That seems to be the key phrase. Other possibilities are much more likely.
Back then, the public knew very little as to certain technologies, especially when it comes to biological or nuclear. Anything in these areas would have been "Alien" to most people.

Project Blue Book, in my opinion, was to determine any arial risk of attack. Since there were objects being developed that were not identifiable, it stood to reason that the government needed to determine identification for anything new coming out. If they identified it, or determined that it wasn't a threat, then there is no PBB issue, but could be given to someone else to study if it was not identifiable.

Moon suits? Because of the NASA coverage, that is the closest thing a citizen could think of when they would have seen a biological or radiation suit for the first time.

And the acorn. Who said that was the object, and not a safety container to hold any samples that were not yet know to pos a threat?
It would be the lack of the mundane, or a direct conflict to the mundane that would discredit the mundane. After all, mundane implies, most obvious.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

The best investigator on this case would certainly be Leslie Kean. You can visit her groups website at: http://www.freedomofinfo.org/mission.html
It's one of the best I've seen. Some .pdf documents she's created are as follows;

Here's an entire history of the story of Kecksburg;
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf

Toward the bottom of this page contains multiple .pdf docs which cite the FOIA requests which helped get this new "2005" story out:
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/freedom.html

No, the mundane is not the most obvious. It's the most mundane. The most obvious could be something very sensational.

I have seen various shows and references to Kecksburg. In fact, from the reference I see in the PDF, this sounds just like a 2 hour show I saw on it.
First of all, the only evidence presented falls into the following catagories.
- Eyewitness accounts: for the reasons I stated above, I tend not to trust those.
- Missing or hard to find information: Just because something is gone or there's some beaurocracy doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just hard to find.
- Re-translations of meanings: The "uncovered" documents are never re-printed for us to peruse. The investigator is telling us what they say, therefore forcing us to draw conclusions from their interpretation.
- Loss of context: this is similar to the last two, but even if we have a document in it's entirety, there may still be a question on the how it was drafted, who the intended audience was, and what the purpose of the document was.

So; what is it about what she says that convinces you? Or are you just taking her word for it?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

What these people don't realize is that the systems that got us to the Moon weren't built by NASA, nor were they built by the Government. They were designed and built by private people working for private corporations under contract to NASA. NASA determined the specs and mission configurations, and these folks designed a solution, working WITH the NASA people.
NASA's hardly capable of such endeavours without private industry, and as for the government, they're only as omnipotent in your life as you let them be.

My only source of information on this subject is this;
http://zippythepinhead.com/Merchant2...ges/052103.gif

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Actually, I disagree. "Hey, look, we found proof of extraterrestrial life" would ensure a NASA budget that would just blow you away, all in the hopes that we'd find that alien civilization. As it stands, NASA's budget has been greatly reduced. (Correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but it hasn't really been increased all that much to pay for the current moon shot plans, right?)

No. The reason things become mundane is that they happen all the time. You need evidence to prove that it's not what happened.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

[QUOTE]A lot of this depends on things we don't know about. The biggest question, which nobody can really answer for sure - what could/would our military do if the object that crashed in Kecksburg was an alien craft? What if it was just a probe, with no alien body but with out of this world abilities and markings? What is our military obligated to do in that instance? That is the question I'd like answered more than anything. Then we could tell what exactly NASA studied. They say fragments were recovered.. well what were these fragments? How big were they? Yes, NASA would recieve a giant boost in funding if they proved intelligent life existed.

But in this case, they did not recieve an object of unknown origin - with an alien body. They just recieved an object of an unknown origin and told - tell us what this is.

Okay.

The testimony has now been corroberated (Because NASA determined the origin of something...) to be right, because something did crash in Kecksburg.
Even after years of being told - "nothing was recovered" we now know that is not correct.

Actually, if you're willing to go so far as to claim aliens without any evidence whatsoever, then the possibilities are almost unlimited.

That's certainly your perogative. But you're posting on a science board, and so far have provided no evidence to back up this claim. It's certainly entertaining fiction, but it remains such in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

You are only assuming it was a UFO. By all accounts, the object was identified, let alone NOT alien.

