It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50th Anniversary -- Gemini-IV [McDivitt] 'Space UFO' event

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: easynow

If nothing else it's Interesting to see that even James McDivitt believed Charles Hickson had an experience.



edit on 5-6-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: easynow

Why would he not want anyone to see that video, it doesn't prove anything at all. The astronaut is clearly amused by the line of questioning, he even goes so far as to point out what he thought it was. As for the picture, it's just an uninteresting blob.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: easynow

If nothing else it's Interesting to see that even James McDivitt believed Charles Hickson had an experience.




Yes I agree, definitely interesting indeed.

The Pascagoula case is legendary and from what I've seen most people just like McDivitt believed Hickson was honest and sincere and was telling the truth about the whole thing. I never met any of those folks but just watching the videos and hearing them tell the story I got a similar impression.

Of course that just makes me wonder if there's more to the story ...


www.youtube.com...



Thanks Gortex, always good to hear from you.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: easynow

Why would he not want anyone to see that video, it doesn't prove anything at all. The astronaut is clearly amused by the line of questioning, he even goes so far as to point out what he thought it was. As for the picture, it's just an uninteresting blob.


Simply because a legendary NASA astronaut is on camera answering yes to a "have you ever seen a ufo" question.

That's why and I never said the video "proved" anything.

And yes he did say what he thought it might be but he also said, he saw an object he could not identify.

There are reports from all over the world of cylindrical UFOs so who can say for sure what it really was ?


edit on 6-6-2015 by easynow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg





It's worth the search and worth sharpening our filtering skills, IMHO.

It's not easy. But the payoff could be unimaginably awesome.


Who are you kidding.
I have a substantial amount of useful information on alien contact from actual encounters, and you're written dozens of posts to me in the past few months, but you never once asked me.

Not once.

So spare us the "worth the search" pablum.
As far as I can see, your every effort has been to concoct conventional cover stories to deny any incidents of alien contact.

You don't display the least bit of scientific curiosity when somebody offers you information on a silver plate.
And the payoff is unimaginably awesome.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg





I worked 20+ years in the heart of Mission Control, and if I tell you I never encountered, or heard rumor of, something truly anomalous ['alien'] detected on ANY space flight, is it your knee-jerk response to suggest I'm lying, too? Don't hold back.


Well, Jim, it's like this.

I have known a person for fifty years who was also in the heart of Mission Control, and was there in July of 1969 during the Apollo 11 mission.
This person has made it very clear that there were indeed alien ships, an armada of alien ships, some huge beyond belief, present at the Moon landing.

So if you were to say that, then somebody would most likely be lying.



edit on 7-6-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Are you sitting down? I agree with you. The tragedy we face now is our current inability to filter out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs. It's worth the search and worth sharpening our filtering skills....


Gosh, Jim Oberg sounds so very reasonable when he puts it like that, doesn't he? Commendable, almost.

But I wonder, then, which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been "significant special events"?

Someone ask him.

(Unless there's been significant evolution in his UFO thinking, he'll need to preface that answer with yet another "Are you sitting down?")

If Jim Oberg truly cared about humanity's "current inability to filter out those significant special events," he'd support the idea of mainstream science getting involved in the topic, right?

And step one in that objective would involve reducing the UFO stigma, destroying the taboo. But I don't see Oberg working towards any of that. Do you? I see the opposite.

Those of you who are new to the topic, don't be fooled by his keyboarding skills. I'm sure he's a great guy in other ways, but for whatever reason, Jim Oberg is just not intellectually honest when it comes to UFOs. And that's been a matter of public record for decades.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

TS, just curious, do you think Scdfa's story enhances the scientific respectability of the UFO subject?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   


But I wonder, then, which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been "significant special events"? Someone ask him.
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Oh, don't bother, I've asked him. Many times. No answer. He has dodged that simple question every time, he may be more elusive than the UFOs he pretends to be looking for.

Oberg is verbally deft, acting as if he really is interested in finding true UFOs all the while his language paints the issue in an extremely negative light. Just take this one sentence:

"The tragedy we face now is our current inability to filter out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs."

