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.

 

What do astronauts know about UFOs?

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Comment on that thread.




posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm asking you to provide me the reports you referenced as being buried by the UFOlogy community. I need to read those in order to have all of the elements in the equation. You are using these reports as your basis to disbelieve Cooper so it's only fair to make them available. Otherwise you are asking readers to take it on faith those reports exist and this is no way to present an argument for or against.

Regarding the space treasure maps statement I have no idea. One can only go on the information presented. It was missing key parts. More importantly I don't place much value in the Discovery Channel. They intentionally falsely misrepresent "facts" all the time in most if not all of their shows. Therefore anything they produce is automatically under an eye of scrutiny from me.

Regardless...I want to read these reports.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

Cooper's account caught my attention a few years back so I read and listened to what he said on the subject. I ended up drawing the same conclusion as Jim Oberg and consider it more of a tall tale than a genuine account. Only Cooper knew why he made the claim and it could have been for any number of reasons and not all of them negative.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: JimOberg

You won't answer my question but whatever.

So your summary is you believe nothing Cooper said regarding witnessing a UFO land as true in the general sense of the word because you have found inconsistencies in various stories he has relayed over the years and therefore he is automatically lying.



By no means. Three separate teams investigated Cooper's story of the UFO landing at Edwards in 1957. They talked with the actual photographers, with the duty officer on the 'Blue Book' desk that day, and with Cooper's supervisor, and checked the contemporary press reports of the event, and the actual Blue Book case file -- with images -- for the event.

I presume you've never seen those reports? That may be because the UFO community has actively suppressed their results and continues to promote the lie that the story 'has never been explained' -- counting on eager-believer audiences to accept that claim uncritically, as you appear to have.


Any blue book case file is worthless as reference of authority since the entire program was created to debunk all UFO cases. Special report 14 and other classified documents, later declassified proved once and for all that shows this. Blue book debunks a report, and then in the "then" classified version we have for an example, Hector Quintinella saying the opposite was actually true, that they didn't know what it was. They knew it wasn't what they said it was in the public version though.

And no matter how many "teams" investigated Cooper's story, they wouldn't have been able to discover a damn thing (of any real importance) since the materials he referenced were classified. So all that is left is to either believe him on his word, or not. That's it.
edit on 22-7-2017 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



Any blue book case file is worthless as reference of authority since the entire program was created to debunk all UFO cases. Special report 14 and other classified documents, later declassified proved once and for all that shows this.


Are you sure they're worthless? There are some intriguing reports in the Grudge and BB files despite the balloon explanations.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



Any blue book case file is worthless as reference of authority since the entire program was created to debunk all UFO cases. Special report 14 and other classified documents, later declassified proved once and for all that shows this.


Are you sure they're worthless? There are some intriguing reports in the Grudge and BB files despite the balloon explanations.


I should have said since the goal of Blue Book was to soften people up, not tell them what the air force really knew, that the public portion of Blue Book can't be completely relied upon as an honest representation of events, like the classified versions later some of it declassified shows.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Yeah, conclusions were often shaky and not enough to hide some perplexing reports.

ETA - Goode and McCoy and Laredo.
edit on 7.22.2017 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
And no matter how many "teams" investigated Cooper's story, they wouldn't have been able to discover a damn thing (of any real importance) since the materials he referenced were classified. So all that is left is to either believe him on his word, or not. That's it.


A perfect excuse to not even READ these reports.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: JimOberg

I'm asking you to provide me the reports you referenced as being buried by the UFOlogy community. I need to read those in order to have all of the elements in the equation. You are using these reports as your basis to disbelieve Cooper so it's only fair to make them available. Otherwise you are asking readers to take it on faith those reports exist and this is no way to present an argument for or against.
... ...I want to read these reports.



Good for you. When you've looked them over you may realize why the UFO community has actively suppressed them.

Only three people [to my knowledge – let me know of any others you find] ever performed corroboration investigations, all three with identical result. The original event was a slow-drift-pass scintillating shape of still-disputed nature, which never deployed landing legs or landed and took off again. The images and interviews were filed with Blue Book, and can be found in the on-line archives – nothing disappeared [it was even written up in local newspapers, and a UFO newsletter, at the time]. All direct participants indicated no knowledge of Gordon Cooper’s participation at any point in the event and its aftermath.

