Kecksburg Case Proves NASA/Airforce Dishonesty

nothingbutme · #1 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 06:53 AM

In 2005 NASA released new information on the Keckburg case which contradicts everything they and the Airforce has claimed for years;

Original (lie) Explanation.
Air Force Project Blue Book documents indicating that a three-man team was being sent from an Air Force radar-installation near Pittsburgh to investigate the Kecksburg crash. They reported back to Blue Book that nothing was found.

2005: NASA changes story to "Russian satellite"
In December 2005, just before the Kecksburg crash 40th anniversary, 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." (AP story)
This new explanation from NASA contradicts the official Air Force explanation in 1965 of the fireball being from a meteor and of nothing being found.

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.

#1. Nothing was recovered and was a meteor.
#2. It could not have been any other man-made satellites or other known objects that re-entered the atmosphere on that day.
#3. Now Nasa says we (may have) recovered a "Russian" satellite on that day.

Which directly contradicts #1 and #2. Many witnesses reported that the object crash-landed. That is, it had some control and was making turns. Furthermore, if it was a satellite then we are taken to another contradiction. It would not have survived re-entry. If the fragments were very small, then how did they determine it was a russian satellite? I really think they just assumed it must have been. Furthmore, if the evidence in this case has been lost..

THEN HOW DID THEY JUST RECENTLY DISCOVER THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN SATELLITE IN 2005?

nomuse · #2 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 07:22 AM

Glasnost.

Actually, your account is a bit hard to follow. Perhaps a few links to primary sources, and less use of bold text and ALL CAPS in favor of clearer language?

In re your last paragraph, do you mean to say that because observers described the object as having "crash-landed," it must have been under control during the terminal phase? This does not seem obligatory to me. Furthermore, parts of spacecraft do survive re-entry -- cf. Skylab. And to go forward, in the 60's there were only two space-faring nations. Since the Air Force investigators knew it wasn't one of ours, it would be elimination be Russian.

And re evidence being lost...perhaps you've heard of some missing tapes concerning Apollo 11? It does happen. People aren't perfect.

nothingbutme · #3 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 07:47 AM

[QUOTE=nomuse;852602]Glasnost.

Quote:

Actually, your account is a bit hard to follow. Perhaps a few links to primary sources, and less use of bold text and ALL CAPS in favor of clearer language?

The entire sequence of events over the years is hard to follow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_Incident

Quote:

In re your last paragraph, do you mean to say that because observers described the object as having "crash-landed," it must have been under control during the terminal phase? This does not seem obligatory to me.

I'm saying they noticed the craft had some form of control as it crash landed. I also think it's important to understand that in this case it's hard to claim you can trust the Airforce or NASA more than the witnesses. If there's anything we've learned in this case it's that our government can make mistakes and be flat out wrong or lie. Depends on your point of view.

Quote:

Furthermore, parts of spacecraft do survive re-entry -- cf. Skylab. And to go forward, in the 60's there were only two space-faring nations. Since the Air Force investigators knew it wasn't one of ours, it would be elimination be Russian.

With one problem - according to NASA it could not have been. I suppose my question is this - if the object was litterally unknown, would NASA, given that all they had were fragments, conclude the object was anything other than Russian? What if it was just an unknown space vehicle with no alien body?

Quote:

And re evidence being lost...perhaps you've heard of some missing tapes concerning Apollo 11? It does happen. People aren't perfect.

Well theres more to it than that. I don't understand how, after years of questions about this case, NASA suddenly comes up with this "explanation" What changed in the last few years that suddenly this explanation is available? Weather they actually lost the data or it was hidden/destroyed is for everyone to decide on their own.

However, I do find it fascinating to consider the potential implications of this case. Please read the link above (to wikipedia) for more information the case. Its kinda confusing and the deeper you go in it, the more you realize how this case has been totally contradicted and has nowhere else to go.

Serenitude · #4 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:10 AM

First off, Welcome to the BAUT Forums, nothingbutme

Let's begin with a look at your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Air Force Project Blue Book documents indicating that a three-man team was being sent from an Air Force radar-installation near Pittsburgh to investigate the Kecksburg crash. They reported back to Blue Book that nothing was found.