As if there is just no way to distinguish between the metallic, flying, disc-shaped craft that struck Travis Walton with an energy beam at point blank range in front of five witnesses, and, say, Venus?
Just no way to tell those incidents apart, according to NASA expert Jim Oberg. Boy, that is a tragedy!

And who says there is an "overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs"?
He does. Bear in mind this is a guy who "explained" over 100 UFO sightings, even though none of the actual witnesses agreed with his "explanation".

The only "overwhelming mass" I see is pure BS.


(post by Scdfa removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Heads up folks, this is AboveTopSecret.com, we play the topic not the authors/your fellow members.

No more warnings will be forthcoming, you will either address the topic or, your privileges to post here might be terminated.

Sorry for being so abrupt, but it's just gotten out of hand in this thread, which is really sad to me because I think this thread could turn out to be an "ATS classic" (it kind of already is actually)...

So, in the hope of continuing the environment that has created past "ATS Classics", let's get a grip and do what we do best, deny ignorance, think critically, but ignore nothing.

Thank you...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Post removed for not following the "play the topic, not the author PSA posted above.

ENOUGH.
edit on 6-8-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets



And step one in that objective would involve reducing the UFO stigma, destroying the taboo. But I don't see Oberg working towards any of that. Do you?


i think a lot of the stigma is a result of sloppy research, wishful thinking, or worse within ufology

luckily there are a few good researchers out there (r.i.p. bruce duensing)

i think jim's identified the main problem in ufology - unless you can sort the good data from the bad you're not going to get anywhere - he seems to be doing his fair share of getting rid of the rubbish



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: JimOberg
Are you sitting down? I agree with you. The tragedy we face now is our current inability to filter out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs. It's worth the search and worth sharpening our filtering skills....


Gosh, Jim Oberg sounds so very reasonable when he puts it like that, doesn't he? Commendable, almost.

But I wonder, then, which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been "significant special events"?

Someone ask him.

(Unless there's been significant evolution in his UFO thinking, he'll need to preface that answer with yet another "Are you sitting down?")

If Jim Oberg truly cared about humanity's "current inability to filter out those significant special events," he'd support the idea of mainstream science getting involved in the topic, right?

And step one in that objective would involve reducing the UFO stigma, destroying the taboo. But I don't see Oberg working towards any of that. Do you? I see the opposite.

Those of you who are new to the topic, don't be fooled by his keyboarding skills. I'm sure he's a great guy in other ways, but for whatever reason, Jim Oberg is just not intellectually honest when it comes to UFOs. And that's been a matter of public record for decades.


I've read some of Mr. Oberg's research... both recenty and back in the late 70's/early 80's.

Can't say I've seen any such body of work submitted by you. Nor have I seen any refutation of his work by you. Just expressions of outrage and personal attacks.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

But I wonder, then, which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been "significant special events"?

Someone ask him.

Why would that matter?


If Jim Oberg truly cared about humanity's "current inability to filter out those significant special events," he'd support the idea of mainstream science getting involved in the topic, right?

What do you consider main stream science? I dont think that's the answer. There is science and scientific method but when I see them used around here, people complain because it didn't confirm "aliens". Obviously you are under the impression that if "real scientists" get involved they will somehow confirm aliens. If they don't, they will be met with angry posts on a UFO forum. Its as if only "real main stream science" is capable of confirming what you already know. That is circular.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
....


But I wonder, then, which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been "significant special events"?



Someone ask him. .....


Maybe a more workable approach would have been to visit my website and see what I've already written on exactly that theme -- what evidence would be persuasive?

www.jamesoberg.com...

Sorry you hadn't done it already, but it's not too late.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Maybe a more workable approach would have been to visit my website and see what I've already written on exactly that theme -- what evidence would be persuasive?


Yes, here's the question your essay answers: "What evidence would be persuasive?" (Your answer, basically, is hard proof.)

The question I mentioned, and that you quoted, pertained to "... which UFO sightings Oberg thinks might hint at having been 'significant special events'?"

So no, what you provided is not "exactly that theme" I had mentioned. There is no significant talk of sightings.

Or... with that article, are you now confirming that, to you, there is NO SINGLE UFO SIGHTING over the last 70 years which "might hint at having been a 'significant special event'?"

