NASA Administrator Bill Nelson's views on UFOs, UAPs, and Alien Life

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Or on Reddit \ufos..
I don't even discuss over there anymore. Too hostile, and cult like behaviour.

In my view the "debunk" above is one of the nicest, cleanest. Thanks Mick.
It's getting real weird over there, biblical/consciousness stuff and feeling more "QAnon" like.

Then we have the new players like Bill Nelson, what is going on with him? I'm starting to lose track of the current players real views
 

taurusclover21

New Member
It's getting real weird over there, biblical/consciousness stuff and feeling more "QAnon" like.

Then we have the new players like Bill Nelson, what is going on with him? I'm starting to lose track of the current players real views

What do you mean what is going on with him?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
He is being bought up a lot on UFO threads on Reddit, but I never really get what he has actually said just an interpretation by UFO followers.
This probably should become its own thread ("people debunked"?), but here goes:
Article:
On Tuesday afternoon [October 19, 2021], former Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson – a University of Virginia School of Law alumnus whom President Biden chose in May to lead NASA – had an audience’s rapt attention as he discussed a current NASA mission that sounds vaguely similar to what Stamper, the Bruce Willis character in the 1998 film, “Armageddon,” was attempting.

In a livestream chat hosted by politics professor Larry Sabato, director of UVA’s Center for Politics, Nelson talked about NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test, which is currently taking place millions of miles from Earth.

[...]

Nelson said that one of the main objectives of trying to get to Mars and other planets is the search for extraterrestrial life.

Students asked Nelson about the mysterious sightings from pilots that have been the subject of news reports, including one from “60 Minutes.”

“I’ve talked to those pilots and they know they saw something, and their radars locked on to it,” Nelson said. “And they don’t know what is. And we don’t know what it is. We hope it’s not an adversary here on Earth that has that kind of technology. But it’s something. And so this is a mission that we’re constantly looking, ‘Who is out there?’ Who are we?’ How did we get here? How did we become as we are? How did we develop? How did we civilize? And are those same conditions out there in a universe that has billions of other suns and billions of other galaxies?’ It’s so large I can’t conceive it.

“Now there are even theories that there might be other universes,” Nelson added. “And if that’s the case, who am I to say planet Earth is the only location of a life form that is civilized and organized like ours?”

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9hH1XEqKlTs&t=53m10s
 
Last edited:

taurusclover21

New Member
I think they give credence to him simply because he's NASA administrator even though he doesn't actually have a background that qualifies him to be an authority on ET life.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@jarlrmai
The problem with ufo reddit, is that the nelson clip above was deceptively edited and shared there . Whoever clipped it , did so in a missleading way, so that when he answered to what he thought the navy pilots saw. Instead of saying he doesnt know, then later going into a ramble about the vastness of space etc. They cut out the bit where he says he doesnt know 55:30. And instead he goes into the ramble which by the way the clip was cut, makes it seem that was his direct answer

That's why it did the rounds.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Notice the deceptive edit
To use Nelson's words, "we're messin' it up just the way we're treatin' each other".

But then again, deceptive edits (like model UFOs on a string) are par for the course in that scene, aren't they?
 

Ravi

Active Member
This is the /UFOs sub reddit post about what Nelson said. Notice the deceptive edit after he asks the question at 1:40
It's also the number 1 Top voted post for the entire month

It is sadly indeed very deceptive. He is clearly answering a different question..
What is wrong with these ufo pushers? Don't they know it works against them?
 

Daves!

Member
So sad. But to my knowledge if you have a certain view on an matter you can edit and push your view through in any way you want. It is sad that when people "manipulate" a message in such a way that it connects to their view, they are not only fooling people but also themselfs. Correct me if i am wrong but dont we call it propaganda ?
Good that some people remain sceptical about media.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
You've heard a lot of options. Which one do you think is the most credible if you could choose?
So the interviewer asks for Bill's personal opinion, not for an absolute answer.
Bill answers:
Larry, I don't know the answer to that. But I do now this: That my personal opinion is that the Universe is so big ... [etc]
So he answers the question with his personal opinion.