First, I'd like a cite on that. Secondly, you have to remember what Project Bluebook was. It was a study of unidentified flying objects. Both a meteor, and a Russian satellite, both qualify as identified. Indeed, as far as Project Blue Book would be concerned, there "is nothing to report" in either version of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

2005: NASA changes story to "Russian satellite"

That's a little disingenuous, no? NASA never claimed anything different. AKA, NASA never had a story to change from - it is the only explanation they have ever offered. It was the Air Force, not NASA, that offered up an apparently different version of the object found, according to your OP. NASA and the Air Force are two different entities. Military cover-ups are not only known but frequent, and often for good reason. This should surprise noone. However, that does not in any way impact NASA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

In December 2005, just before the Kecksburg crash 40th anniversary, 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.

Again - making the object recovered at the site not only identified, but identified by an organization independant of the military and who posess the highest credentials. NASA was (and is) supremely qualified to make that assessment. And again, making it irrelevant to Project Bluebook, it being an identified object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

According to an Associated Press story:

It could be just me, and if it is, I apologize in advance, but the only "Associated Press" stories I could find were merely parrots to some degree of the Sci-Fi Channel press release. This would, for instance, be the same Sci-Fi channel whose mission is to provide entertaining fiction, and whose documentary credentials were long ago shattered with the fake documentary of M. Schmayalan, that they tried to pass off as genuine to pound up publicity for his upcoming movie. You know, speaking of lies and misleading and whatnot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

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.

Sounds reasonable. Do you see any problems there? Given the situation, the Air Force likely took posession of any material and documents, so going after NASA for those is likely barking up the wrong tree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced."

Mistakes and misplacements do happen. It's dogged the space program since it's inception. There are several members here who can give you a good idea of the particulars, and none of them suggest conspiracies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

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

"This new..." is purposefully misleading to sound sensational. It's also the ONLY explanation NASA has ever given

The Air Force has demonstrated itself to be, in the past, not above public disinformation to protect top-secret projects or security matters. This has to be hardly surprising to anyone. However, I fail to see why finally discovering it was a satellite is anything scandalous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

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.

Can you provide cites? Any corroborating material? In some quick googling, the only evidence, again, that I could find of this are articles quoting the Sci-Fi Channel press release. We definately need sources to take this seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

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.

It's theoretically possible, if we can prove beyond any doubt, that it was impossible for any known or unknown (prior to landing) Russian satellites to re-enter that day, to be skeptical. But this would have to be proven first.

Kean and others can deem it highly questionable that the sky is blue, but that still doesn't change the fact that occasionally things come up missing at NASA. It happens. It's happened before. Likely to happen again. I think the process is akin to what happens to pairs of socks you put in your dryer, and yet only one emerges. As a matter of fact, I think I'll start calling that the NASA syndrome

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#1. Nothing was recovered and was a meteor.
#2. It could not have been any other man-made satellites or other known objects that re-entered the atmosphere on that day.
#3. Now Nasa says we (may have) recovered a "Russian" satellite on that day.

1) Nothing was recovered that was relevant to Project Blue Book.
2) This has yet to be demonstrated or proven
3) Yep

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Which directly contradicts #1 and #2.

Directly contradicts 1. 2 is yet to be established as credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Many witnesses reported that the object crash-landed. That is, it had some control and was making turns.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously shaky and contradictory. There are likely as many eyewitnesses that will testify it flew straight as an arrow and made nary a sound. This is a well-known phenomena. And once you add aliens or the para-normal in the mix, you have people "remembering" doing alien autopsies, "remembering" pulling little green men out of crash sites, and "remembering" getting anal probes from alien who look remarkably like the ones they just read about it Strieber's "Communion"

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Furthermore, if it was a satellite then we are taken to another contradiction. It would not have survived re-entry.

Utterly untrue. The space programs of the world are resplendant in thier examples of objects surviving re-entry. Sometimes amazingly intact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

If the fragments were very small, then how did they determine it was a russian satellite?

How much do you think it would take? A few parts, a few tiny peices, known to be parts of Soviet satellites would have sufficed. Or even a single, tiny piece engraved or stamped with Soviet writing....

