Heres some brief quotes from Astronauts and Military personnel who have encountered UFOs!

The Cover-up: UFOs

Mercury & Gemini Astronaut, Colonel Gordon Cooper
A saucer flew right over [us] and landed out on the dry lakebed. [The cameramen] went out with their cameras towards the UFO. I had a chance to hold [the film] up to the window to look at it. Good close-up shots. There was no doubt in my mind that it was someplace other than on this Earth. -- Video interview. Transcribed in Disclosure, Steven M. Greer, MD., ed., pp. 226 - 227.

FAA Division Chief of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan
The UFO was bouncing around the 747....Well, I've been involved in a lot of cover-ups with the FAA. When we gave the presentation to the Reagan staff, they had all those people swear that this never happened. But they never had me swear it never happened. I've got a videotape. I've got the voice tape. I've got the reports that were filed. -- Video interview and Disclosure, pp. 80 - 85.

Russian Air Force, Space Communications Center, General Vasily Alexeyev
They came up with a table with pictures of all the shapes of UFOs that had ever been recorded - about fifty….The study of UFOs may reveal some new forms of energy to us, or at least bring us closer to a solution. -- Disclosure, pp. 345 - 347.

Former Director of CIA, Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter
Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense. To hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel. -- The New York Times, Sunday, February 28, 1960: "Air Force Order on 'Saucers' Cited," p. L30. See also Disclosure, p. 58.

Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries, Spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun, Dr. Carol Rosin
Von Braun [rocket science pioneer] told me [in 1974] the reasons for space-based weaponry were all based on a lie. He said the strategy was that first the Russians, then the terrorists are going to be considered the enemy. The next enemy was asteroids. "The last card is the alien card, and all of it is a lie."….I was at a meeting in Fairchild Industries in the War Room. The conversation [was] about how they were going to antagonize these enemies, and there was going to be a Gulf War. Now this is 1977! -- pp. 255 - 259.

More Cover-up: Advanced Technologies Developed from UFOs

US Army, General Stephen Lovekin
Colonel Holomon brought out a piece of what appeared to be metallic debris. He explained that this was material that had come from a New Mexico crash in 1947 of an extraterrestrial craft….I got an opportunity to travel with the President [Eisenhower]. He was very, very interested in what made [the UFOs] go….But Eisenhower got sold out. He realized that the [study of these technologies] was not going to be in the best hands. That was a real concern. -- Video interview and Disclosure, pp. 230 - 236.

US Marine Corps, Captain Bill Uhouse
The [flight] simulator was for the extraterrestrial craft they had - a 30 meter one that crashed in Kingman, Arizona, back in 1953. I was inside the actual alien craft for a start-up. There are probably two or three dozen [flying saucers] that we built. -- Disclosure, pp. 384, 385.

US Army, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, Colonel Thomas E. Bearden
Probably 50 inventors have invented [virtually cost-free energy systems]. If we use these systems, we can clean up this biosphere. But the entire structure of science, industry, and the patent office are against you….The more powerful the agency, the more they resort not only to legal, but to extra-legal means to suppress their competition. -- Disclosure, pp. 534-542. See also www.cheniere.org.

Disclosure Project, Founder and Director, Steven M. Greer, M.D.
The situation is so dire that senior Joint Chiefs of Staff leaders in the Pentagon who I have briefed have no more access to such projects than any other civilian-unless they are on the 'inside.' The government is really quite outside the loop. We have insiders and scientists who can prove that we do in fact possess energy generation systems capable of completely and permanently replacing all forms of currently used energy generation and transportation systems. Every single person who is concerned about the environment and the human future should call for urgent hearings to allow these technologies to be disclosed, declassified, and safely applied. -- Disclosure, pp. 14, 15, 567. See also Dr. Greer's websites at www.disclosureproject.org, and www.seaspower.com.

I see nobody wants to comment on this? What are you afraid of? Can't you dismiss Dr Steven Greers credentials and sources?

Give them a chance. It's a weekend. Many of our regular posters haven't been here yet.

As for me, I haven't read the material so I can't comment. UFO conspiracists are of little interest to me next to Apollohoax conspiracists. Our friend Cosmic Dave, assuming he isn't in fact you, features many gems such as mistaking an S-IVB for an alien spacecraft or making mountains out of lens flares and optical abberations.

There are over 100,000 documents of UFO sightings kept by CUFOS and mainstream science choose to ignore it.