That's the answer from you I kinda predicted. Even warning people they'd better sit down for that one, too.

So here we are, in another NASA UFO thread, with you wondering why people don't seem to accept everything you say at face value. To you, they should, given that you're the resident space flight expert. (I can imagine that's a frustrating thing for you... as frustrating as it is for the rest of us to read.)

But here's the thing: there's an inescapable perception here, one you seem to be unaware of, that you play to the audience, i.e., "try to have it both ways."

When a pro-UFOer has you on the run, for example, you'll say nice and reasonable sounding things like way up above, what I quoted. Things pertaining to your goal of "filtering out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs"... or you'll mention how it's "worth the search" to "separate the wheat from the chaff," as you always say. It seems that you do this to placate the UFO masses coming at you, just to get the heat off, because you can't deal with the data. As if you're backing away from the staunch position we all know you maintain....

But then things calm down a bit, and it's back to the less accomodating version of you, with you saying (again saying, this time with that article) that after 70 years of UFO reports there is really nothing there at all, and there never was.

So what is all this nice talk by you about your goal of helping everyone in "sharpening our filtering skills" for UFO reports? Because lets's face it: for you, there is really NOTHING THERE TO 'FILTER', is there? The only 'evidence' you'll accept is proof -- a body or a saucer, basically. That's the message in your article. No UFO report would be good enough for you, and you admit it. Because your evidentiary filter for UFO reports, the one you urge everyone else to adopt, isn't even a "filter" at all, is it? It's more like the rim of a filter, with no mesh attached, where EVERY UFO report does and must fall through, down into the dirt.

THAT is why these words of yours from way up above make no sense: "The tragedy we face now," you said, "is our current inability to filter out those significant special events from the overwhelming mass of non-extraordinary pseudo-UFOs. It's worth the search and worth sharpening our filtering skills.... " Your words there ring hollow. To you there can be no "significant special events" (nothing short of a captured ET craft or body suffices), so in reality, there is no "tragedy" involved for you when amateur UFOlogists keep tripping all over themselves. It's disingenuous of you, and so transparent, and -- given your professional position(s), holding yourself out as an expert, and your expectation that people must treat your opinions as such -- I think, and I know MANY others agree, that new ATS members reading this UFO forum deserve to know such things about the experts present here. Not that you or others are bad people or whatever. Just about tendencies and oft-exposed biases of yours that have come out over the years. You're a space expert, right, so with the benefits of that Expert label -- increased respect re: certain topics, for example -- comes a few burdens, and one of them is having to endure increased scrutiny.

Now... is all of this related to YOUR thread on YOUR area of expertise (NASA and space flight)?

Yes. Since we see it thread after thread, whenever NASA is involved. The same fighting, round and round.

There is a reason, Jim, that you have to work so hard in order to get people to listen to your NASA UFO explanations... even when those explanations make perfectly good sense. Just like in this very thread. And I'm mystified that you seem to not know of that reason, or else don't care.

The reason is because you damage your own credibility when you pretend to care more about UFO respect and witnesses and the "health" of UFOlogy than you actually do (according to your website writings.) As I said before, if you truly cared about separating the UFO signal from the UFO noise, you'd support efforts to get science more involved and the destigmatization of the topic. You don't support those efforts.

Bottom line: if you want people to take your NASA UFO explanations like in this thread more seriously -- and I actually wish they would, too -- then you might consider minimizing your use of the hollow sounding, almost pro-UFO kind of language that we've seen here.
edit on 9-6-2015 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets



if you truly cared about separating the UFO signal from the UFO noise, you'd support efforts to get science more involved and the destigmatization of the topic.


any ufo researcher who wants to use the scientific method can do so - a lot of people in the field seem to prefer the 'believe what excites you, attack the character of anyone who disagrees with you' approach



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets








Risking that you might think it's a gimmick to disarm resistance to my schemes, I want to thank you for taking the time to contribute this intelligent, focused essay, which I'm going to file, keep, and read repeatedly, and think deeply about. Your request for a list of specific cases, I defer to pointing to the thread I started specifically about the significance of unsolved cases, and I have no problem acknowledging that they exist. The bigger question in, what does that MEAN?

Again, thank you for your thoughtful contribution.







 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join