidence that there is any alien technology being used. No doubt there are unexplained events, but that still doesn't prove that aliens are visiting.
It's a nice little game to play. Say you saw a UFO, and show a blurry photo of a blimp at an odd angle. Make all kinds of assumptions and claims that there must be some sort of secret conspiracy, and when a government official denies it, used that denial as "proof" that something secret is going on. It's a self supporting delusion.
The Air Force, Navy, NASA, local sherriff's dept isn't going to investigate every single report or claim they come across. They don't have the resources or time to do it. Mainly because they know most of these claims are bogus or a waste of time. In fact, they get rather irritated at these crackpot claims because it interferes with their real work.
People are also gullible, especially the masses. I remember seeing a "UFO" video on youtube where some guy was screaming "what the **** is that?" Because he didn't know what a B2 bomber was.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 am
On a closely related note, 2 Penn state researchers just released a paper entitled 'The Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox' (The Fermi Paradox is basically saying that if intelligent extraterrestial life exists, where is it? We should have detected it or have been visited by now. See Wiki for an excellent overview). Anyway, the authors conclude that "The Fermi Paradox cannot logically conclude that humans are the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy." This short, nontechnical paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.0568.pdf . The authors explain their 'Sustainability Solution' and bring up good points for future SETI searches.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
The Fermi Paradox is an interesting concept, however it assumes an advanced civilization (like us) How do we reconcile an idea of a advanced intelligence that is not at all like us?
What if the Universe itself is a technological achievement of an advanced intelligence? (no religious ideas here, purely a hypothetical)
Thats the kind of definition of alien that is quite beyond our understanding, either by blurry pictures or the Fermi Paradox.
It seems we are looking for a mirror of ourselves in the universe (and the blurry pictures) rather then considering what constitutes a design of an advanced intelligence.
Regards
Damian K
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 am
Quote: "former astronaut Tom Jones says in the article. If a shuttle beams back 10 hours of Earth views each day, there are bound to be images and scenes that are misunderstood or taken out of context.”
In other words: Tom Jones says "It's Not Unusual".
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@ damien: you bring up a good point concerning the Fermi Paradox and its dependence on an Earth-based assumptions of human civilizations. My take on the paper I linked to was that the authors started out using anthropocentric assumptions on alien ETI as sort of a baseline and from there derived their assertion that the Fermi Paradox cannot be used as an argument against ETI in our galaxy. Indeed, the authors state "After all, there are many explanations for the absence of ETI civilization" (pg. 7) and "…we cannot rule out the possibility that ETI civilizations may follow a development pattern sufficiently different that we wouldn't recognize it even if we detected its signal" (pg. 10). So it would seem that totally alien civilizations and their development would not be precluded or conflict with their proposition. This paper presented some thought-provoking dialog on the issue of ETI and the consequences and strategies of future SETI research (I noted their spotlight on the possible detection of past brushes with ETI within the Solar System, sure to get the attention of 'UFOlogists'. Sorry, no detections yet, according to this paper, just an extrapolation of their arguments).
June 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Common sense, logic and reason dictate that NASA can offer prosaic explanations for some of the claimed UFOs videotaped by astronauts. However, NASA also has a history of capturing UFOs that could never be explained prosaicly. They could never be called debris, ice crystals being pushed by thruster firings, etc. Even though Martyn Stubbs can be criticized on some of his claims he did produce a video back in the '90s showing UFOs that NASA astronauts took great interest in resulting in long-time videotaping. Additionally, before there were shuttles, on some of the trips to the moon by unmanned and manned flights, using analog film, many UFOs were filmed on the way to the moon and fleeting above the surface of the moon. One piece of footage even includes what might be considered acknowledging flashes of light from one particular area which can only be seen using frame-by-frame advance once one videotapes the footage. Let's keep clear minds here. No one can say with authority that we are being visited by extraterrestrials and no one can say with authority that there is other life in the universe besides us. But the fact is that the reality of UFOs cannot be denied, only fools deny, and that NASA recording equipment has recorded some of these UFOs. It would be downright stupid for NASA personnel and uneducated skeptics to deny what is recorded which is not explainable but it is there for all to see.
Edward Lopez, UFOlogist since 1957.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Jorge Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
[snip]
[You see, when you say that nobody has discredited Phil Corso’s work written down in “The Day After Roswell”,]
Matter of fact: Corso's claims have been refuted and only a fool would believe them anyway.
[,,,Stanton Friedman, himself an ufologist who believes that we actually ARE being visited by aliens,]
Stanton Friedman is the worst person in UFOlogy and I can only think of him as nothing but UFOlogy's biggest fool and liar. The fact that he believes UFOs are this or that is meaningless since it is a fact that beliefs result from mental conditioning which doesn't depend on evidence.
In "THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL", page 3 of the Introduction, Corso says he wasn't in Roswell in 1947, and that because he wasn't there he had to rely on reports of others; IOW, hearsay.
In Chapter 1, "The Roswell Desert", page 7, he says: "Although I wasn't there that night, I've heard many different versions. Many of them go like this:" followed by hearsay.
On page 23, he says: "These are the stories as I heard them, as people later told them to me. I wasn't there at Roswell that night. I didn't see these events for myself. I only heard them years later when the task fell on me to make something out of all this."
So the title of the book is misleading as it relies on heasay. What fell near Roswell had nothing to do with UFOs nor aliens. It was strictly the debris of a secret civilian/military project and one always has to go to the source for the truth. "Mac" Brazel found and described the debris, nothing alien about it.
Phil Corso was a deluded man and so are those who support his claims.
Edward Lopez, UFOlogist/Researcher since 1957.