I've visited that site at least once. I seem to recall that Greer has a bizarre understanding of "executive summary" - the standard length is one page, while his is more like eighty.

As for UFOs in general, I'm still waiting for some "smoking gun" evidence and have been for the last 30 years. Amazing how an establishment that can't cover up Watergate or Iran contra or the lack of WMDs in Iraq can eliminate all evidence of alien spacecraft.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I suspect that it's more a matter of the regulars of this board having better things to do with their time than to reply to this sort of thing than it is a matter of them being "afraid." I myself do not have the knowledge to comment on most of your examples. I would like to make a few general points, however. First of all, almost all your quotes are from one source: Disclosure, a conspiracy web site. Although I cannot comment on Disclosure's honesty or accuracy, it seems suspiscious to me that you got all your information from this one site. Did you try verify the quotes with other (more objective) sources? I tried, but was unable to. Two more points:

I believe that the quote from Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter was taken from the "Majestic-12" Papers, which I gather have been debunked.

You link to www.cheniere.org. which is an *extremely* dubious site. In fact, its owner sounds like a world-class kook.

But they kept the existance of Stealth pretty well covered up didnt they?

As for 'smoking gun' evidence - check out STS-75, or the object which doubles back on itself in footage taken from the Discovery space shuttle on 15th September 1991. Also check out the Rendlesham Forest Incident.

All these examples involve either footage taken from NASA's own cameras or involve statements from Military personnel.

I assume that by the STS-75 you're rerfering to this?
http://www.subversiveelement.com/STS75.html
I'm sorry, but I can see absolutely no reason to doubt NASA's explanation.

And as for the Rendlesham Sorest Incident:
http://www.rendlesham.com/newslet2.htm

A scientific explanation for the September 15 "UFO"? Why of course:
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com...NFS0202a.shtml

Most of the quotes come from the disclosure press conference which was video'd and runs for 2 hours and 45 minutes.

The Majestic 12 papers have been debunked, I agree, and that was because they claim that the signature of President Truman was photocopied from another document and copied onto the Majestic 12 papers. However, Stanton Friedman says that if you put the two signatures under a bright light and superimpose them that they do not line up at all.

As regards to NASA's explanation that the objects in the STS-75 footage are ice particles, how do they explain the ones that go behind the tether which, we are told by the commentator, is 70+ miles away. If the camera is focused at an object at that distance then any ice particles near the camera lens would be completely out of focus anyway.

Sorry, but I'm not buying NASA's explanation on this one.

And as for the 'lighthouse' explanation for the whole Rendlesham Forest incident., how do you suggest that the lighthouse managed to move from where it was situated and land in the middle of the woods where several officers saw it glowing in a field surrounded by smoke and which after a period of time suddenly rose up and sped off at high speed?

An eye witness, Gordon Levitt, lived in an isolated house on the edge of the forest in Sudbourne. On December 26th, 1980, he had been out in the garden with his dog when he suddenly looked up and spotted a peculiar object flying towards them. The UFO looked like an upturned mushroom with a greenish-white glow.

The craft soon silently passed them and carried on towards the twin NATO air bases of RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters. The next morning, Levitt's dog became ill - cowering in its kennel as if afraid to come out. Its condition worsened and it died a few days later.

By the east gate of RAF Woodbridge that night were US Air Force security patrolmen John Burroughs and Budd Parker. They soon spotted the strange craft and at first thought that it may be a plane about to crash, however they soon realised that the craft was hovering downwards and eventually landed in the woods. They could see a pulsating mass of coloured lights, described by witnesses as looking like a Christmas tree. Burroughs quickly phoned the base. It was 2 a.m. and there should not have been any aircraft in the vicinity. Within minutes, security patrol sergeant Jim Penniston was on his way by jeep, driven by Herman Kavanasac.

Once they arrived, they too saw the strange craft, lights were flickering through the trees and Penniston, who took command, tried to persuade Burroughs and Parker that a plane had crashed and was blazing out of control. But the two patrolmen knew that what was out there had landed and not crashed.

Budd Parker stayed at the gate while the others entered the forest. There was some kind of strange electrical field pervading the woods, the radio contact with the base began to break down. Penniston ordered Kavanasac to stay back near the road so they could use him to relay messages to the main base. Penniston and Burroughs continued deeper into the forest, it was at this point that the air became alive with energy - crackling as if within a thunderstorm, even the mens hair stood on end, and their skin began to tingle.

