NASA UFO Alien Encounters

[ PHOTO ( above ): NASA Space Shuttle STS 115 official mission photo of a an “ExtraTerrestrial BioSynthetic Entity” ( EBSE ), a mobius waveform propulsion system spaceborn infant that is also known by what others refer to as part of a “Space Serpent” that a NASA astronaut refers to as an “eel” ( click to enlarge ) ]

NASA UFO Alien Encounters
by, Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV )

December 1, 2011 14:22:08 (PST) Updated ( Originally Published: January 27, 2011 )

CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles – December 1, 2011 – NASA? We may ‘all’ have a problem! Over the past several decades multiple space flight missions from the United States and Russia have officially documented strange encounters occuring in outer space with astronauts.

Not just ‘unidentified flying objects’ ( UFO ), but other unreferenceable object encounters such as serpent like entities that appear to be biosynthetic lifeforms, plus other spaceborne phenomena that astronauts referred to as being their ”visitors.”

While all this initially sounds totally unbelievable, official audio and video film clip transmissions ( see below ) between space missioning astronauts and their mission ground control central proving NASA UFO Alien Encounters are officially very real.

Several prominent United States astronauts have now gone on public record revealing their personal experiences with official U.S. government encounters surrounding nonreferenceable objects and entities ( UFOs & Aliens ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkOCwATi3tw

Introduction

The following additional ’official video clips and audio broadcasts’ ( below ) will reveal some amazing things for you if  these two ( 2 ) ’basic principles’ are remembered while viewing them:

1.  Meteorites ‘do not suddenly change direction’ and ‘do not make left-hand turns, right-hand turns or U turns’ like a ’piloted spacecraft’; and,

2. Debris in outer space, known as ‘space junk’ ( e.g. pieces of rocket boosters, expended satellites, etc. ), does not exit the Earth’s gravitational pull ( that extends – at a much lesser strength – into outerspace ) nor does it at high rates of speed’ either, but will either ‘float around in outer space’ and/or ‘return ( in a ‘decaying orbit’ ) to Earth’s atmosphere where it may either burn-up or fall to the surface of the Earth.

A few of the documentary motion picture film clips ( below ) are in ’full color’, ’black and white’, or ’tinted green’ screen resolutions – many of which are comprised of ’time-elapsed monitoring film sped-up’ so, ‘objects being monitored may not be moving as fast as they appear’, however ’other films may have objects moving in real speed ( e.g. ‘slow docking arms and astronaut manuevers’ or ‘fast electronic movements’ of ’camera lens housings’ that ‘spin around quickly’ to ‘catch a view of other objects moving in any direction at any time’ ).

Nevertheless, always keep in-mind the two ( 2 ) ‘outerspace principles’ that only ‘spacecraft make course corrections’ – turning and going in different directions – ‘not meteorites, comets, asteroids or space debris’.

Now, please enjoy watching ‘these specific four ( 4 ) videos’ ( below ) especially selected after careful analysis from ou-of ’hundreds of others found with flaws’:

By 1971, a NASA Apollo 14 rocket carried a Lunar Excursion Module ( LEM ) camera providing the following photo ( below ):

[ PHOTO ( above ): official NASA LEM camera photo of moon in background with UFO lights in right foreground ( click to enlarge ) ]

In the above photo, was there a ‘piece of lighted extermal equipment’ outside the NASA spacecraft? No. Was there any ‘distortion in the camera lense or reflection’? No.

In 1967, four ( 4 ) years before the aforementioned 1971 LEM launch, PACIFIC OPTICAL ( El Segundo, California ) generated thousands of LEM camera rose quartz glass lenses polished to perfection and tested for ‘any possible distortion factors’ using special ‘lightwave measurement instruments’ set according to ’government standards for approval’ long before being installed within those cameras used aboard the LEM, within an incredible number of NASA space rocket missions, and U.S. Air Force National Reconnaisance Office ( NRO ) missions. How are those facts known? I personally know those particular camera lenses ’do not capture any destortion whatsoever from glare or image reflections’ because I ‘personally worked on those lenses’, knew what they consisted of, as well as their unique characteristics also used in weaponized missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

As far back as 1966, when I was still attending high school, I also worked the graveyard shift at the McDonnel Douglas Space Systems Center ( now BOEING ) where within a special area then-known as “The Quad” a famous defecting Russian astrophysicist secretly worked for the U.S. government on the Mercury mission space capsules. Yes, and there were two ( 2 ) such capsules! Not much comes as much of a mystery to me, especially after four ( 4 ) decades of researching intelligence for the U.S. government.

The aforementioned films and broadcats document previously unknown ’new hazards surfacing in space’, believed one of the primary reasons why ‘all NASA spacecraft insurance policy coverage was cancelled’ as NASA lost its direct U.S. government funding when it became apparent to the U.S. government intelligence directorate ( CIA Science and Technology Division ) need of private-sector corporate market bids on future space mission contracts – swinging the axe into the heart of the NASA empire given its final ”tally-ho.”

That decision made perfect economic sense to the U.S. government because now its ‘secret private-sector enterprise takes on far more financial risk than it does just space mission challenges’ where shareholder investment returns will consequently realize less profit from having to absorb the costs associated with higher insurance policy coverages directly related to ‘new risk management assessments’ ( see official films and broadcasts above ) where insurance company policy directive issuances placed on ‘future mission spacecraft’ see more financial burden placed onto thebacks of ’investors’ while essening ever-growing financial burdens on U.S. Department of the Treasury foreign debt repayment plans the Federal Reserve Board decided NASA was just costing too much money and something had to be done about getting rid of the NASA burden without jeopardizing U.S. global space superiority. What began during 1985 as an intelligence mission to bury secret technology effortings within closely guarded private-sector enterprises satisfies corporate promises of long ago.

It’s simply a case of one hand washing another at the expense of the people, is all, where a new space tax that may have been pulled from tomorrow shelf concepts of George Orwell for those living in futuristic societies. Unfortunately, such activity already broke plenty of pencil point lead in private-sector workshop sessions at FANX III ( Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland ) in 1998 supporting private sector funded public insurance investment programs as yet another economic means by which U.S. Social Security Administration insurance may likely receive its axe because of the ever-looming baby boomer debt crisis the U.S. government faces dead ahead as next on its big aggenda. NASA was likely but a precursor government primer for what’s in-store next for the ‘little people’. Up, up and away, that beautiful balloon – that not so beautiful balloon anymore.

 

Submitted for review and commentary by,

 

Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV ), Host
E-MAIL: ConceptActivityResearchVault@Gmail.Com
WWW: http://ConceptActivityResearchVault.WordPress.Com

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s