Universe TodaySpace and astronomy news 
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.
aliens, Mario Runco, Tom Jones, ufos
Related posts
By 
opps, i have some ufo videos on youtube too..heh..http://www.youtube.com/user/YoudSayOmg
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.
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.
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.
One of the worst de bunking articles I’ve ever read. What a load of garbage, why did you bother? Your score – 1/10
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
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.
“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
Jim Krug,
Flying saucer or UFO? not the same. When did he say this?
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.
aspaceyguy,
What exactly did your father see of the UFO? was it on his radar? did he make visual contact?
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.
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.