Maybe I missed it in the story. Could you point out where it's stated it was difficult to determine it's origin?

Ok. I have to call shenanigans here. Half of your "alien" hypothesis (using the word generously) depends on the "eyewitnesses" of a "soft landing. The other half of your hypothesis is dependant on a firey, burning crash site. Which one do you want to go with?

As has been pointed out, there is no evidence this was not a container of some sort. Also, the comic cleverly suggests it could have simply been a nose-cone. Is there some sort of special signifigance between acorn shaped objects and aliens I am not aware of?

There are various forms of hazmat suits which fit this description, would likely have been standard protocol at such a site, and should absolutely fail to amaze anyone who thinks about it. Remember the video of the American Congressional offices being cleared of anthrax by guys in funny-looking suits? Same concept. Unless, you want to posit that anthrax was also a conspiracy to cover up the fact NASA had to tool around in the Congressional offices for some reason.

MANY Government agencies not only have access to these suits, but perfectly legitimate reasons for wearing them. There is absolutely no reason that it implicates NASA being present at the crash site.

Fair enough, on the face of it. But it still doesn't suggest anything of ET origin, in and of itself. It only suggests information they did not want to release at the time.

Do you have any sources that are perhaps a tad less unbiased than the "investigator" in the video? Her opinions are hardly objective...

Also, the most obvious is clearly not an alien craft, from the totality of evidence presented thusfar.

Well, alot of your alien craft hypothesis depends on things we don't know about (aka no evidence), but I'm satisfied with the explanation thusfar.

That's true. It's likely nobody here knows the answer. I was in the military, and I don't have the foggiest. But it's the answer to a highly speculative "what if" scenario.

We already know what NASA studied: A satellite. But why would knowing the military's response SOP clarify what was brought to NASA? I don't see the connection. The difference in protocol is likely to be transparent to the outsider. Otherwise, you're fishing for knowledge we're never going to have.

Almost correct. They recieved an object of known origin, and told - tell us what it is.

We've been told "nothing" was recovered, for years? I thought we were told it was a meteor? And then it was admitted that in fact it was a satellite?

__________________
"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

It's worth remembering that this was the era of Dr Strangelove and The Mouse That Roared.

Consider: an unknown object falls from the sky. What would be the first thought of almost anyone in those days (let alone the military)? Right -- nuclear weapon.

Those suits (if the reports are credible at all) were probably for radiation protection.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Corroberated by who? Where's the evidence of corroberation? I want to see it in context. Because...
Could in context have been said as "nothing was recovered that is important to us".

It all sounds like hearsay to me.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

There does seem to be a conflict of evidence here.
Nicholas Johnson of NASA says this object, at this time and place of landing could not have been Kosmos96, or any other man-made satellite he was aware of.
Yet NASA spokesperson Dave Steitz said that 'fragments' of an object had been recovered, and were determined to be of Russian origin; those fragments, and/or the paperwork that went with tham, are now lost.

So we have a real mystery here.
Some possibilities;
1/ the fragments came from an unrecorded and otherwise un-noticed launch by the Soviets; there is little evidence to back that possibility up.
2/ the fragments were misidentified by NASA, and had a much more-mundane origin, as pieces of unidentified scrap found in the woods.
3/ the fragments which were sent by the military to NASA were not gathered at Kecksburg; this may have been an honest mistake or deliberate deception.
Any other options, apart from an exotic origin?

In options 2 and 3 there is no requirement for any object to have actually fallen at Kecksburg, after all this object was also reported to have landed in several other locations in North America by eyewitnesses.
But a little more information from the NASA archives might be useful.

And as far as I can tell from a cursory reading of the eyewitness accounts there was no mention of any 'acorn' by any witness before about 1987; this suggests to me that a lot of back-formation of memories may have occured in the intervening years.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

One possibility that remains open is that the information that these 'fragments' had been positively identified may have been an error, based on incomplete evidence.
After all, all the the records have been lost. So perhaps the spokesperson might have meant that this was only a possibility suggested by the available facts, but omitted to mention the fact that this was a speculation.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I understand that a few years ago NASA released 40 some-odd pages of records on it, but further records have been misplaced/lost. I haven't read the records, although I did come across a link to a pdf file (pdf files crash my pc). It may be that the fragment info is contained therein.