The part edited out just makes clear there are no definitive answers yet. The editing itself does not change anything to the question (asking for his personal opinion) nor to Bill's answer (giving his personal opinion).

Interesting that he talks about 300 sightings and even radar locks:
What you've seen is what those Navy pilot saw in 2004. There have been some 300 sightings since then, and I've talked to those pilots and they know they saw something and their radars locked onto it, and then all of a sudden it was here on the surface and then it's there [pointing upwards].
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The part edited out just makes clear there are no definitive answers yet. The editing itself does not change anything to the question (asking for his personal opinion) nor to Bill's answer (giving his personal opinion).
I disagree.

Bill Nelson answers the question about the Navy videos unequivocally with "I don't know" and then switches the topic back to what he started with, the search for extraterrestrial life, which he wants to push so badly that he had brought this topic up on his own 2 minutes previously.

The edit deceptively hides the topic switch, and changes the context of the answer.
There is no other reason to cut these few seconds from the clip.
 

Itsme

Active Member
I don't recognize a topic switch. Larry asks what Bill thinks is the most credible option to explain these sightings and Bill answers:
Larry, I don't know the answer to that. But I do know this: that my personal opinion is that the universe is so big, and now there are even theories that there might be other universes. And if that's the case. Who am I to say that planet Earth is the only location of a life form that is civilized and organized like ours?
That the universe is big cannot be his opinion, it's a scientific fact.
The part of his answer that is his opinion is that there must be other civilized and organized life forms out there. This opinion is directly related to the question asked, he clearly hints at the possibility that these life forms could be related to the UAP phenomenon. He just is a bit careful and implicit in his wording but he certainly does not change the topic in my view.

This is very relevant because he is breaking down the taboo to openly consider the ETH as a possibility in NASA circles.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
It's also the number 1 Top voted post for the entire month
Just curious, as I have no time or desire to lurk on a Reddit UFO page, does anyone point out things like this? Nobody says "hey guys, this has been edited/altered"? Or do they just hear what they want and not question? I get that all forums tend towards being echo chambers, but there is no questioning over there?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Just curious, as I have no time or desire to lurk on a Reddit UFO page, does anyone point out things like this? Nobody says "hey guys, this has been edited/altered"? Or do they just hear what they want and not question? I get that all forums tend towards being echo chambers, but there is no questioning over there?
It's weirdly swingy, sometimes you do and get downvoted to hell, sometimes you get upvotes sometimes you get ignored. You should see what some members think of Metabunk and Mick..

I go there because almost everything gets shared there so you can find some nice investigations to do and get the early jump on anything that looks like tis gonna go viral so we have a metabunk thread about it.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
He clearly thinks that there was something unusual in the navy videos because he talks about what the pilots say they saw and how "they locked onto it with their radars and then all of a sudden it was here on the surface and then it's there" (pointing up).

Seems that it's not an either/or but a both/and: the video edit was somewhat deceptive and he's going along with the mainstream opinion, based on incomplete information, that there was something unusual (and possibly extra-terrestrial) in those videos.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't recognize a topic switch. Larry asks what Bill thinks is the most credible option to explain these sightings and Bill answers:
SmartSelect_20211105-183239_Samsung Internet.jpg
That the universe is big cannot be his opinion, it's a scientific fact.
The part of his answer that is his opinion is that there must be other civilized and organized life forms out there. This opinion is directly related to the question asked, he clearly hints at the possibility that these life forms could be related to the UAP phenomenon. He just is a bit careful and implicit in his wording but he certainly does not change the topic in my view.
(1) Bill Nelson believes that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe "because it is so big".
(2) Bill Nelson does not know whether ETs have visited Earth.
This is supported by the explicit answers he gave, and this interview segment as a whole supports this reading with no contradictions.

