Originally posted by The Shrike
Still, J.O.'s figure of zero just became moot point!

The assertion was that 'most' astronauts have admitted seeing UFOs in space.

And the proof is that one c-o-s-m-o-n-a-u-t says he saw an unidentified blip on a mission?

How about "most astronauts" -- for example, Gordon Cooper or Ed Mitchell or Story Musgrave? Did THEY see UFOs on space missions?

Don't dodge.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
Still, J.O.'s figure of zero just became moot point!

The assertion was that 'most' astronauts have admitted seeing UFOs in space.

And the proof is that one c-o-s-m-o-n-a-u-t says he saw an unidentified blip on a mission?

How about "most astronauts" -- for example, Gordon Cooper or Ed Mitchell or Story Musgrave? Did THEY see UFOs on space missions?

Don't dodge.

Two cosmonauts!

Gordon Cooper's account cannot be verified unless the alleged film can be found and corroborated to be the one he describes.

Ed Mitchell's account of anything not associated with his job as astronaut cannot be taken seriously for he is not speaking about personal experiences and he sounds like a nut job as others have similarly expressed.

Story Musgrave's accounts are so weird that one must wonder if he's all there, mentally that is. He has admitted on camera that he found part of the STS-80 video(s), where the "object" rises into view from earth's cloud cover, as - I forget his exact comment but he was impressed with what he saw.

While it would be preferable for astronauts to come clean about what they've see or suspect they've seen, their opinions don't matter to me for a picture is worth a thousand words and we have videos speaking volumes! I determine what I see is what is claimed or what I think it is. While I respect an expert's opinion, that expert's expertise has to be from experience not from a desk looking at the same videos as I do. We are all entitled to our deciphering based on the knowledge we have accumulated until it is needed.

I have no issue at all with the argument that JimOlberg gives us. I don't really care who says Aliens exist. It can be a Government Official, Astronaut, Police Officer, Doctor etc. Until I see evidence, it is all just hearsay to me.

One of the biggest Believer and Non Believer arguments is to use someone who is regarded in some sort of high standing to back up what they believe. It is all just hearsay. Give me real evidence please. Sorry every human is fallible and until they produce real evidence that there are aliens visiting us, or not visiting us, they get no more credit than Joe Blow living down the street.

On that note, do I believe there is life someone else besides our world? Yes i do, mainly because IMO, the math is just too great in support of it. Do I believe they have visited us? I have no idea, but I want to know. I myself have seen a few strange things in my lifetime, mainly when I was younger. At the time my first thought was UFO, and that is exactly what they were to me. They could have been aircraft, alien spaceships or some sort of natural phenomenon for all I know. My opinion though does not matter and should be taken with a grain of salt until I can produce evidence one way or the other. I am just another Joe Blow down the street.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by deanorw]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by deanorw]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
Still, J.O.'s figure of zero just became moot point!

The assertion was that 'most' astronauts have admitted seeing UFOs in space.

And the proof is that one c-o-s-m-o-n-a-u-t says he saw an unidentified blip on a mission?

How about "most astronauts" -- for example, Gordon Cooper or Ed Mitchell or Story Musgrave? Did THEY see UFOs on space missions?

Don't dodge.

of course they saw.......

but that is not the point....... its more about derailing or lets say being skeptical about the whole scenario & putting oneself in a "scientific" research mode in the trail of what 'he said' n 'she said'..... now to sound 'critically thinking'..... we need to begin trailing a path of 'disinfo' as to what was reported, officially..... and what not..... or which interview was reported by whom.... and how.... and why..... which of course are absolutely irrelevant..... then come up with few discrepancies.... attempt character assassination.... then put the reader in a state of 'emotional blackmail'.... to make up their own minds..... duuuuh

the scientific method... or the so called facts.... right from the big bang on.... are all just theories.... all 'belief' based...... whatever.... anyhow

you see the world not the way it is..... but how you are.....

go figure....

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike

Gordon Cooper's account cannot be verified unless the alleged film can be found and corroborated to be the one he describes.

That condition is written so to be undeliverable -- hence. leaving the credibility of the story forever undecided.

[snip]

Story Musgrave's accounts are so weird that one must wonder if he's all there, mentally that is. He has admitted on camera that he found part of the STS-80 video(s), where the "object" rises into view from earth's cloud cover, as - I forget his exact comment but he was impressed with what he saw.

Right, he was shown a video he's never seen before, without warning or time to check out the context, and he honestly admitted it looked weird. It does -- and it takes background information that was withheld from him, to realize the prosaic explanation. When he saw my own detailed investigation of what the scene actually showed, he was delighted and endorsed it.

[snip]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by JimOberg]

I think my "condition" was well worded. Either Cooper saw what he claimed he saw or not. If the film exists and it can be seen by mere mortals and if it describes what he says happened, then it goes without saying he must have been there. But let's move away from that for it's neither here nor there. I admire you and your achievements and if you say you did X-research and that research returned X-results, then there is no reason to doubt your account. I accept it.