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

I really think they just assumed it must have been.

The assumption being made there is by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Furthmore, if the evidence in this case has been lost..

THEN HOW DID THEY JUST RECENTLY DISCOVER THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN SATELLITE IN 2005?

You are assuming there is no one alive that has a direct recollection of the event. You are also assuming they never told anyone there, so that even if they are all gone, nobody there would have been briefed on the info. You also assume that non-technical documents don't exist. There may well be a duty log from that day that mentions "Examined debris from Air Force. Obviously a Russian Satellite", without going into any technical detail or descriptions. Such a document would re-inforce the findings, without being at all what the Science Fiction channel is searching for in the way of specifics.

But please - can you cite sources for the above, preferrably multiple, that aren't either from Sci-Fi channel or merely passing on the press release or parroting it to some degree? We MUST have those to take any of this seriously in the long run ;-)

Peter B · #5 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:13 AM

For what it's worth, my amateur interpretation is this:

- It was a Soviet satellite whose trajectory wasn't recorded;
- The US Air Force recovered it, but let the meteor story out as a cover;
- The US Air Force gave parts to NASA to examine;
- 40 years down the track there's no need for secrecy, so NASA reveals what it had previously kept secret.

The main challenge to this would be the accuracy of information about Soviet satellites. For example, what sort of record would there be of the satellite if it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on its first orbit? Is it possible for a spacecraft launched from the USSR to follow any of the claimed paths?

Peter B · #6 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:15 AM

Oops, my apologies...

Welcome to the BAUTforum nothingbutme.

nomuse · #7 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:19 AM

My "glasnost" thought is that so much paperwork is still being revealed by the remains of the Soviet empire, that it is quite possible something was revealed in 2005 that would cause NASA to firm their belief that the Kecksburg crash was one of theirs. The timing is just about right for some old papers to come to light -- maybe that Venus probe wasn't going quite in the direction anyone thought it was at the time. Or maybe the Russians had something else come down that was sensitive enough they didn't want to go into it at the time.

gwiz · #8 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:36 AM

Some previous discussion on this thread:
Kecksburg "UFO"....

nothingbutme · #9 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter B

For what it's worth, my amateur interpretation is this:

- It was a Soviet satellite whose trajectory wasn't recorded;
- The US Air Force recovered it, but let the meteor story out as a cover;
- The US Air Force gave parts to NASA to examine;
- 40 years down the track there's no need for secrecy, so NASA reveals what it had previously kept secret.

The main challenge to this would be the accuracy of information about Soviet satellites. For example, what sort of record would there be of the satellite if it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on its first orbit? Is it possible for a spacecraft launched from the USSR to follow any of the claimed paths?

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

nomuse · #10 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:57 AM

Does the phrase "Cold War" mean anything to you?

At the time, if we could get our hands on Russian space hardware it would be really hard to pass that up. But the moment anyone admitted "Yeah, it was Russian" world opinion would force us to turn it over.

Tog_ · #11 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

Possibly that in the midst of the Cold War, having bits of a Soviet satellite is something the US may have wanted to keep secret, so we could have a chance to learn from it rather than have them demand to get the chunks back, like they did when the MiG-25 anded in Japan.

01101001 · #12 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

Why would they not hide the fact that they had fragments, from their Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union.

Serenitude · #13 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

Who knows? Something the Soviets had that either A) We didn't want them to know we had (most likely), or B) Something we didn't want the general public to be aware the soviets had the technology to orbit

I don't know why having fragments (or even the entire object) affects this?

LOL - Four of us had the same thought within 1 minute of each other

Tog_ · #14 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Who knows? Something the Soviets had that either A) We didn't want them to know we had (most likely), or B) Something we didn't want the general public to be aware the soviets had the technology to orbit

I don't know why having fragments (or even the entire object) affects this?

LOL - Four of us had the same thought within 1 minute of each other

Get outta my brain!

PhantomWolf · #15 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:04 AM

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

You mean you need that spelled out to you? Think about it a bit.

You and I are in a cold war, your satellite (secret or not) falls into my backyard.