As a totally uneducated guess, it's been my gut-feeling that it was some kind of secret launch by the Soviets, which would embarass the Air Force, and would explain why NASA had no record of a Soviet launch. NASA seems to say "that they know of", which is a good hint. However, I've only run across the statement referencing no recorded entries that day in the one press release; I'm still holding out for a verification before I think too hard about it.

__________________
"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

Originally Posted by nothingbutme
They also reported seeing (what they called) guys in moon suits taking it out. Which to me, suggests NASA's involvment.
There are various forms of hazmat suits which fit this description, would likely have been standard protocol at such a site, and should absolutely fail to amaze anyone who thinks about it.

A Class A hazmat suit does indeed vaguely resemble a space suit - it complete isolates the wearer from his environment (which is why they are so hot to work in). Without looking at the details, I would only note in general that a "Moon suit" is completely inappropriate for such kind of site cleanup/recovery - it's designed for a completely different environment and is far heavier and clumsier than even a hazmat suit. In other words, crashed spaceship or not, ET or not, the description of a "Moon suit" does not suggest that NASA was involved.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

sts60, I believe "moon suit" is a rather well known slang term for a Hazmat suit.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

"Gumby" suit.

The ones we use here are green and bulky and have a large hood. From a distance, you look like...

Well, you get it.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

BigDon, yep, I have heard that usage. What I'm trying to say is that nothingbutme seems to have interpreted "moon suit" as "lunar EVA suit" or generic "space suit" rather than "hazmat suit", but that interpretation doesn't fit what you'd actually wear at a recovery or remediation scene. That is, a space suit may isolate you from ethyl-methyl-bad-stuff, but it's no good for doing that kind of work on Earth.

(And Jim, I've heard that one too, though I'm not one of the glowworms here.)

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Here is a link to a file in NASA's public Master Catalog giving some minimal information about Kosmos96 and Kecksburg; this file seems to be undated;
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...g?sc=1965-094A
from that link;
Have all the fragments been eliminated from the enquiry, I wonder?


Here is a rather skeptical discussion of the dates when various witnesses first told their stories;
from that link

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I guess I forgot where I claimed it was fact. Oh that's right, I did not.

Uh, no I'm not. The object was given to nasa to determine it's origin. That's what the Nasa spokesperson said. I mean, why else would the AirForce send it to NASA?

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

They were not asked to track a UFO, but in this case they were asked to give their opinion on it. As though fragments were important enough to hide right? God this case drives me nuts. I don't get this at all. This guy Steitz says they determined that it was a russian satellite but that they have no evidence of how they came to these findings? I'd really like to know just what in the hell he used then..

Well the witnesses and Nasa scientist Nicholas L. Johnson maintain this was no satellite. NASA only got "fragments" of this large, acorn shapped UFO to determine what it was. Now of course, given the complete scew job this case has gotten by NASA it's impossible to know what the hell they mean by a fragment. If they recovered the large object, as every eye-witness there says they did then why did NASA only have a fragment? Did this fragment have russian markings on it that said - russian satellite for nasa to hide?

That's possible, but the fact that we know NASA analyzed this "thing" brings the chances that NASA was involved in the recovery possible.

Disagree for reasons above. It doesnt PROVE they were there, but it proves they might have been, because nasa does use those suits and we certainly know NASA had a big part in the discovery of it.

If NASA was only given fragments, then nothing of ET origin could be attained. Even if it was of ET origin. Which begs the question, why not just have them examine the whole thing - since as we know from witnesses, the entire object was entact and removed. (Of course that is if you believe witnesses in general).

No.


When you consider that this case has probably had some sort of security classification for it - I agree with you. I have no hard evidence of such a thing, nor will I ever. Because it's been "lost" and "lied" about for 40 years.

What if = this whole story.

