Saturday, January 27, 2007

If You Knew UFO Were Real

If You Knew UFOs were real
By Joseph Capp
hit the ground running

The Matter of NASA Photo Technician Donna Tietze
…well, I let her resume speak for itself…

Formerly of NASA, photographic slide technician, the recipient of numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project… And much more

Ms. Tietze includes in her statement to the Disclosure Project that she:
-Was shown by a friend at NASA lab a photo of a UFO --its shadow and that of a “pine trees” and that they airbrushed the UFOs out before selling them to the public.

-Was told by another employee she dated that “NASA astronauts were warned not to speak of UFOs.

-Were told that astronauts had been followed to the moon and had photographed [non-American, perhaps non-human founded] moon bases.

This is transcribed from the original recording, as clearly as they could get:

James Oberg, a science writer, is convinced Donna Tietze’s story about what she saw is impossible. Oberg raises objections to Donna Tietze’s data.

Oberg believes she couldn’t have witnessed the photo she claimed because: “From what I know of NASA space photography, I believe it was impossible then or now for NASA to produce Earth surface images with sufficient detail to show a tree and its shadow. A vigorous search by several UFO buffs recently for such pictures in NASA's archives (the photo was described as being prepared for public sale) failed to locate any. Oberg proves and has support from Veteran NASA earth photography specialist Paul Lowman that lanstat satellite couldn’t take photos with that detail and even last Skylab couldn’t produce below probably 30 meters. (See Note)
Then Lowman says --and here’s where the case get’s interesting--“Ms. Hare then retorted that of course NASA had such pictures: ‘We not only had the technology to see a number on a golf ball back then, we used it in the Bay of Pigs -- remember? -- to see Cuban/Russian missiles aimed at our country.’" (March 25, 1999) Aside from a confusion of the Bay of Pigs with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the use at that time of U-2 spy planes, not satellites, the additional confusion of what super-secret military spy satellites could see and what NASA was interested in and had in its possession, gives me additional confidence that my disbelief in this story is logical.

Let me start off this by emphasizing that I am not a scientist. I thank the powers that be in this instance you don’t have to be. Just using common sense seems to suffice. I find it incredulous to believe either Oberg or Lowman could know all the secrets regarding satellites or Skylab. In fact they admit they don’t We find millions of documents still classified from the sixties.

Did Oberg or Lowman know they took pictures of Area 51 aboard Skylab before it was reveled? They agreed not to photograph Area 51. Not even the CIA knew it. There was a deal struck between the CIA and NASA. NASA agreed to run all the pictures they took of land through the CIA first. We don’t know all details of the deal.. Could NASA have been part of the sanitation process on U2 pictures? Did some of these close up images wind up on major contractor’s walls as a type of insider prize?