Senario 1) I tell the world I have parts of your satellite, what do you do?
Senario 2) I tell the world that I found nothing it was a meteor, what do you do?

Serenitude · #16 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

I'm saying they noticed the craft had some form of control as it crash landed.

Oddly enough, in the only source you cite, the Wiki, the trajectory is recorded and work out as a straight line, with the object in descent. This in no way is indicative of intelligent control.

Furthermore, at the "crash site", there appears to be some degree of tree damage corresponding to that year, but at least one scientist to study it attributes it to ice, not aliens. In addition, there is no impact crater, no markings of a hard landing of any kind. Although it could be speculated that "the aliens put the brakes on and landed softly", the simplest explanation is that there is no impact crater or extensive damage because only fragments of a satellite hit the Earth there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

I also think it's important to understand that in this case it's hard to claim you can trust the Airforce or NASA more than the witnesses. If there's anything we've learned in this case it's that our government can make mistakes and be flat out wrong or lie. Depends on your point of view.

I don't buy that. "Mistake" is very subjective and depends heavily on your personal definition, as you point out. But I don't find it hard at all to believe NASA more than the eyewitnesses. Although, to be fair, it is to their credit and speaks well of them that they haven't built a tourist industry out of the incident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

With one problem - according to NASA it could not have been.

According to NASA, it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

I suppose my question is this - if the object was litterally unknown, would NASA, given that all they had were fragments, conclude the object was anything other than Russian?

No. They would have concluded they had no idea what they had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

What if it was just an unknown space vehicle with no alien body?

Ahhh. "What if's" You see where I'm going with this. "What if it were a gigantic Smore that got shot out of a secret Canadian base and got chocolate and marshmellow all over everything? There are probably as many "what ifs" you could throw at this as there are people who care to imagine them. I mean nothing personal, but that's VERY speculative.

But going with your particular "what if?" Frankly, it probably would have been handled nearly exactly the same way as this satellite was. Except, I'd imagine, there wouldn't be any reason to involve NASA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Please read the link above (to wikipedia) for more information the case. Its kinda confusing and the deeper you go in it, the more you realize how this case has been totally contradicted and has nowhere else to go.

I agree.

gwiz · #17 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

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

I've come across Nick Johnson before, he's a pretty savvy guy. I'd take his word against a "spokesman" any day.

nothingbutme · #18 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

First off, Welcome to the BAUT Forums, nothingbutme

Let's begin with a look at your post:

First, I'd like a cite on that. Secondly, you have to remember what Project Bluebook was. It was a study of unidentified flying objects. Both a meteor, and a Russian satellite, both qualify as identified. Indeed, as far as Project Blue Book would be concerned, there "is nothing to report" in either version of the story.

That's a little disingenuous, no? NASA never claimed anything different. AKA, NASA never had a story to change from - it is the only explanation they have ever offered. It was the Air Force, not NASA, that offered up an apparently different version of the object found, according to your OP. NASA and the Air Force are two different entities. Military cover-ups are not only known but frequent, and often for good reason. This should surprise noone. However, that does not in any way impact NASA.

Again - making the object recovered at the site not only identified, but identified by an organization independant of the military and who posess the highest credentials. NASA was (and is) supremely qualified to make that assessment. And again, making it irrelevant to Project Bluebook, it being an identified object.

It could be just me, and if it is, I apologize in advance, but the only "Associated Press" stories I could find were merely parrots to some degree of the Sci-Fi Channel press release. This would, for instance, be the same Sci-Fi channel whose mission is to provide entertaining fiction, and whose documentary credentials were long ago shattered with the fake documentary of M. Schmayalan, that they tried to pass off as genuine to pound up publicity for his upcoming movie. You know, speaking of lies and misleading and whatnot.

Sounds reasonable. Do you see any problems there? Given the situation, the Air Force likely took posession of any material and documents, so going after NASA for those is likely barking up the wrong tree.

Mistakes and misplacements do happen. It's dogged the space program since it's inception. There are several members here who can give you a good idea of the particulars, and none of them suggest conspiracies.

