I don't recall mentioning you claiming it was fact, either. In fact, my only comments to facts have been your nearly complete inability to provide any. You DO claim it, however, which opens your statements to critique. If such causes you anguish of any kind, as indicated by the condescending and sometimes sarcastic nature of your posts, you may want to re-think wether you are posting in the right board.


Again, yes, you ARE assuming it is a UFO. And, again, by all accounts, it was identified. None of the identifications are "alien". Once the object is identified, it ceases to be a UFO. This is fundamental to this discussion and you simply must come to understand this. "Why else would the Air Force send it to NASA?" Who else better than NASA to confirm thier suspicion - that it's a Russian satellite, which, in fact, NASA confirmed.


This does not indicate the object was difficult to identify.

Niether does this.

I don't see the discrepency in this statement. NASA did not track it. They were, however, subsequently asked to give identification to the fragments found. They were able to positively ID it. I don't see the problem.


What makes you thing fragments couldn't be important enough to conceal? Have you read all of the posts in this thread? To save me from beating yet another dead horse on this issue, please refer to the several "Cold War" posts. They explain, perfectly clearly and reasonably, exactly why even fragments of a Russian satelite could need to be concealed.


No evidence they can currently find, yeah. I'm with you here - I would LOVE to know the nature of the satellite remains they found, and the story of what lead to it's identification. But I don't see how this necessarily leads one to claim foul play.

Not true, read Eburacum45's post above. I'll quote it for you here, for your convenience:

"It is believed an explosion (perhaps during ignition for insertion of the spacecraft into a Venus transfer orbit) damaged the platform, resulting in at least six additional fragments (designated 65-094C - H). The damaged spacecraft remained in orbit for 16 days and reentered the Earth's atmosphere on 9 December 1965."

This is from NASA's own website ;-)

Additionally, again, from Eburacum45's post above, the eyewitness testimony is not only at best shaky, but largely appears to be made up long after the fact. Again, I shall quote his post for your convenience:

"But no one in 1965 reported armed troops occupying the town, an acorn in the woods, or an armed military convoy. Not Pittsburgh TV crews; not the Greensburg paper which reported every rumor including scuttlebut in the crowd of "little green men" and even had the location on the wrong farm a half mile away; not John Murphy who didn't known the Army from the Air Force when he saw them and who's first UFO was broadcast was about a burning pile of wood at the Norvelt Golf Course."

I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't reading all of the posts, due to your so missing the Cold War explanation of USA-Soviet secrecy needs and the Eburacum45's post, which explains NASA's position on tracking the satellite and the unreliabitlity of the "eyewitness" accounts.

Can you provide any evidence that a large, acorn shaped UFO was recovered? So far, you have presented none. Indeed, ALL of the available evidence points to fragments.

Evidence, please, of a "screw job". And, I want cites as well.

I'll give you this one, and I agree with you. Unless, or until, NASA or the Air Force finds the appropriate documents or the fragments, outside of generalities it is impossible to know anything specific.


We've already been over the trap of "ifs" in this case. If they recovered a flying reigndeer, it could prove Santa Claus exists. And there's just as much evidence they recovered a flying reigndeer as there is they recovered an alien object of any kind.

The eyewitness accounts in this case have already had their accounts tarnished to the point they are no longer evidenciary. And are you SURE you want to state that EVERY one says that?


Because that's all that was recovered.

Who knows? It would have made ID easier, for certain, but Russian writing isn't necessarily needed. What does that have to do with anything?

Possible, yes. Probable, no. But a great many things are technically "possible". It really depends on what degree of absurdity you choose to begin discarding them. Well, that and having evidence to suggest it.

You would be wrong for the reasons above. It doesn't prove they might have been there. It suggests that it's a (remote) possibility they might have been there. Unless you have evidence you have yet presented, we certainly DON'T know, nor is it suggested in anything you have provided so far, that NASA had ANY part in it's discovery. We only know they had a part in it's identification.

This statement is unclear, but it appears you would suggest that NASA could not identify an ET object given only fragments of the object. What could possibly lead you to this conclusion?

You are wise to question this, given that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was.

Actually, no, it does not "beg the question". This is a demonstrable flaw in your logic. For it to actually "beg the question", it must have been previously established as fact that a large object was found and taken from the crash site, and that there were objects found there which NASA was not asked to examine. Niether has been established thusfar. At best, both are assumptions. At worst, pure speculation with no evidence to support it.

As established above, you are most likely the only person who places any stock in the "eyewitness" accounts.



Does this suggest anything to you?

I agree.

No, I'm not getting it, so far. But I can't phrase it any better than Gillian, so I'll let her reply speak for me as well.

Just to recap:

The Air Force recovers fragments from of a man-made origin. They appear to be from a satellite. The Air Force takes the fragments to NASA for expert confirmation. It is given. The Air Force, for reasons unknown, determines it is in the best interests of the nation, at the time, not to release details of the satellite's recovery. They put out a story claiming a "meteor". Project BlueBook sends three agents to investigate. They find it's a Russion satellite, not a UFO, and report such back to Project Bluebook. NASA told to keep mum on findings. NASA says "Ok, whatever", and goes back to working on sending men to the moon. Citizens, long after the fact, begin to claim to be "eyewitnesses". Their accounts are largely debunked. 40 years later, it is deemed no longer an interest to national security to keep mum on the story, so NASA says "Meh, it was actually a Russian satellite", and, once again, goes back to working on sending people to the moon. Consipiracy theorists have a joygasm with story, as conspiracy theorists usually do, mixing baseless speculation, wild fantasy, while cherrypicking "facts" and ignoring (completely) any evidence that shoots down thier ficion.

Actually, the object did NOT crash, as we know. The site has been examined by scientists and found not to have an impact crater or any of the other signs of a hard landing by a large object.

Indeed.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher