International Space Station Commander Opens Up About His UFO Sighting In Space

Zcustosmorum

Screw the quotation marks, not even the point, the fact is he said it

Or the fact that he ASKED it?

Big difference.

Cheers

Spiro

reply to post by Telos


Just like what was said in that link, too many new oddities popping up. It's always funny how hardcore debunkers rush to discredit opposed to even considering the prospect of alien existence/visitation. It's the mark of someone who refuses to take all evidence (non physical) or research surrounding the phenomena into consideration before totally dismissing what's being presented first. Not saying this is legit but EVERY sighting can't be CGI, a bird, or any other common label applied now can it?

reply to post by Telos


The only time any of us will see the so called alien smoking gun is when we are standing in front of it!

I hope as commercial space travel expands so will visibility with respect to this subject. But seeing a UFO in space is pretty much the same as seeing it here on Earth.

Spiro

Zcustosmorum

Screw the quotation marks, not even the point, the fact is he said it

Or the fact that he ASKED it?

Big difference.

Cheers

Spiro

Pffft, regardless, someone threw the "smoking gun" (if there ever was one), away a long time ago, regardless of opinions, it's buried somewhere that will probably never be found.

Proof of alien life will no doubt be found eventually, but proof that we've been visited (if it was the case) wil never be proved.

Spiro
The way I perceive what you are saying is that if there is not enough detail in the OP then all should attack the messenger? I'm not saying you are directly, but this is what I am perceiving

Also worth noting here before anyone starts to attack me. The OP is asking .... COULD this be the " Smoking Gun "? He's not claiming it is though a good few members seem to think otherwise.

Well, when I asked him how it was a smoking gun (i.e., I questioned what evidence he had that this sighting was something special), he came back and told me he was being sarcastic about the smoking gun.

So then I asked him again what he felt was special about the sighting, plus I questioned what his phrase "Time to kill the thread and the messenger" had to do with the report. Why would he say that?

I simply want to know: "what does the OP feel is special about this sighting". He feels this sighting of strange lights is worth a thread, and worth talking about "self appointed skeptics" and "forbidden subjects", and I just want to know how he thinks "forbidden subjects" plays in to this particular report of strange lights.

I don't think that is asking too much.

reply to post by Telos


I also need to add something I wrote the other day, on another thread: (paraphrased)

How does it feel to be criticized more on how you write, then what you wrote about?
And you wrote about someone seeing a UFO, on a conspiracy site, started mainly for UFO's!
The irony of this is making my head spin.

My head is still spinning now. I like to talk about topics not punctuation and grammar.

Sorry, I forgot to talk about this thread. Here it goes, it's another sighting that will end up in the logs of general obscurity.
Thank you!

AB

Zcustosmorum

Pffft, regardless,

Nevermind

Soylent Green Is People

Well, when I asked him how it was a smoking gun (i.e., I questioned what evidence he had that this sighting was something special), he came back and told me he was being sarcastic about the smoking gun.

So then I asked him again what he felt was special about the sighting, plus I questioned what his phrase "Time to kill the thread and the messenger" had to do with the report. Why would he say that?

I simply want to know: "what does the OP feel is special about this sighting". He feels this sighting of strange lights is worth a thread, and worth talking about "self appointed skeptics" and "forbidden subjects", and I just want to know how he thinks "forbidden subjects" plays in to this particular report of strange lights.

I don't think that is asking too much.

Yes, you are correct. I had missed that post so I do apologies

Cheers

Spiro

Well, there is that saying, if they let you see them, more occurred than the sighting. There was missing time....

Soylent Green Is People

Telos

Zcustosmorum
Smoking gun? Don't make me laugh, it's an opinion over something that he seen, it still doesn't automatically mean aliens

HELLO!!!!

Is got quotation marks which means doesn't really mean is the smoking gun. Have you heard about sarcasm?

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. What are you trying to say?

I understand it is an article about a sighting, but your inflammatory language made it seem you were approaching it from another angle (your words about "self-appointed debunkers" and "time to kill the tread and the messenger" and "forbidden subjects").

So do you or don't you feel this sighting is clear evidence (a smoking gun) as something otherworldy?

edit on 4/3/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I don't really get it if you are interested in the thread, what the astronaut had to say or interested in the way I present my point? IF you don't understand what I mean by "smoking gun" , please skip it and deal with what is quoted from the website. Whether you agree or not with my remark has no value to the story. At this point I'm not going to start a race who has the quicker mind in perceiving sarcasm or figure of speech which in writing it is shown often by grammar rules provided in English language. I would appreciate if you can focus on the sighting and the credibility of the testimony.

Thanks

Here's a screen capture of the satelite picture from the NASA’s Unexplained Files show.


The reconstruction makes it look like the lights were seen in space but Chiao says they were seen along the South American coast and to me the above image confirms they're on the planet not above it . I think the fishing boat explanation is most likely.

Unity_99
Well, there is that saying, if they let you see them, more occurred than the sighting. There was missing time....

Has Leroy Chiao has talked about missing time associated with this sighting? Can you please provide links to this?

Thanks.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

but proof that we've been visited (if it was the case) wil never be proved.

Which is kind of wierd cause, we have tons of "posible signs" from history and ancient buildings that "MAYBE" we have been visited, thousends of sightings, videos, witness testimonies and archeological digging and we haven't found one simple fragment of proff or evidence that aliens has been sightseeing the Earth.

Kind of funny when you think of how much point in the direction, could be the proff is right in front of us but we can't see it cause we are to stupid.

Mianeye
reply to post by Telos

 

Is this the "smoking gun" or another saga to be debunked by the self appointed debunkers that lurk in this site in abundance.

No it's not the "smoking gun", it's just interesting but he really dosn't add anything else but more questions.

Don't pick on the debunkers, they are very usefull to this site

edit on 3-4-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

No. They aren't. For the most part they're here just to disrupt the discussion. That much is obvious. Regarding the Commander's sighting though, I have to agree there's nothing particularly special about it. I would think he would have had much more interesting things to say. He's likely prohibited from saying anything too interesting.

Glad to see some discussion of the irrational debunkers tearing apart OP's because they phrased something not to their liking.

Thank you for sharing this.

Point noted he doesn't rule out ET visitation.

reply to post by Spiro

Well, this thread will go in to 10 pages of debating the " smoking gun " phrase and not that of the sighting in question

Well said. Nay sayers… Can't you see the smoking gun? It's right there in his hand!


( George Carlin would have a field day)

OP:Thanks for bringing it to ATS

game over man
Glad to see some discussion of the irrational debunkers tearing apart OP's because they phrased something not to their liking.

Thank you for sharing this.

Point noted he doesn't rule out ET visitation.

Aint it sad really? Seems one has to be careful what they in their OP's now otherwise choosing the wrong words will get them flamed and the rest of their OP dismissed. Yip, good 'ole ATS!

Cheers

Spiro

reply to post by intrptr


PMSL

I miss George

Cheers

Spiro

game over man
Glad to see some discussion of the irrational debunkers tearing apart OP's because they phrased something not to their liking.

Thank you for sharing this.

Point noted he doesn't rule out ET visitation.

Well, no.

ATS not only encourages a thread starter to express an opinion about an online article that is posted, but ATS requires more than just "here is an article: Discuss". So the OP did his part by giving his opinion on the article, and the repliers did their part by asking questions.

In this case, the OP said the sighting in the article is a smoking gun, so the logical question to the OP would by "why do you feel this is a smoking gun, because it does not seem that way to me".

reply to post by Telos


Squid fishing fleet.

Let Jim explain

www.nbcnews.com...