His "personal opinion" actually only talks about (1).
You choose to interpret it as if it was talking about (2) -- and the viewers of the misleading cut were left with no other choice --, which contradicts his actual (2) answer. You are justifying this with some CT-level thinking ("hints", "careful"), but it's not apparent to me that there's a reason for him to do that, other than that he's not saying what you'd like him to say.

What he actually says is that Bill Nelson does not know if UFOs are real, but he believes that ET civilisations exist.

The Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) states that some UFOs are real; this interview does not show that Bill Nelson believes the ETH.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
Does not actually matter what he says or thinks, in the end. It does not change anything. That is the point, the ufonauts on reddit on the other hand, think it does.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
There's a wider narrative though, a "there are reputable people on the side of the unexplainable hypothesis." The Navy vids have certainly permeated to that level to some degree.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/uaps-are-they-worth-scientific-attention-tickets-203255872787

"The report cataloged and investigated records of unexplained encounters seen in the sky by U.S. Navy ships and fighter jets. The report’s firmest conclusion is that the vast majority of UAPs do represent physical objects, and their surprising maneuvers are not caused by any U.S. advanced technology programs."

https://tix.cathedral.org/TheatreManager/1/online?performance=25007

"The Director of National Intelligence has released a report assessing Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? As we look toward the heavens, what does the possibility of life “out there” mean for our religious life?"

"Avi Loeb, Harvard University Department of Astronomy. Astronomer and best-selling author, Extraterrestrial (2021)
Bill Nelson, NASA Administrator and former US Senator (FL 2001-2019)
David Wilkinson, Durham University and ECLAS (Equipping Christian Leadership in an Age of Science). Theologian and astrophysicist. Science, Religion, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (2013)"

Sure people are asking questions, but on what basis? It seems like the "The Navy definitely says there were unexplained movement of physical objects" narrative which we know to be largely in doubt and unsupported is not in question even to "the scientific community." Almost as if they are referencing some peer reviewed article.

I imagine science based communicators (including probably Bill Nelson) are perhaps thinking this is a useful public interest point they can use to talk about the real science they are doing. But by doing so are they unwittingly appearing to agree with the highly suspect conclusions of what they may think is the US Navy but is actually TTSA/Elizondo etc and thus they tacitly back these conclusions?

I for one find it worrying.
 

Ravi

Active Member
-snip-

I imagine science based communicators (including probably Bill Nelson) are perhaps thinking this is a useful public interest point they can use to talk about the real science they are doing. But by doing so are they unwittingly appearing to agree with the highly suspect conclusions of what they may think is the US Navy but is actually TTSA/Elizondo etc and thus they tacitly back these conclusions?

I for one find it worrying.

I was thinking that he wants to "ride the wave" rather than "shave against the grain".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It probably feels somewhat frustrating to watch high up government and military officials buying into and repeating bunkum, when if they were just subscribed to Mick's YouTube they'd probably be instantly more well-informed.

Perhaps one thing people here can do is put some work into the wikipedia article on the three navy videos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

There are a couple of mentions of Mick and some "potential explanations" - but I think there's far greater scope for something more detailed than the sparse sentences that have been added.

That'd be at least a little something proactive.
 

Itsme

Active Member
I think a critical analysis of various claims certainly helps, but I don't think people like Bill Nelson get their info just from Wikipedia or the History Channel...
He talks about 300 cases. We only have access to one (the Nimitz case) and snippets of a handful of others.

If you hear Sam Harris talking, it really seems that the conversation is changing and he even seems to have gotten a 'heads-up' in advance:
“I’ve received some private outreach, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent, and … whoever is left standing when the music stops, it’s not going to be a comfortable position to be in as a super rigorous scientific skeptic who’s been saying there’s no there there for the last 75 years.”

Bill Nelson's statements fit into this picture of a changing conversation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the conversation is changing
What exactly is the change?
NASA used to have SETI, and the US government has looked at UFO reports since forever (and never identified one as extraterrestrial).
What was "the conversation" like before, and what is it like now?
 

