PDA

View Full Version : NASA Conspiracy? New Evidence..



goodastronomy
2005-Dec-12, 08:15 AM
Take a look at this;

In 2003, the Sci Fi Channel (I know, I know but keep reading!) sponsored a scientific study of the area and related records done by the Coalition for Freedom of Information. The most significant finding of the scientific team was tree damage dating to around 1965 at the site where some eyewitnesses said they saw the object. This provided physical evidence that something had possibly landed in the woods there at the time, which would contradict the military's official story of finding nothing.

(However, one of the scientists instead suggested ice damage to the trees.)

Further, no significant soil disturbance was found. This might support a controlled soft landing and rule out other proposed crash objects such as a meteorite or other large object passively striking the ground, which would have created a large crater and extensive damage.

In December 2005, under pressure from filed FOIA requests, a NASA spokesman finally admitted NASA had examined metallic fragments from the object and now claimed it was from a re-entering "Russian satellite." Furthermore, the spokesman claimed all records were lost. According to an Associated Press story:

The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s, Steitz said.
"As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and give our expert opinion," Steitz said. "We did that, we boxed (the case) up and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced."

This new claimed explanation from NASA contradicts the official Air Force explanation in 1965 of the fireball being from a meteor and of nothing being found.

Furthermore, the claim contradicts what journalist Leslie Kean was told in 2003 by Nicholas L. Johnson, NASA's chief scientist for orbital debris. As part of the new Sci Fi investigation, Kean had Johnson recheck orbital paths of all known satellites and other records from the period in 1965. Johnson told Kean that orbital mechanics made it absolutely impossible for any part of the Cosmos 96 Venus probe to account for either the fireball or any object at Kecksburg. Johnson also stated there were no other manmade satellites or other objects that re-entered the atmosphere on that day.

Thus, this raises the question as to what "Russian satellite" could account for the debris that NASA now admits they examined. Furthermore, Kean and others deem it highly questionable that NASA could actually lose such records. As of December 2005, new court action was planned to get NASA to search more diligently for the alleged lost records.

So, after we know they lied about this event as it is - can we really trust that the records were lost? Or can we trust the rather funny explanation that it's NOW a Russian Satellite? :liar:

gwiz
2005-Dec-12, 10:08 AM
Discussed on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33566). Inconclusive, with little support for the space debris explanation.

goodastronomy
2005-Dec-12, 10:57 AM
Discussed on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33566). Inconclusive, with little support for the space debris explanation.

Okay thanks. One question; If the documents (and I assume, remains of the crash) have been "lost" - then how did NASA know (today) that it was "really" Russian Sat?

Lastly - why come clean with that in the year 2005? You talk about hiding something.

gwiz
2005-Dec-12, 03:02 PM
Probably asked around and someone had a vague memory, which may or may not have been accurate. I can't help thinking that if NASA had really examined something, they'd have published a report.
As your OP says, they've issued a statement now in response to FOIA requests.

A.DIM
2005-Dec-12, 03:56 PM
Is NASA in the habit of misplacing or losing records?

I wonder.

What comes to mind is the "face" images that were "misfiled," only to be discovered by accident years later by DiPietro and Molennar.

How much else could there be that NASA has "lost" or "misfiled?"

Curious how these things seem to center around the ETH and UFOs....

Fram
2005-Dec-12, 04:46 PM
It's Molenaar, not Molennar. I know many articles (in face-believers circles) have it wrong, but it helps in finding some info on this when you have the correct name.
They apparently have done a thorough search through all Viking images, for something no one else thought particularly interesting? I don't see these images being lost or misfiled. How hard would it have been to just destroy them, if they wanted no one to find them? On the contrary, the 35A72 picture, one if the two high-res pics of the region at the time, was labeled "Head". How more open can you be?
But then again, we have had a long thread that started with accusations of NASA deliberate misconduct and which turned out to be nothing seriously at all and a misrepresentation of what really happened.
So, any evidence this time of NASA deliberately losing or misfiling things?

Swift
2005-Dec-12, 04:48 PM
Is NASA in the habit of misplacing or losing records?

I wonder.

What comes to mind is the "face" images that were "misfiled," only to be discovered by accident years later by DiPietro and Molennar.

How much else could there be that NASA has "lost" or "misfiled?"

Curious how these things seem to center around the ETH and UFOs....
Is it that NASA is in the habit of losing records of ETs, or that the proponents of these ideas would like to believe that NASA has proof of their ideas, even if they don't, and when NASA doesn't show this non-existent proof, they are accused of misplacing it, accidentally or intentionally?

Just wondering...

A.DIM
2005-Dec-12, 09:35 PM
Nope.

No "proof" here that NASA has intentionally withheld info.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything...

Monique
2005-Dec-12, 09:45 PM
Is NASA in the habit of misplacing or losing records?

I wonder.

What comes to mind is the "face" images that were "misfiled," only to be discovered by accident years later by DiPietro and Molennar.

How much else could there be that NASA has "lost" or "misfiled?"

Curious how these things seem to center around the ETH and UFOs....
Do not show evidence for conspiracy

Wolverine
2005-Dec-12, 11:12 PM
As I noted here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=622404#post622404), once you've directly addressed the questions submitted by others on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35309) (please refer to my recent posting here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=624323#post624323)), we can then continue with other, similar discussions. Please refrain from beginning additional threads until we've finished focusing on the previous one. I will let you know when it's okay to do so.

Temporarily locked.