Penniston has said since the incident 'It was definitely not in the Jane's book of World Aircraft,'. He described it as a conical object about the size of a small car, floating on beams of light (others reported seeing thin legs) only 30 cms or so above the ground. It had a strange, misty aura and on its side were black marks that could have been writing.

East Anglia has always had extensive radar coverage, ever vigilant for a possible invasion from across the North Sea. This ensured that the object seen on 26th of December was detected. At RAF Neatishead, an unidentified object appeared on the radar and created panic in the control room. It returned no signal and was outperforming the RAF's finest aircraft. As they lost it off screen at a phenomenal speed, the matter was subject to a major investigation. The Neatishead radar tapes and those from nearby RAF Watton were requisitioned three days later. Remarkably, when USAF intelligence officers visited Watton to collect the film, they claimed that a UFO had crashed into the forest. Senior officers from a nearby USAF airbase witnessed the event, they said, and they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft. Incredibly, the radar officers were not even told to keep this extraordinary story secret.

Does that sound like light cast from a lighthouse several miles away to you? When was the last time that a lighthouse was caught on radar? How could a light from a lighthouse also cause high readings of radiation in Rendlesham forest to the extent where several of the trees were actually cut down? Have you met eyewitnesses like I have who was an eyewitness at the incident? Delve deeper into the incident and you'll see that it wasn't just a light from a nearby lighthouse which had a US airbase with Nuclear capability on full alert!

check out http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicrend.html


Now onto STS-48. Dr Jack Kasher also investigated this incident and came to a completely different conclusion. What qualifications has NASA contracted Jim Oberg got which qualifies him to talk about this incident? Of course he's in the pocket of NASA and is writing a book (originally funded by NASA) about the Apollo hoax, so of course he is going to come up with something pro-NASA isn't he!

It's off-topic; this isn't a UFO board.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

But it concerns space and NASA which this board is interested about.

This is the Lunar Conspiracies forum. Therefore, any UFO rants you wish to make should be related to Luna.

I magree. This is for Against the mainstream.

I'd like to add something before this topic is locked or moved.

One of Dr. Steven Greer’s sources (http://www.disclosureproject.org/aboutexecsumm.htm) is Maj. George A. Filer (Ret.). On Maj. Filer's Web site (http://www.georgefiler.com/) he used to have a picture of a F/A-18 Hornet surrounded by a white mass of air near the rear of the aircraft (the same photo may be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.rense.com/general8/boom.htm) . He might have removed it by now, as I was unable to find it in a cursory examination of the site. I am unsure what the technical name for this is, but it is the phenomenon that occurs as you break the sound barrier (I didn't know this at the time I viewed said picture, which has been about two years ago now). Anyway, he had it labeled something like 'Plane emerging from vortex.'

When I first saw the image, I immediately thought 'badly doctored photo.' Turns out I was wrong. A few months later I was surfing the U.S. Naval Academy's Web site and found the exact same picture on the bottom of one of their pages. I did some further research and found out that the white stuff around the aircraft is what happens when it nears/breaks the sound barrier. I e-mailed Maj. Filer saying that the same photo was on the U.S.N.A.'s Web site, and got an e-mail back saying, basically, he got the photo from a 'trusted friend' and thanked me for my e-mail. Several months later he had still not removed the picture or the 'vortex' explanation. He also did not cite the source of what was obviously the same photo on the Academy’s Web site, a photo most likely captured by a Navy photographer, and, being a former Air Force officer I don’t see how he could mistake it for a ‘vortex’ (whatever that is). So it is my belief he was intentionally misleading the visitors to his Web site.

I think at least one of Dr. Greer’s sources can be discredited right there.

__________________
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what."
-Sir Arthur Eddington

Can't get your link to work, so here's a similar picture:

http://www.pinetreeline.org/misc/other/misc6f1.jpg

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

No, this concerns pseudoscience that we only are interested in if it relates to Apollo. This is "Lunar Conspiracies." It either belongs in Against the Mainstream or somewhere else.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Santa: "What qualifications has NASA contracted Jim Oberg got which qualifies him to talk about this incident? Of course he's in the pocket of NASA and is writing a book (originally funded by NASA) about the Apollo hoax, so of course he is going to come up with something pro-NASA isn't he!"

Dear Santa (Claws, is it?):

Ankle-biting ignorant morons like you are the reason such books are needed -- except they require a degree of literacy on the part of those who suffer most. Your vicious ad hominem fantasies are matched only by your empty-headed arrogance.

There -- now I feel better.

ops: ops: Oh, rats, I've lost my cool. Disregard the above emotional rant -- my profuse apologies. I'll make belief I never saw your insults, and you can do the same for mine.

If you want to discuss lunar UFO reports, or STS-48 or STS-75 or Gordon Cooper's stories, you have to abide by Allen Hynek's rule that a 'UFO report' is incomplete until it has been investigated by competent researchers. In the cited cases, the stories are scrupulously NOT investigated, they are too useful as propaganda gimmicks and the risk of finding prosaic explanations is too high to take the chance of ruining the PR value -- so any prosaic explanation data is deliberately withheld by the UFO promoters in their deception campaigns, which seem to have suckered you in.

To escape this intellectual fraud, read more widely, both the 'pro' and 'con' literature, and ask yourself just who it is who is presenting all the evidence, and who is slanting, half-truthing, twisting, and even fabricating pseudo-evidence for these space and lunar UFO stories.

Stop being such a willing dupe of the uforic con. Free your mind!

You can see my qualifications at my home page, cited below.

Jim O :P
www.jamesoberg.com

C'mon, don't be coy. Tell us how you really feel.

Aporetic
www.polisci.wisc.edu/~rdparrish

Hi Jim,

I think we can all sympathize with the occasional lapses of patience that the conspiracy-obsesssed engender.

If this is indeed "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette, as many of us are starting to suspect, he hasn't been "suckered in" by the UFO reports -- he's one of the people doing the suckering.

I'm sure you're quite aware of the moon hoax variant which supplies that bogus "recording" of the Apollo 11 astronauts describing a flying saucer. Someone had to have made that knowing exactly what he was doing and exactly what it would be used for. Why do these people think they have a prayer of being taken seriously when they do stuff like that? The only possible goal of such a strategy is to win fame and in some cases fortune by deception. You can't get credibility in scientific or investigational circles that way. So what other legitimate motivation is there?

Granted there are some legitimate researchers. But how that they hope to have any credibility with all these charlatans roaming about?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dear Jim, Don't worry about me replying and slagging you off - I don't have to stoop to your level to get my point across!

On the contrary Mr. Oberg, UFO Magazine did investigate STS-75 and released several videos with their findings, all of which I own and have also featured on network TV several times. They also had a 10 page article in the March/April 2000 on the phenomenon and several editions after that, covering the event for well over 6 months in their magazine. Updates have regularly appeared thereafter. Critics such as yourself have wrongly suggested that the '2nd space phenomenon' as they like to call it, were 'cosmic rays', which are, according to Lexx Systems who are one of the Worlds leading manufacturers of CCD cameras like those aboard the STS-75, incapable of picking up.

As I suggested earlier, ice crystals that are near to the camera would be completely out of focus if the camera was focused on the Tether which was 70+ miles away, also it has been proven that at least one object passed behind the tether. Add to this the reaction that Graham Birdsall got when he took the footage to one of the designers of the Space Shuttle. When presented with the images during a lecture the designer gave in Canada, he promptly picked up his papers and left the building. Prior to that, he was quite comfortable to respond to questions about 'Ice Crystals'.

Now lets move onto STS-48. You investigated this yourself so how can you say that this case was not scrupulously investigated?

If the UFO reports are coming straight from Gordon Coopers mouth, why do you feel the need for investigators to find out if he's telling the truth? Surely he would not put his whole reputation in jeopardy if he hadn't seen anything?

Rendlesham Forest has never been thoroughly investigated? Your talking out of your hat as usual Jim.

Finally, why do you claim that your a 'former NASA mission controller' as was the case with a USA Today interview, when you clearly have never been one?

Oh, Jay, you've popped in for a dig too. Well, how many of these so called UFO investigators who are making a mint out of the subject do you know? Because I know none at all.

And as for Planet X - the well thought out responses from people on here was 'If we can't see it then it doesn't exist.' My reply to that was that its very far away and thats why we cannot see it at the moment, but it looks like they have refused to read this part of my response? New Moons around Jupiter were recently discovered and how many years has man been looking at that planet? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isnt there, as my example above proves. And for your information, I didn't claim that any of my evidence came from Sitchin - i suggest you go back and read what I wrote before putting words into my mouth.

