Nasa Ufos Invisible At Normal Speed

And this is a fact of the matter. We were really not sure after John Flue, whether or not there were critters, living critters out there somewhere. How to be fireflies. From time. The stuff of life is absolutely everywhere. Comments, the outer solar system, the cold, dark near vacuum between the stars are all loaded with the complex organic molecules, the very sort that you would want to have for the origin of life. We see forming planetary systems everywhere. We know that the evolutionary process is nothing unique to the Earth. I'm the vast majority of scientists and technologists, but I think that it is not an immor worthy of a high priority study. Now, then it was 23 years ago. When the national academy of sciences and the University of Colorado released the Condon report, and I'm already after in memory. So, never has the situation been so clearly polarized. Never has it been harder to do. I've never seen it before. I've never seen it before. I've never seen it before. I've never seen it before. Never has it been harder to do. Glory search. As a scientist, I've come to the conclusion that a genuine UFO phenomenon exists. It is physical. And it is unexplained. I think it's not one of the serious inquiry on the subject. Because it would disturb the rational universe. And many advocates of U.F.ology are equally opposed to a serious inquiry. Because it might show the UFO phenomenon as far more complex, stimulating, awesome and ultimately important and mysterious, than the specific limited version they are presenting today. As Dr. Heinach himself said in October 1976, quote, I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are not some bold spacecraft from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. I think we must begin to reexamine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home. Yet, Alan died without being able to convince his colleagues in astronomy to take a closer look at the data. In recent correspondence, the vocabulary of a great contemporary cosmologists. Now remember the US National Academy of Sciences. What to me that he was still unconvinced, he felt that UFO reports simply show what peculiar things human consciousness could do. In so saying he was only expressing the common scientific consensus on the topic. The truth is that the technological community in general is indifferent to the UFO question. In my observations, official science is not uniformly set against the scared of speculation. The real debate about the phenomenon doesn't have to do with whether or not the phenomenon exists. What scientists question is the ability of modern science to deal with it. In my conversations with my colleagues in technology, that's really what comes across. They agree that there is something out there. That's not that's very poorly explained or not explained. In many of those cases, in the surprising number of those cases, if they could come forward with their observations, you would find that these people have themselves observed in number of things. In private conversations with Professor Condon in 1967, I heard him express a similar view. He told me that study of UFOs was a waste of time, because the problem didn't exist, but because he thought it was outside the realm of science. I disagree with this view, because as a French astronomer once said, no problem is scientific or unscientific by nature, but only by the way in which it is approached. The challenge here is to construct a rational, testable way to approach the UFO phenomenon. These unidentified flying objects. That appear to display unique characteristics such as their speed, their rapid maneuvering, and so on, must be studied in the interest of mankind. If there is undoubtedly something or a number of things, they may be quite different things too. In our atmosphere, which is physical and where it to land, could be seen on touched and photographed. We see on the pictures in space, our things were used to seeing here in the control center down here in Houston. There are ordinary events that surround the spaces coming off, water dump, species of ice, insulation. There are little pieces, 10, maybe 20 feet away from the camera. There's been no movement in these pictures. That would seem unusual. Unusual or unlike any aircraft that we use. Not real out of the realm of aircraft power, you're exactly right, even. There is, I think, no question that there is extraterrestrial life. That's where in the universe. That they would come here. That they would come here with running lights. And that they would come here with running lights that I can't tell from the other lights that I have running around the world. I find that highly improbable. We're so many unknowns in the early days. And this is the fact of the matter. We were really not sure after John Flue, whether or not there were critters, living critters out there somewhere. How to stay fireflies. There was a mess we're trying to determine what the hell the fireflies were. The glenned scene. He wasn't in the right attitude. In the spacecraft, and he was not going to do the checklist. Required to get ready for retrofire. I think I have to go to fly by wire and use the window at the scope. That's perfect, you under control. What's wrong? I'm here. That was cut. I understand that we came from Hawaii that it was a tired and confused astronaut. If my opinion is worth anything to you, this is not true. I will admit to being preoccupied. It was uncanny luck that he survived. He's got damn lucky that it didn't come down bass aquaage, because it could have. Somebody was looking over for him. I didn't realize that people thought I was lucky to make it through. I really never felt that it had been that tight. But that's the sort of thing you have to face whenever you do. I know things that have never been done before. There are a lot of different masters to serve. I was listening to another drummer where my interest in science was concerned in. Hey. How large is the hole in the window if you could tell me. And also, is this something that happens regularly on space flights? And also, if they were up there longer, could this be something significant to have that in the window? Let's say to start out, it looks like the diameter of the craters about a 16th of an inch. It's very difficult to judge the depth, but based on experience of previous experiences, we expected to be about a 30 second of an inch deep. And like I say, the little radial things that you see coming from it. It's not a crack in the window. It's probably just material that has been plated onto the glass. And that is four to six inches in diameter across that ejector. Has it happened in the past? Yes, we have had other micro-media-eyed events. Does not happen very often. I know of at least one other on a flight that I worked where we had a, it was identified later as a truck of paint that impacted a window. And then the post-flight analysis, there was enough material left in the crater that they could determine that it was paint. Of course, the length of time you stay on orbit increases the probability that you might have a micro-media-eyed strike, but it does not happen very often. Is that anything else? Yes, I do actually. Can you explain also how can something, how small do you think this micro-media-eyed was? Is it a flick? And how does it create such damage? It is very, very tiny, probably along the lines of maybe two diameters of a grain of sand, maybe not even that big. And the way it causes damage is that it's going at extremely high velocities with respect to the orbiter. And that, what you see is typical of a hyper-velocity impact of a small object on a flat surface. And have you seen anyone, is this one the bigger or smaller micro-media-eyed holes you've seen? I, it is just based on my experience of seeing other photos, it is the most significant one. So, I can come right up.