"This new..." is purposefully misleading to sound sensational. It's also the ONLY explanation NASA has ever given

The Air Force has demonstrated itself to be, in the past, not above public disinformation to protect top-secret projects or security matters. This has to be hardly surprising to anyone. However, I fail to see why finally discovering it was a satellite is anything scandalous.

Can you provide cites? Any corroborating material? In some quick googling, the only evidence, again, that I could find of this are articles quoting the Sci-Fi Channel press release. We definately need sources to take this seriously.

It's theoretically possible, if we can prove beyond any doubt, that it was impossible for any known or unknown (prior to landing) Russian satellites to re-enter that day, to be skeptical. But this would have to be proven first.

Kean and others can deem it highly questionable that the sky is blue, but that still doesn't change the fact that occasionally things come up missing at NASA. It happens. It's happened before. Likely to happen again. I think the process is akin to what happens to pairs of socks you put in your dryer, and yet only one emerges. As a matter of fact, I think I'll start calling that the NASA syndrome

1) Nothing was recovered that was relevant to Project Blue Book.
2) This has yet to be demonstrated or proven
3) Yep

Directly contradicts 1. 2 is yet to be established as credible.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously shaky and contradictory. There are likely as many eyewitnesses that will testify it flew straight as an arrow and made nary a sound. This is a well-known phenomena. And once you add aliens or the para-normal in the mix, you have people "remembering" doing alien autopsies, "remembering" pulling little green men out of crash sites, and "remembering" getting anal probes from alien who look remarkably like the ones they just read about it Strieber's "Communion"

Utterly untrue. The space programs of the world are resplendant in thier examples of objects surviving re-entry. Sometimes amazingly intact.

How much do you think it would take? A few parts, a few tiny peices, known to be parts of Soviet satellites would have sufficed. Or even a single, tiny piece engraved or stamped with Soviet writing....

The assumption being made there is by you.

You are assuming there is no one alive that has a direct recollection of the event. You are also assuming they never told anyone there, so that even if they are all gone, nobody there would have been briefed on the info. You also assume that non-technical documents don't exist. There may well be a duty log from that day that mentions "Examined debris from Air Force. Obviously a Russian Satellite", without going into any technical detail or descriptions. Such a document would re-inforce the findings, without being at all what the Science Fiction channel is searching for in the way of specifics.

But please - can you cite sources for the above, preferrably multiple, that aren't either from Sci-Fi channel or merely passing on the press release or parroting it to some degree? We MUST have those to take any of this seriously in the long run ;-)

I had written a 30 minute, paragraph by paragraphy response only to be logged out when I hit submit and lost everything. So, I can only make some points.

#1. I will try to build more links and documents, I think it would help.
#2. The object was sent to NASA to determine it's origin, SO IT WAS A UFO. and given your own idea of how Blue Book runs meant they were obligated to report that. Yet they did not. I wonder why?..
#3. There's the whole other aspect of this mystery which involves the witnesses giving evidence that suggests (not proves) this object made turns during its decent.
#4. NASA scientists, in an effort to prove the object was actualy the great fireball of 1965 made an effort to prove it could not have been a russian satellite. And they did. One little problem - NASA new what it was all along, or well sorta.
#5. The Airforce, Project Blue Book and NASA have been proven to be everybit as shaky as eye-witness testimony. The idea that someone could look at this case and still take the reliability of the military over the eye-witnesses boggles my mind.

Which story do you believe? Which story is fact? What did crash there? What did crash there, that does not contract something else?

Serenitude · #19 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:29 AM

It is also unstated if there were anything more than American satellite data to examine. I find it reasonable that the Soviets could have orbited something without our knowledge at the time. Indeed, that would make it all the more embarassing for the Air Force, and all the more reason to label it a "meteor".

nothingbutme · #20 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If NASA only had fragments, then what was there to hide?

You mean you need that spelled out to you? Think about it a bit.

You and I are in a cold war, your satellite (secret or not) falls into my backyard.

Senario 1) I tell the world I have parts of your satellite, what do you do?
Senario 2) I tell the world that I found nothing it was a meteor, what do you do?

If it was a russian satellite, then why did it not have any Russian markings on it that anyone could recognize. How did this object change it's path during it's "crash landing".