JimO wrote (RE Santa):

Quit wasting your time with advice to this guy. He posted several threads on the BA PX Forum. All his "evidence" came from Sitchin and a highly woo-woo website called Dark Star. He ignored numerous well thought out, carefully documented responses and kept coming back with the same kind of junk he posts on this forum. Its a lost cause!

__________________
Standing on the shoulders of giants...

Oh, Jay, you've popped in for a dig too. Well, how many of these so called UFO investigators who are making a mint out of the subject do you know? Because I know none at all.

I don't claim they are "making a mint." "Fame" and "fortune" is a figure of speech, and I carefully distinguished that not all are making a fortune or indeed want to.

The one I'm most familiar with is Der Voron. I've had extensive conversations with him, and I'm fully convinced it is his intent to make a fortune (or at least a living) off the gullible. Else why would he beg me not to reveal to his paying audience that he had no professional or academic qualifications that apply to his arguments?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well, let me just say that I've never even heard of the guy. Who is he?

And as for George Filer. Do you realise how much post this guy gets a week? He runs a newsletter called 'Filers Files' which covers UFO sightings all over the World. Just because he hasn't had time to remove an explanable picture on his site does not make him any less trustworthy in my book.

UFO magazine makes money off the eager-believers, so get serious about THEM doing any real investigation. Example: Your Lexx Systems expert comment re the CCD cameras 'like those aboard STs-75'. The cameras used on the shuttle for payload bay views are vidicon tubes, not CCDs, as any real expert could have told -- and as 'UFO Magazine' probably knows, but realizes correctly that its readership is too intellectually inept to find out for themselves.


Your 'suggestion' is just a guess, since the depth of field of the dark-adapted CCTV runs from about 2 meters to infinity. Yes, I know that you didn't know that, and were forced to substitute 'suggestions' for 'reality' -- not for the first time.



So Graham says. Have you verified this with another witness?



You're making convenient self-serving assumptions. Follow Hynek's prescription, that NO 'UFO Report' can be considered evidence until every aspect of it has been checked out -- and that includes anybody's statements, especially when as in Cooper's case they conflict with statements by every other locatable witness in all his stories. He also claims that he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw based on a telepathic messages from space aliens -- do you believe THAT without asking anybody else's opinion?


Are YOU in for a BBC surprise!


Those pictures of me at my Mission Control console on my home page are all faked? Where are you coming up with this phantasmagorical blather? I worked at NASA JSC for 22 years, including long tours as a flight controller on shuttle missions from ALT to OFT-1 & 2 and the first prox ops and rendezvous missions, was rendezvous planning shift officer for several missions (including STS-48!), and was lead guidance and procedures officer for the LDEF retrieve, and led the design team for the first ISSS rendezvous -- what is the basis for YOUR contrary conclusion? Surely you're just teasing here. 8)

Well, let me just say that I've never even heard of the guy. Who is he?

The author of Starcraft. http://starcraft-version1.tripod.com/

Go read this review http://www.circlemagazine.com/issuetwentyfive/ufo.html

I'm pretty familiar with that review because as soon as Voron had my e-mail address I was deluged by requests to publish Denise's review at Clavius. It really didn't fit Clavius, but Denise dutifully sent it every three or four weeks.

Finally I visited Denise's web site and got her e-mail address. It was then I discovered that Voron has been impersonating Denise and spreading that review all over, in her name. She really did write it, but she didn't authorize Voron to pretend to be her and to solicit its publication everywhere. Denise has had to go to dozens and dozens of publications and ask that her review be withdrawn, and she's also considering legal action against Voron. She has essentially disavowed her review.

I had a few friends contact Der Voron to talk about his claims upon which they had expertise. He attempted in each case to solicit endorsements and investments for his various endeavors.

Is everyone as bad as Der Voron? No, thank goodness.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I take the claim of 'NASA Mission Controller' as being the guy who sits at Houston in charge of a complete mission. Is this future BBC documentary going to claim that it was all a lighthouse by any chance?

You really do like to try and cover up things dont you Jim. This is written as a response to you about your claims - It came straight off UFO Magazines website: STS 75 was filmed on tube cameras, on that we agree. Space phenomena 2 has nothing to do with STS-75 and the 'tether incident'. We have NEVER cited STS75 and the 'Second Space Phenomena' as an 'item'.

So why are you saying that the second phenomenon was not filmed on CCD cameras when you know very well that they were? And considering that you already knew what UFO Magazine wrote - why accuse them of trying to hoodwink thier readership? Its on thier website and is plain to see.