Oberg may say that is ridiculous. For me the missing Apollo tapes is more unbelievable then the industrial complex getting special treatment. It would look great in the seventies to have U2 close ups above your desk. Impressive.
Donna Tietze was in a restricted lab at NASA that did all kinds of work with photos; one section prepared photos for public sale. Remember this was only one part of what they did. “They did everything over there”. Let’s first listen to what Donna Tietze said:
“And while I was in there I was trying to learn new methods and new things about the whole organization and I was looking at the pictures and he directed my attention to one area, he said, "Look at that!" I looked and there was a round oval shaped, well it was very white circular shape of a dot and I, it was black & white photography, so I asked him if that was a spot on the emulsion and he said, ‘well I can't tell you but spots on the emulsion do not leave round circles of shadows’.” Next Donna looks closer: “I believe they were satellite pictures but I’m not sure.” She seems to expect a certain resolution, herself: “‘you know, pretty close to the ground what I saw but I didn't see an outline of the continent.” Donna Tietz expected to see the same thing Oberg would expect to see: the edge of a continent. Then she sees what he’s talking about: “Right, a round shadow! And I notice that there were pine trees, now I don't know where this area was or what, you know, pretty close to the ground what I saw but I didn't see outline of the continent. But I did notice that there was a shadow under this white dot and I also noticed that the trees were casting the shadow in the same direction as this shadow of the circle of this aerial phenomena because it was higher than the trees but not too much higher than the trees but it was close to the ground and it was spherical but slightly elongated, not very much but slightly. I then said, is it a UFO? And he said, ‘Well, I can't tell you’.” What he tells her next is heresay on his part, but because of what he shows her, she starts to believe it’s possible and pursues it. Oberg is right that they never found the photos (interesting he quotes UFO Buffs as the source). We are still left with the statement about the origins of the photo: “I don’t know.” I hope Oberg feels someday how it is to see something in great detail that shouldn’t be real. It tends to shake you. At this point, I take Donna Tietze’s word over James Oberg’s, or NASA’s and the CIA’s. But more about UFO photos. Donna goes on: “I also met a security guard that was forced to burn a lot of UFO pictures…I used to work out there. And one day some soldiers came in fatigues and had me burn pictures. He said that he was burning them and he was forced not to look at them. But he was tempted. He looked at one of them and it was a UFO on the ground.”
Possible answer to the missing photos? I want to know where the hell are those Apollo Tapes? Maybe we’re looking in the wrong place. Oberg tries to tarnish Donna Tietze’s credibility by citing her affiliation with “UFO Contact Center International” 1981. (UFOCCI), a non-profit organization set up in the early1980s to help those traumatized by UFO experiences through counseling and group support. These group included people who believed they were abducted by entities. Another primary objective was to help educate the public regarding the reality of UFOs.
Some of the group attendees were tested by “National Institute Of Discovery Science”(NIDS) to see if they were within the psychological normal range as compare to other goups. NIDS prepared questionnaires. Some of the attendees refused the remainder was tested. 35 took the test they fell into the normal range. By way of mudslinging, Oberg also mentions Tietze’s 1999 conference presentation about an experience she had in early childhood and possible abduction. NIDS site hard to read: To best address this aspect of Donna Tietze’s testimony, I suggest the reader consider exercising a little extra understanding. Again and again in this UFO field, we’re finding that once you open the lid to this reality, the need to find meaning in it becomes a top priority. This to me is natural and a healthy reaction. I don’t know if Donna Tietze was abducted or somehow came to believe she was abducted. Oberg agrees she believed in what she says. Believing you have the answer that aliens exist can only be topped by believing you have found the meaning to life. Donna Tietze’s experiences later in her life, does not for me diminish one iota of my belief in her testimony. Her experiences at work in the NASA photo labs, and what colleagues, said to her. I believe her statements deserve serious consideration. If there is anyone out there who knows for sure, now is a good time to come forward. Our country is in shambles because there are just too many secrets. It takes a major disaster before the top become exposed. This disaster could end humanity.

Note: Did anyone ever wonder if Donna made a mistake regarding the type of trees (Pine)? We have some pretty tall trees in America. Big enough for, say, Skylab.

Take a look at just some of the witnesses. I guess it’s all a big “conspiracy.
Part Two “IS NASA Still Touching up Photos?


  1. Joseph, that Donna Tietze might be sincere and accurate in her account of the 'forbidden' material she saw doesn't preclude the possibility she was merely the victim of an elaborate hoax.

    The reason I don't automatically buy that version of events is the 'electric shock' factor you, yourself allude to, that unmistakable, often violent jolt you get, accompanied by an overwhelming, almost suffocating sense you're in some sort of danger zone because you're seeing something you weren't supposed to.

    Donna Tietze, like all of us, had probably seen some odd, quite mystifying images in her time; but, as a professional, she would've learned, both from her training, and her long experience to dismiss most of these as at best, merely explicable, and therefore irrelevant. This fact should therefore strengthen her credibility when she claims to've seen images she couldn't dismiss in the same way.

    As for James Oberg, I find it slightly amusing when people of his persuasion tell us one moment, we've been so technologically advanced for so many decades that if there was anything to detect we would've detected it long ago, but then, when it suits, claim we weren't really that technologically advanced at all.

  2. Yes it is possible that this was a hoax with her testimony alone. Althogh she seemed to just wonder over to the lab one day. She was not expected from her testimony. But when you put her testimony together with the others witnesses who have come forward it fits. When you look at some of the altered pictures of the appolo mission you start to wonder. On my next blog I will show some tampering on the Mars photos that is very hard to explain.
    At the very least we should wonder why some these pictures look the way they do; altered.
    UFO Media Matters

  3. You can play with GoogleEarth, Terraserver and Globeexplorer to see if you can resolve even the tallest trees, the sequoia, in the world (aka General Sherman). You need something like 2 to 4 m/pixel resolution. The best Skylab imagery (Earth Terrain Camera) could only get to 8.75 m/pixel.