As to Story, you are implying that he acted stupidly when he was shown the video. We didn't see how much of the video he was shown. We don't know how he was prepared for what he was about to be shown. Story is smart enough to realize he was watching a video taken from a shuttle and the camera was looking down at earth. You weren't shown onscreen so I take it that you weren't there to come up with your explanation as to the circumstances of the video showing.

If Story accepted your "detailed investigation" that should be the end of the story for Story. It is not the end of the story for those such as myself who don't buy whatever your "detailed investigation" of what the scene really showed, for we are allowed to come to our own conclusion which, in the past, have clashed.

And easy now said:
"...and please explain why he never addressed this question ..." meaning you Jim and the following:

The Shrike said: "Mr. Oberg, this is the Aliens and UFOs forum. How about you tell us members if you accept the reality of UFOS, what you consider good UFO footage, if any. If you don't accept the reality of UFOs, what keeps you from accepting it? Open up, please."

Originally posted by The Shrike
And easy now said:
"...and please explain why he never addressed this question ..." meaning you Jim and the following:

The Shrike said: "Mr. Oberg, this is the Aliens and UFOs forum. How about you tell us members if you accept the reality of UFOS, what you consider good UFO footage, if any. If you don't accept the reality of UFOs, what keeps you from accepting it? Open up, please."

Easynow is complaining as always that because he isn't aware of something, it can't exist, and if he doesn't know something, the world owes him a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

I have posted extensively over a long, long time (see my home page) that I suspect there are phenomena of genuine interest to science, to national security, to law enforcement, to theologians, and to the general public that are responsible for some subset of UFO reports. I have identified a few of them in my research.

I also have expressed no confidence that the current 'UFO culture' is capable of sifting out the valid signals from the overwhelming noise -- and in fact is largely responsible for the domination of 'noise' over 'signal'.

Insofar as some players in the original stimuli events may be delighted NOT to be identified [as I suspect], the bitter irony is that the behavior and judgment of the preponderence of UFO buffs contributes to -- rather than dispels -- the shroud of bafflegarb and well-deserved-ridicule that camouflages those nuggets of genuine events. They assist in the deception rather than combat it. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I've also written specifically of the types of persuasive evidence for ETI contact, for which I rate 'informational evidence' very highly. If the 'Fish Map' of Zeta Reticuli had been authentic, for example, I'd value it extremely convincing. See also my home page for specifics.


And Shrike, by the way, in these parts I prefer to go by 'Jim'.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by JimOberg]

Wow... there's some real subtle ad hominem stuff going on in this thread. It's a masterclass. I'm not impressed, though it may sway some people.

Originally posted by easynow
[1] i certainly don't believe Cooper is lying about everything

[2] and there's a good possibility that he did look at the film of the supposed craft landing.

[1] No argument, and useless comment

[2] To believe that claim you'd have to believe too many other people were lying, both at the time, and decades later when re-interviewed.

Jack Gettys, one of the two primary witnesses
Bittick, the other primary witness, in his story to:
Hubert Davis, the AF engineering office accidentally on 'Blue Book' duty that day (later a space engineer for NASA in Houston)
The Los Angeles newspaper that published a contemporary story of the sighting
The California UFO club newsletter that published a contemporary account of the sighting
James McDonald, the leading pro-UFO investigator of the 1960s, who described the case in detail in his 1968 congressional testimony
Cooper's boss (interviewed in 2003)
Cooper himself in a 1980s interview with OMNI who said he really didn't see anything himself, it was all second-hand
Cooper himself in his taped interview with Ferrando in 1982 when he described seeing the UFO landing in CENTRAL FLORIDA.


The alternative hypothesis is that all these accounts are consistent because they are accurate (except maybe the last one!), and that Cooper's story grew in drama and personal role over the decades as he told and retold it to UFO interviewers and conventions.

Support for alternative hypothesis: Cooper is on record as doing exactly the same type of over-exaggeration with another set of mythical photographs, the ones he claimed he took himself with a hand-held out-the-window camera on Gemini-5 on which you could read auto license plates.

The fundamental reason that claim is preposterous and unworthy of belief, optical systems aside, is that at an orbital speed of 25,000 ft/sec and a shuttler speed of, say 1/400 of a second, any feature smaller than 100 feet across would be blurred into a single pixel. Something 0.02 feet across (numerals on a license plate) would never be resolvable. Do the math.

Approach this backwards. Do you believe it possible that Cooper's claim to have seen THOSE pictures could even remotely be credible? So how is an even more outlandish story, contradicted by every single witness located, at all preferable?

And I'm not even going to ask your opinions of other Cooper claims, such as his story of saving the shuttle program from disaster by relaying a warning of a fatal design flaw, from friendly space aliens, to NASA engineers, who found the flaw and fixed it in time.