But its you who doesn't believe his word so I suggest that you search him out and ask him (especially considering that you are contracted to NASA - shouldn't be too hard for you I guess). Then when you've got your exclusive you can add it to your book and tell the world how a NASA astronaut is delusional and likes to lie.

Perhaps you could try putting your camera onto infinity and seeing if you can capture a snowflake that flutters in front of your lens in full close up detail in the way that you would have us believe that the STS-75 objects were just ice particles?

From your comment about UFO Magazine making money off eager-believers - Will you be giving you book away free to Apollo believers then?

You are making the allegation that Mr. Oberg is lying by falsifying his credentials. That is a pretty serious charge. Perhaps you should back up that allegation or withdraw it.

Mission Controllers sit at the consoles in, well, Mission Control. It's the Flight Director who's 'the guy who sits at Houston in charge of a complete mission.' And there's more than one of those for each mission. You can't disagree with JimO's claim if you don't actually understand the what the job title means. That just makes you look silly.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

I think we're all satisfied by now that 'Santa' doesn't know what he's (she's?) talking about.

Here's a collection of links of various space-related UFO stories i've investigated and published on. You can find several items specifically about STS-75 here. Santa pretends he (she?) has never seen this stuff -- ought to do homework next time he (she?) expects to talk with the grownups.


http://www.debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html (overview -- Skeptical Inquirer 1978)
http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo/gemini4.htm (Gemini-4)
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/oberg/gemini7.htm (Gemini-7)
http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/I...8/AS/ftgm.html

http://members.aol.com/moonpigeons/ (1970 Apollo report on ‘Moon Pigeons’)
http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html (Apollo-11)

Strange Shuttle Sights: Unearthly and Mundane
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...os_991213.html

Some Notorious 'Anomalous' Shuttle Events
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...es_991213.html

Shuttle TV: Is What We See What NASA Gets?
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...tv_991227.html

http://www.ufoseek.org/nasaufo.htm (STS-29 Radio Message Hoax)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/s...ufo990217.html (STS-48 Oberg’s ABC News column)
http://www.ufoseek.org/News00/don_ec...on_sts-48.html (STS-48 Oberg-vs-Ecker on Larry King)
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/zigzag.html (STS-48 Event Telemetry)

(STS-48, open letter Oberg-to-Kasher, July 1995)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ob...C.IMS.DISA.MIL

STS-48 big Oberg study:
area51.upsu.plym.ac.uk/~moosie/ufo/txt/sight/027.htm and
http://bedlam.rutgers.edu/ufo/oberg.txt

(STS-48, Mike Bara’s Critique of Oberg):
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rebuttal.htm

(STS-48, Oberg’s response to Bara):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ob...ng-mk1.aol.com


STS-75 CSICOP first report (Skeptical Inquirer Electronic Digest, Feb. 22, 2000 ):
http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00018.html

STS-75 Oberg’s assessment: http://www.sightings.com/general/stsd.htm and
http://www.ufoseek.org/News00/tether.htm
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ob...btinternet.com

STS-75, response from proponent: http://www.rense.com/general/stsfoot.htm
STS-75 Note from ‘Flight director’ Chuck Shaw:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2.../m01-017.shtml
STS-75 back-and-forth http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicsg2.html

STS-80 debunked by Oberg
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ob...ng-cf1.aol.com

X-15 stories
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=UF...ng-fy1.aol.com

Oberg’s 1984 Report, “The Hunt for Gordon Cooper’s UFOs”
http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html

critique of Cooper account: http://www.rense.com/general4/filers92700.htm

Oberg Calibrates Cooper memory by Listing Cooper errors in McDivitt story
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Co...ng-bh1.aol.com

Oberg on Cooper tale of Confiscated ‘Area-51’ Photos
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...ed_000929.html

Gordon Cooper loses millions on cockamamie business schemes
http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/projects.html

Santa,

As far as I know this is how Mission Control is aranged.

Flight Controllers - Control/Oversee a specific portion of the mission hardware such Electrical Systems. See

http://www.apolloeecom.com/

Flight Directors - Controller over all the Flight Controllers for a given shift.

There is also a backroom called the MER - Mission Evaluation Room which contains engineers which examine specific individual subsystems. They typically report to a specific Flight Controller or two. I believe these folks went by a different name during Apollo.

There are also people who handle specific phase of the mission such as launch and landing, and of course an overal mission manager.