Furthermore, NASA allready proved it could not have been a russian satellite. They proved this just a few years ago so the "war" is not an issue at this point.

But, I see what your saying. They wanted to shut this up so they could steal the russian technology and not let them know about it. Kind of like they did when Gary Francis Powers was shot down.... wait no.. they told everyone! Damn commies.

Given EVERYTHING in this case, I don't really believe it was a russian satellite. I think NASA, given what little evidence they may have had, had no other choice but to conclude it was russian. What other options were there in 1965? This object was that strange. BUT I COULD BE WRONG and is only a theory.

nothingbutme · #21 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Who knows? Something the Soviets had that either A) We didn't want them to know we had (most likely), or B) Something we didn't want the general public to be aware the soviets had the technology to orbit

I don't know why having fragments (or even the entire object) affects this?

LOL - Four of us had the same thought within 1 minute of each other

It's kinda similar to when the U2 was shot down. The Russians covered that up and... wait... no they did not! Damn commies.. They accused us of spying and embarassed the President.

So actually they let everyone know they had found something top secret of ours. Of course, they did lose the cold war.... lol So, yes - who knows.

Serenitude · #22 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

I had written a 30 minute, paragraph by paragraphy response only to be logged out when I hit submit and lost everything. So, I can only make some points.

Ugh! Sorry to hear that, mate! That ranks right there at the top of the list of the "World's Most Freaking Frustrating Things" ;-) Any chance you can recover it by using the "back" button on your browser? That's saved posts of mine more than once ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#1. I will try to build more links and documents, I think it would help.

Thanks. That would definately help ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#2. The object was sent to NASA to determine it's origin, SO IT WAS A UFO. and given your own idea of how Blue Book runs meant they were obligated to report that. Yet they did not. I wonder why?..

That's pure speculation, and at best based on one of many possible timelines we're likely to never have. We don't know if an initial analysis was made at the scene by investigators who had an educated guess, at least enough to recognize it as Soviet, even if it's exact purpose was unknown.

Also, nowhere is it stated that they gave the report to Blue Book prior to NASA identification. We only know that they, at some point, gave the report to Blue Book. It seems reasonable that they waited until they had NASA confirmation, so as to give the most accurate account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#3. There's the whole other aspect of this mystery which involves the witnesses giving evidence that suggests (not proves) this object made turns during its decent.

There is also the verifiable evidence presented by scientists that in fact did not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#4. NASA scientists, in an effort to prove the object was actualy the great fireball of 1965 made an effort to prove it could not have been a russian satellite. And they did. One little problem - NASA new what it was all along, or well sorta.

Huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

#5. The Airforce, Project Blue Book and NASA have been proven to be everybit as shaky as eye-witness testimony. The idea that someone could look at this case and doubt the reliability of the military over the eye-witnesses boggles my mind.

The Air Force has a proven track record of being adept at coverups, true. I challenge you to find any evidence of a NASA coverup, however. But the Air Force example is deliberate denial, for various reasons, while knowing the truth. Not that that isn't fishy, but it's a completely, entirely different issue than the reliability of eyewitness testimony. There is a reason any 5 people can (and usually do) see a single, mutually witnessed event, 5 different ways. I'm sorry my interpretation boggles your mind. I'm not intentionally trying to irritate you. But I do see the same set of information in an entirely different manner than you do. Not least of all because the known trajectory information, coupled with the lack of evidence of a hard landing site, invalidates they eyewitness testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Which story do you believe? Which story is fact? What did crash there? What did crash there, that does not contract something else?

I think you mean "contradict", and not "contract".