The first investigation was conducted in the mid-1960s by James McDonald, the leading “pro-UFO” scientist of his time. He described his results here.
www.project1947.com...
Case 41. Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957, page 75

The second investigation was mine, in the 1980-2 period, in response to a direct challenge from Gordon Creighton of Britain’s “Flying Saucer Review”. I interviewed direct participants including one of the cameramen and Hubert Davis, the young AF officer on ‘Blue Book duty’ at the base [who first interviewed the cameramen, who had come directly to him]. I shared it with Cooper, and he used details from it in his book and interviews.
www.zipworld.com.au...

The third was done for NICAP by Brad Sparks in the 1990-era. Here are his results. www.nicap.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

None of those "reports" have any evidence of anything. You are just as guilty of fabricating a belief that Cooper is not telling the truth as you claim Cooper is guilty of fabricating his sighting.

Neither you nor Cooper can provide any proof that it did or didn't happen. You have referenced the need for evidence in many posts so I find it contradictory you would stand by this argument with no evidence.

I read through all 3 of the "reports" you provided. That's a very loose term you are applying to nothing but hearsay. I also did a simple search and found multiple sites which argue Cooper's account but it is all the same recycled material. So I disagree with your statement this information being suppressed by the UFOlogy community.

Also the fact the Project Blue Book was invoked in one of these "reports" I liken to referencing Jaime Maussan and UFO sightings. It automatically discredits the "report" considering we know the true purpose and intent of Project Blue Book was purely a disinformation campaign on UFOs.

I don't have a dog in a any fight when it comes to UFOlogy. However, I don't think people should attempt to pass off their opinions as fact or hard evidence to the contrary of another person's sighting / event, etc. So with that being said all I see here is it is your opinion Cooper fabricated the story. And you are entitled to that. But you have not provided any proof.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: JimOberg

None of those "reports" have any evidence of anything. You are just as guilty of fabricating a belief that Cooper is not telling the truth as you claim Cooper is guilty of fabricating his sighting.

Neither you nor Cooper can provide any proof that it did or didn't happen. You have referenced the need for evidence in many posts so I find it contradictory you would stand by this argument with no evidence....



Do you apply the same logic to accepting that it is possible Cooper saved the shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens? Do you consider that a 'he-said-she-said' kind of coin toss?



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Don't deflect from the point I am making which is valid. What you are offering is nothing more than an opinion. As I mentioned above you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are making absolute statements which lack any evidence and you should not state your conclusion as evidence based facts.



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: JimOberg

Don't deflect from the point I am making which is valid. What you are offering is nothing more than an opinion. As I mentioned above you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are making absolute statements which lack any evidence and you should not state your conclusion as evidence based facts.



Interviews with the first-hand witnesses is only 'opinion' ?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13


I read through all 3 of the "reports" you provided. That's a very loose term you are applying to nothing but hearsay.


How are interviews with direct sources of the incident hearsay? If witnesses that were present during this incident say Gordon Cooper was never a witness to this object, it's not hearsay. Hearsay is a second, third, fourth, etc. generation retelling of a story.


Also the fact the Project Blue Book was invoked in one of these "reports" I liken to referencing Jaime Maussan and UFO sightings. It automatically discredits the "report" considering we know the true purpose and intent of Project Blue Book was purely a disinformation campaign on UFOs.


So who do you believe is lying... James McDonald, Jim Oberg, or the witnesses interviewed? If you read the reports, they claim an object was seen and that's recorded. If there's a place to lie, cover up, and spread disinformation it would be here, to hide the report of an object. Not to claim Gordon Cooper was never directly involved.



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You don't understand the definition of hearsay. This isn't about believing. This is me pointing out Oberg made absolute statements as fact when they were anything but fact.



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I 100% understand the definition and more importantly the application of the word opinion. You are basing your "evidence" off of another person's story. That means you are willing to discount one person's story yet accept another person's version of a story over the other. That doesn't even make any sense and is hypocrisy.

This discussion between you and I isn't about if Cooper was telling the truth or not. This is about how you are willing to accept a story from one person but disbelieve the story of another. This is why you need evidence. As I mentioned earlier you have presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary. All you are presenting is another person's story and are arriving at a conclusion which is your opinion only.

I




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join