Haha, yes that's right. Now your starting to get the bizzare bullHUM of this story. Yes, nothing was recovered. It was probably meteor that desintegrated on re-entry. That was the official story. So, yes it was a meteor. AND NOTHING WAS FOUND, according to Blue Book.

Just to recap; The airforce recovers nothing because it was a meteor. The witnesses at the scene, disagree and say they recovered a large acorn shapped craft that glowed and looked out of this world. Blue Book says, nothing found. 40 Years later - NASA says, oh yeah we did actually study that and determined it was a russian satellite. We determined this from fragments from the crash that never happend. But we lost all the data from the crash and the evidence we used to determine what I'm now telling you.

This testimony illustrates that this was not a russian satellite:

Witnesses also reported a glowing blue/green color from the woods and hundreds of people reported a large army precence. Forget Roswell, this case is better.

bha! BUNK!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

So?

People in my town made calls into radio stations about an object seen moving up, toward the east.
They didn't know it was the Delta rocket with STEREO on board.

Goes to show that people not familar with the night sky can make all sorts of odd claims.

My mom has seen meteors that have made hissing sounds. Why wouldn't a reentering sattilite do the same?

These stories and claims you bring up prove nothing extraordinary.
Stuff is classified all the time, with cover stories being made. Only after the Cold War is stuff like this deemed "un-classified", for reasons of national security.

You do know, after all, there's still stuff from nuclear weapons tests that are still classified, decades after the fact?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Testimony? So those witnesses made sworn statements regarding what they saw or thought they saw?

__________________
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. ---Cardinal Wolsey (1475-1530)

Maybe because NASA has more experience with spacecraft than the Air Force does? (And I'd appreciate it if you stopped tarring the whole Air Force with the same brush--my dad was a twenty-year man and a good, honourable person.)

All right, let's think about this a moment. The Air Force didn't know what is was, because they don't really deal much in spacecraft. Hmm . . . who might . . . . Oh, wait! Don't we have a whole organization that does nothing but spacecraft? Maybe they know what it might be . . . .

Possibly. It's certainly a reasonable explanation. More reasonable, in fact, than the bizarro thing that you're going on about. Remember that they didn't start reporting the thing as acorn-shaped until years after the incident? Remember that quite a lot of the eyewitness testimony is contradictory? And you remember how you yourself sometimes misplace even important things? Remember how much more stuff NASA has to keep track of than you do?

I think you mean, "the fact that we know NASA analyzed this 'thing' makes it more possible that they had something to do with the recovery." Is that it? Because, yeah, it's possible, but not required. After all, the people who analyze fossils aren't always the ones to find them, either. They frequently are, but not always.

Doesn't the Air Force have those suits, too? You know, I think they do!

You can't. They say too many different things. There are other witnesses who don't say it, and has been pointed out to you, many of them have added to their stories over the years. And I have no idea what you mean by those first two sentences.

Well, you know, I find it quite likely that it was indeed classified. So you know no more about it than anyone else, but you still the need to attempt to condescend to us.

Nothing relevant to Project Blue Book. As has been pointed out to you, once the object becomes identified, it's of no relevance to something studying unidentified flying objects. Whether it were a meteor or a Russian spacecraft, that's identified and not relevant.

Oh, recovering a meteor is recovering something. The reports of a "large, acorn-shaped" object are of relatively recent origin. Things get lost; bureaucracy isn't perfect, gods know. And, you know, yes, the government uses cover stories for classified material. You want they should just tell everybody everything?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Where do you stand in all of this? Given the testimony, and the double talk from the military and EVERYTHING involved in this case - where do you stand?

They've been interviewed, but it was not a sworn testimony. It's not been in court.

Which do you find more interesting;

The contradictory governement explanations for the case?

or

Weather those witnesses had their hand on a Bible?

Huh? This wasnt the night sky, it was early evening. Furthermore, an object did crash as we now know. Their testimony is corroberated. Hundreds of people in the town saw the large military precence,.

The military still denies they were in the area that night. But, believe what you want. This case has a lot of facets to it and it's up to the reader to put it all together.

I know.. First it's a meteor. Then NASA proves it could not be a satellite. Then NASA says it was a satellite.

Talk about bunk!