But, to the question. What do I believe? I don't think I have enough facts to have an informed opinion, but at a rough, uneducated guess, what I think happened:

The Soviets orbited a satellite. Something went wrong and the orbit didn't take, and it came back down. It mostly burned up in the atmosphere, giving the appearance of a "meteor" or "fireball". It followed a straight, uniformly descending trajectory, continuing to burn and fragment, until the remaining peices came to rest in a field. The Air Force retreived the pieces. Looking like a satellite (probably finding Russian script), they take the pieces to NASA, who confirim it. The project being secret on the Soviet side, NASA has to record of it being launched or orbited, and therefore is unable to honestly corroberate that aspect - which speaks of their honesty, IMO, and not deception - if they were being deceptive, they would just simply lie and say "Oh yeah, we knew they launched it, tracked that satellite the whole time" etc... Whatever the purpose of the satelite was, it was decided that the details would not be released to the public (and therefore the world) due to A) we didn't want the Soviets to know we had it, or B) It was some high-tech stuff for it's time, and the Air Force didn't want the public to know the Soviets could orbit whatever it was.

That's my personal, very uneducated guess, but it fits perfectly with the "facts", and doesn't require aliens of x-files style conspiracies. Your mileage, of course, may vary ;-)

gwiz · #23 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

The Soviets orbited a satellite. Something went wrong and the orbit didn't take, and it came back down. It mostly burned up in the atmosphere, giving the appearance of a "meteor" or "fireball". It followed a straight, uniformly descending trajectory, continuing to burn and fragment, until the remaining peices came to rest in a field. The Air Force retreived the pieces. Looking like a satellite (probably finding Russian script), they take the pieces to NASA, who confirim it. The project being secret on the Soviet side, NASA has to record of it being launched or orbited, and therefore is unable to honestly corroberate that aspect - which speaks of their honesty, IMO, and not deception - if they were being deceptive, they would just simply lie and say "Oh yeah, we knew they launched it, tracked that satellite the whole time" etc... Whatever the purpose of the satelite was, it was decided that the details would not be released to the public (and therefore the world) due to A) we didn't want the Soviets to know we had it, or B) It was some high-tech stuff for it's time, and the Air Force didn't want the public to know the Soviets could orbit whatever it was.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, from 1962 the US were routinely announcing Soviet launches that nearly made it, ie stayed up long enough to come within range of the radars in the USA. Second, with glasnost, the Russians have released complete lists of their launch failures, and there was nothing around that time.

Jason Thompson · #24 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 10:02 AM

If it was a russian satellite, then why did it not have any Russian markings on it that anyone could recognize.

What markings would you expect to see on an object that had broken up and re-entered the Earth's atmosphere?

How did this object change it's path during it's "crash landing".

There is as yet no evidence that it did so.

But, I see what your saying. They wanted to shut this up so they could steal the russian technology and not let them know about it. Kind of like they did when Gary Francis Powers was shot down.... wait no.. they told everyone! Damn commies.

There's a difference. If the US admits that an unknown Russian satellite crashed in their territory they are admitting that they cannot track things the Russians send up, thus opening up a whole paranoid can of worms. It would not embarass the USSR in any way to have the US Air Force admit they found a chunk of their satellite that just happened to fall on their land and they had no idea it was there until it arrived. In fact, it makes the USSR look like a very dangerous enemy because they can send things undetected into the US. If a satellite can go undetected, how about a nuclear missile?

On the other hand, there is a great deal of political embarassment for the US in having one of their spy planes that they have specifically said they weren't using shot down over the USSR. It makes the USSR look like the innocent party, as well as giving the impression that they can track and deal with things the US can send out to them.

There is no contradiction in the US keeping schtum about a crashed Russian satellite and the USSR making huge waves about a shot down spyplane.

Serenitude · #25 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

If it was a russian satellite, then why did it not have any Russian markings on it that anyone could recognize.

How do we know that it didn't? I haven't read anything to that effect thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

How did this object change it's path during it's "crash landing".

It didn't. It's flight path was calculated to be a straight line with a steady descent all the way to the site. Nor did it have a "crash landing" - all of the scientists concluded that there was no impact crater or any other crash remnants - hence the "soft landing" conspiracy theory. If something "crashed" there, it was nothing more than bits and peices.... stop me if you get "deja vu" hearing that

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Furthermore, NASA allready proved it could not have been a russian satellite. They proved this just a few years ago so the "war" is not an issue at this point.

I still have no definitive evidence NASA has proven it wasn't a Russian satellite. In fact, quite the opposite. They even SAY it's a Russian satellite.