Itsme

Active Member
What exactly is the change?
NASA used to have SETI, and the US government has looked at UFO reports since forever (and never identified one as extraterrestrial).
What was "the conversation" like before, and what is it like now?
Before, we had the UFO fact sheet by the USAF.
Now, we have the UAPTF report.

Before:
No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security
Now:
UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.

Before:
There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge
Now:
Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver
abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.
We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

Before:
There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.
Now:
Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to
limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional
scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We
would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better
understand them.

In short: less "no" and more "we don't know".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Before: No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security

Now: UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.

Before: There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge

Now: Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, manoeuvre abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated.

Before: There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.

Now: Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them.

Where are these quotes from?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
If you hear Sam Harris talking, it really seems that the conversation is changing and he even seems to have gotten a 'heads-up' in advance

To me that just sounds like yet another semi-smart bloke who's been hoodwinked by a bunch of balloons and is following the well-established tradition of "imminent disclosure just around the corner".
 
Last edited:

RTM

Member
“I’ve received some private outreach, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now,”

Private outreach could be the TTSA or Bigelow’s barmy army types.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If you hear Sam Harris talking, it really seems that the conversation is changing and he even seems to have gotten a 'heads-up' in advance:
That was before the UAPTF report came out.

Oh, and "Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. " doesn't really look like ETs are on the table.
 

Itsme

Active Member
That was before the UAPTF report came out.

Oh, and "Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. " doesn't really look like ETs are on the table.

Concerning ETs, the DOD seems to have passed the buck to NASA:
Q. Has the Department found any evidence of extraterrestrial technology?
A. The examinations into incursions by UAPs are still ongoing; we lack sufficient information in
our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.
It is not the purpose of the UAPTF (or the report) to look for evidence of extraterrestrials.
Other parts of the government do that; for example, NASA looks for evidence of life on other
planets.
Source, see page 29 of the pdf.

This was the June 25 2021 answer to the question.

Prior to that, they did not mention NASA in answering that question. One June 4, their answer was:
Q. Has the Department found any evidence of extraterrestrial technology?
A. The examinations into incursions by UAPs are still ongoing; the Department does not
comment on intelligence matters.
 

Itsme

Active Member
In the interview below, Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, does not rule out that ET might be hiding in the UAP data:
The main issues that Congress and others have been concerned about are basically safety of flight concerns and counterintelligence issues. But of course, there’s always the question of, is there something else that we simply do not understand that might come extraterrestrially?

But when it comes to revealing that we are observed, she passes the buck to NASA and other scientists like Avi Loeb:
it [our extensive UAP analysis] doesn't mean that we are definitely going be able to tell if we're being observed. There is a lot of different ways in which that might be revealed, but certainly we're working to make sure that we understand what we do see and what phenomenom is identified, and otherwise we're going to have to wait for Bill's science work to actually reveal some of these additional possibilities - not to mention some of the other people you'll talk to [Avi Loeb is a guest as well].
 

Ann K

New Member
That's what Nelson was pushing in the interview above.
"Other planets" means "not Earth".
The concept that the Mars rovers are "looking for evidence for life" is one that makes the scientists grit their teeth and roll their eyes. Both Curiosity and Perseverance are looking for chemical and geological (OK, "Areological") information that would clarify aspects of planetary formation, the history of Mars, and the present processes taking place on the planet. If that history includes such things as the presence of amino acids, that would be real news, but that's not the focus of the program, and the phrase "life on Mars" gets magnified and embellished all out of proportion by the popular press and peddlers of woo.

Source: private conversations with one of the science team who regularly calls home to talk with Mom: that's me.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If that history includes such things as the presence of amino acids, that would be real news, but that's not the focus of the program
The meaning of an answer depends on the question.

"NASA is looking for life on Mars" is a good answer to "who is looking for life on Mars" and a bad answer to "what is NASA doing on Mars". ;)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
P Claim: NASA tried to stop Spielberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' Quotes Debunked 21
P Claim: NASA cuts ISS livestream after "Millennium Falcon UFO" enters the frame UFOs and Aliens 16
V NASA Stargazer 1962 project Flat Earth 8
derrick06 Clarifying: Indian Schoolgirls discover Asteroid General Discussion 0
Patrick Gonzalez Need help explaining: NASA images of Earth from 2017 eclipse show different shadow sizes Flat Earth 3
L Claim: NASA is doctoring an image [Scanner Dirt] UFOs and Aliens 7
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Priyadi Eclipses and the Saros Cycle Flat Earth 3
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Rory Claim: Nasa' in Hebrew means "to deceive" Flat Earth 11
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
deirdre NASA fakes Michael Collins' spacewalk photo (artistic representation of event) Science and Pseudoscience 23
nickrulercreator [Debunked] Apollo 14 Flag Waving Before Ascent? Science and Pseudoscience 21
P Bizarre alien ship spotted by ISS! Or, you know, maybe not UFOs and Aliens 3
Rory Black square around Earth proves NASA fake footage Flat Earth 3
Leifer "solar sun simulator", 1960's patent Flat Earth 4
Rroval "NASA Confesses to Dosing Americans with Air-borne Lithium & Other Chemicals" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
P Debunked: NASA Nukes Alien Moonbase UFOs and Aliens 15
ki_cz NASA using green screen to fake ISS experiment footage Science and Pseudoscience 14
Santa'sSickRibs Debunked: Apollo 10 "Space Music" UFOs and Aliens 16
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
Pete Tar Debunked: Most recent NASA study shows ice growth in Antartica Science and Pseudoscience 15
Josh Heuer Debunked: UFO in NASA live feed [The Moon] UFOs and Aliens 14
Mick West NASA Worldview, New Interface Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Mick West NASA Orion Mission Contrail Shadow Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Graham2001 'NASA worker' claims to have seen humans walking on Mars in 1979 UFOs and Aliens 7
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26
Trailblazer Misrepresented: Stanford, NASA say perpetual sky-haze slows wind, cuts rainfall Contrails and Chemtrails 5
J Debunked: Blurred NASA image on Mars [Stitched in part of the Rover] UFOs and Aliens 13
sgirl New NASA pic of what looks like old ruins on Mars UFOs and Aliens 22
Mick West Debunked: Nasa: Strange Markings Across The Globe 'Might Have Been Made By Aliens' UFOs and Aliens 26
W Debunk NASA is proposing spraying stratospheric aerosols. Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Balance NASA photo captures strange bright light seemingly coming out of Mars General Discussion 39
Mick West Debunked: Giant Bird In Flight On Mars Caught In NASA Billion Pixel View UFOs and Aliens 31
Leifer Debunked: NASA cloud chart is faked Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Hama Neggs NASA on artificial cloud proliferation Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
MikeC Debunked: NASA Scientist Admitting 'Chemtrails' for decades (actually Sounding Rockets) Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Chuck Debunked: NASA War Document Exposed (The Future is Now) Conspiracy Theories 290
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
N NASA National and Interdepartmental Program for Weather Modification 1966 Contrails and Chemtrails 8
JRBids Nasa the future of war Conspiracy Theories 4
U Debunked: Moon Landing and NASA Photo - non parallel shadows Conspiracy Theories 13
George B Explained: Square in a NASA photo? [Centaur Landing Reference Grid] General Discussion 7
JMartJr Covid Stimulus Bill mandates UFO Disclosure UFOs and Aliens 5
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West No, SB 1424 is Not a Censorship Bill Criminalizing Anti-Vaccine Misinformation Conspiracy Theories 9
deirdre Claim:Republicans block bill to stop terrorists from buying guns General Discussion 9
3 Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering General Discussion 51
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top