    Another possibility for the source of the images include the Keyhole satellites and high altitude aircraft photography. I do not see why NASA would have been given access to these images way back then regardless of whether NASA had a classified photo lab. Those were at best 2 m /pixel and some were taken of the sequoia area (see

    The high altitude photography was likely unclassified and consisted of many small photos that had to be assembled/registered. Those had 2m/pixel resolution too. Useful in mapping out NASA bases I suspect.

    As to the Area 51 photos by Skylab, it does seem like they were asked to not film that area (examine the images versus the orbital position). The only reason the photo was taken was because of a timing accident. The astronauts had to operate the camera themselves and messed up on the filming. If you examine the image that was taken, you can see Area 51 but the resolution is very poor compared to the released images from other sources.

  4. I thank you for your thoughtful tone and through research. The other side of this is Donna would have known this if she was making up the story. It might have been a mistake not to question at the time how they got such a close up shot . Did she know something about the Skylab or other satellites which made it odd but not impossible? It is one thing to say you saw UFOs on a photo. It’s quite another to start to tell what she secrets she might of known about Skylab. Why everyone knows that the government wouldn't dare touch her on UFOs. If this is the real deal their best weapon is public indifference.

    It is interesting the way her memory played back how she noticed how close it was. She states she was at first “looking for continents” Interesting also she brings attention how close-up it was. You wouldn’t think she would do that if she was hoaxing. In the end your are right about the resolutions of the shot This has not been ever been explained. Unlike Oberg I don’t find it “impossible” that she might have witnessed this photo at this resolution.

    I wonder how much back scratching was going on at that time. I know Johnson was a Texans and one hell of a back scratchier.

    UFO Media Matters.

  5. I don't think she was hoaxing about the images she saw. I just think she did not understand them or was misled in some way by others. She never states (at least I could find no commentary by her about it) exactly what mission/flight (if any) the image was from.

    When assembling a photomosaic from a number of high altitude aerial images, one desires to remove non-ground based objects because, obviously, clouds add nothing to the viewer's understanding of the terrain. A photolab would take multiple shots (if available) with different cloud covers and attempt to remove the clouds by overlaying them. You wouldn't "white out" the cloud, but rather place reasonably accurate terrain in its place. At 2m/pixel resolution, some small clouds can appear circular and may be misleading. If they knew she was a UFO-phile, they might have teased her by saying an apparent (to them) cloud was a UFO.

    By the way the web site I mentioned has the Area 51 Skylab image as well as the declassified Keyhole images for public ordering (at fairly reasonable prices). There is also a national repository of high altitude aerial imagery, but I have had little luck getting anything from them. (

    About possible "secrets of Skylab" she might have known, I do not get the impression of her authority/expertise. Awards such as she got were somewhat commonplace and ubiquitous. Just working in the photolab doesn't assure you get knowledge of secrets of imagery systems, you mainly just develop the film. More recently they do photoanalysis. Its never been confirmed/documented that the NASA photo lab even had a classified section, although some may have been restricted due to proprietary work or private medical imagery for astronauts.

  6. The hoax theory for me is more than a stretch. This guy she knew and the other guy she was dating get together with this guard to hoax her. Why? Because she saw a photo. Or they wanted to play a joke.The guy she was dating was talking clearly about an incident in the past. Had they set this up previously. I just don't see her lying and I don't think it is a hoax. So how could this picture be? For me, there's the rub!
    I know one thing from what I read there are millions of doc still classified from the 50s. Millions why?
    I ask people of good faith is the resolution of that photo possible? Does anyone know of any examples of "special" favors" by the NASA photo lab. If you saw a three hundred foot tree at a certain angle could it be possible to see it from what we had?
    UFO Media Matters
    By the way thanks for checking around. You made my day.

  7. If you think its bad about the "millions" of documents that are classified, what about the millions of documents thrown away as a matter of course because it was too much trouble to file them away or save them or anything. So much lost history! In so many areas of government its so much easier to just throw the documents away. I would estimate 1% of the unique documents are saved (either for public access or not). Very sad waste of information/knowledge.