Are you aware that there are documents from as far back as WW2 that are still classified? Most Cold War era docs are also similarly classified. In fact, many previously publicly available documents are being re-classified, even though they've been in print for decades. It is not NASA's call as to when documents are unclassified and releasable. Insofar as to the current Administration's methodology of classifying material, I would be breaking forum policies against politics if I say anything more than "It just makes no sense".

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

But, I see what your saying. They wanted to shut this up so they could steal the russian technology and not let them know about it. Kind of like they did when Gary Francis Powers was shot down.... wait no.. they told everyone! Damn commies.

LOL Apples to oranges, though, mate. The U2 incident was a huge gain in political capital for the USSR. This satellite incident might have been something very embarassing to the US at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothingbutme

Given EVERYTHING in this case, I don't really believe it was a russian satellite. I think NASA, given what little evidence they may have had, had no other choice but to conclude it was russian. What other options were there in 1965? This object was that strange. BUT I COULD BE WRONG and is only a theory.

Well, it's certainly your perogative to believe however you feel wisest about it, and I can't say there's alot of hard evidence to gain-say you. I make no secret that I see it very differently, but I cannot offer much in the way of evidence that I am correct.

Serenitude · #26 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwiz

There are a couple of problems with this. First, from 1962 the US were routinely announcing Soviet launches that nearly made it, ie stayed up long enough to come within range of the radars in the USA. Second, with glasnost, the Russians have released complete lists of their launch failures, and there was nothing around that time.

I stand corrected! Thanks for the info, mate

I labeled that as a very uneducated, rough guess, but it was even more uneducated than I had, well, guessed

Gillianren · #27 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Are you aware that there are documents from as far back as WW2 that are still classified?

Heck, WWI! (Unless they've been released since I read that they hadn't, of course.)

Quote:

LOL Apples to oranges, though, mate. The U2 incident was a huge gain in political capital for the USSR. This satellite incident might have been something very embarassing to the US at the time.

Oh, absolutely. What's more, the embarassment factor would have been much greater than the technology gained by keeping things secret for the USSR--and they still copied as much of the technology from the U2 as they could. As a side note, the poor man died in a helicopter crash while working as a reporter for KNBC Los Angeles. What a way for someone who'd survived from a much greater height to go! (When asked how high he was flying when he was shot down, he'd reply, "Not high enough.")

Serenitude · #28 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

As a side note, the poor man died in a helicopter crash while working as a reporter for KNBC Los Angeles. What a way for someone who'd survived from a much greater height to go! (When asked how high he was flying when he was shot down, he'd reply, "Not high enough.")

[hijack]That reminds me of the anti-seatbelt advocate who died in a car crash he would have survived if, yes, he'd been wearing his seatbelt...

http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp [/hijack]

nothingbutme · #29 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 06:19 PM

I'm still going to need more time to put together "facts" on this, but just a point or two.

The russian object is just one of a few possibilities..

If you can assume we would have hidden this object because it was russian, then I think it's safe to say you can assume that if it was just an unknown object then the secrecy would be as great, if not greater. Which is what I think we have seen.

The odd thing about this case is you have the NASA spokesperson saying, we don't track ufo's. Then they say they were given this ufo to determine it's origin. If it was Russian, why the difficulty in determining it's origin? Especially when you consider the eye-witnesses which maintain the object remained intact and landed softly. The acorn shapped object was seen on a very large flatbed truck being carted out of there.

Everyone who saw the object in Kecksburg, swears it was a large object and that it was taken on a flatbed truck out of there. They also reported seeing (what they called) guys in moon suits taking it out. Which to me, suggests NASA's involvment. Again, a lot of this goes to the core of the case. In how at every turn we've had one different mundane explanation after another, all in an attempt to hide what really fell there.

sts60 · #30 (**permalink**) 25-October-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

[hijack]That reminds me of the anti-seatbelt advocate who died in a car crash he would have survived if, yes, he'd been wearing his seatbelt...

http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp [/hijack]

"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."

Actually, he died pretty easily once thrown from the car. That's not meant to be funny. I ran someone a few days ago who did the same thing. Wear your seatbelts!

(Climbs off soapbox, apologizes for contributing to threadjacking, ambles away...)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode