No "greys" for astronaut Gordon Cooper!

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 easynow
here is a different cosmonaut ufo sighting...

Russian Cosmonaut sees UFO while in orbit aboard Salyut-6 Space Station

www.ufoevidence.org...

Interesting story, can you point me to any investigation of this report?

Or is it 'we-must-NOT-investigate-space-reports-for-danger-of-solving-propagandistically-useful-stories'??

No context. No corroboration. No independent verification.

This is a scientific method?

reply to post by JimOberg

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.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

I don't know what Jim Oberg said that this video presentation may support or not, but I would never use this guy in the video for anything to support MY opinion. He is one of the worst UFO "researchers" and his books are not worth recommending. It's because of people like him that UFOlogy has a black eye, especially the Roswell b.s.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

Jim Oberg is not this kind of Debunker, Jim Oberg knows the truth about UFO or at least a part of it.

reply to post by The Shrike


so i take it you don't like Kevin Randal ?...lol

that's ok i understand because i don't agree with his opinion of Roswell but he has done some great investigative work on some cases like the Nevada UFO Crash so i think your throwing out the baby with the bath water.

reply to post by Ray Amuro


ohhhh yes he is.

he knows how to disguise that technique of debunking better than most and obviously has you fooled. and how does somebody know the truth about ufo's if they have never even seen one ?

and please explain why he never addressed this question ..

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

need i say more ? i can if need be

[edit on 8-11-2009 by easynow]

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]

reply to post by deanorw

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.

just out of curiosity , what evidence would convince you and would that same evidence convince the other 7 billion people on this planet ?

some discussion about that here

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 easynow

just out of curiosity , what evidence would convince you and would that same evidence convince the other 7 billion people on this planet ?

some discussion about that here

That is actually a tough question. Other than ET tapping me on the shoulder and saying "Hi There" or landing on the whitehouse lawn I'll always be somewhat skeptical.

I just don't follow what others tell me what is real or not. There is really no evidence out there that would convince me that they do not exist as that would be impossible. To convince me that they are real would probably take a mass exposure via the mainstream media the underground media. I really will not know until it presents itself I guess.

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.

There is no question over the existence of the film, the question is, did Cooper ever actually see it -- or just hear rumors about it and later inserted himself into the story -- and does the film show what Cooper says it shows, or what the on-the-scene witnesses (Gettys and Bittick) said they saw with their own eyes.

Those questions can be addressed. See Gettys own written recollection (he was specific -- Cooper had nothing to do with the event). See the Bluebook file of the incident, interview the officer who conducted the intitial eyewitness interviews, and the film in the file. See contemporary newspaper accounts. See McDonald's detailed account of the case in his 1969 [edit to 1968, sorry!] Congressional testimony. Talk with Cooper's co-workers and supervisor at Edwards at that time. I did all that 25 years ago, and have reported on the results. All -- zero evidence he was involved. Zero evidence of a 'landing'

Then, examine other stories from Cooper where he described seeing other films that couldn't possibly exist (he claimed he took shots from Gemini-5 with a hand-held 35-mm camera and he swore the developed photos showed readable auto license plates), and where he embellished spaceflight stories for dramatic effect. The summation of that genuine investigation of all these sources suggests that Cooper was prone to dramatize stories to thrill his audiences and to insert himself into scenes he's only heard about from associates -- just about, oh, maybe 95% of all the other jet jocks in the country.

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.

So who are any of these astronauts ("many", "most", or maybe "zero"?) who claim to have seen UFOs in space? Two credible stories -- that's what I was asking. Stories that can be investigated as to circumstance and context -- that's why Russian stories aren't of any use because the information needed to formulate prosaic theories is unavailable.

Re STS-75, the topic of another active thread, www.abovetopsecret.com...
we do have the testimony of two of the crew, off-the-record testimony of two others, and the statement of the flight director. That's pretty good evidence.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by JimOberg]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by JimOberg]

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]

reply to post by JimOberg


haha good spin job Jim , there's hope for you yet


only one thing i want to "complain" about is this...

They assist in the deception

i think your guilty of this as well since you didn't bother to tell anyone that Musgrave was not operating the camera nor was he looking out the window when the objects in those videos were caught on camera. you also neglected to tell everyone that when Musgrave looked at the video he said he didn't know what the objects are.

in my opinion leaving out those details could be seen as deceptive tactics by some people so why did you do it ?

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

haha good spin job Jim , there's hope for you yet

only one thing i want to "complain"

about is this...

They assist in the deception

i think your guilty of this as well since you didn't bother to tell anyone that Musgrave was not operating the camera nor was he looking out the window when the objects in those videos were caught on camera. you also neglected to tell everyone that when Musgrave looked at the video he said he didn't know what the objects are.

in my opinion leaving out those details could be seen as deceptive tactics by some people so why did you do it ?

Under those conditions, why SHOULD Musgrave have been expected to know what he was seeing on the video? No excuses -- the show's producers wanted an ambush and a good 'sound bite' they could twist to fit their agenda in fooling their target audience (not a difficult challenge, examples abound).

I've always suspected that the plethora of such shows on TV was easy to understand -- advertisers love to invest their ad budgets in shows guaranteed to attract viewers who will easily believe anything.

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.

reply to post by deanorw


thanks for your honest answer and i agree it's a tough question and one of the reasons i started that thread. i thought it would be a good idea to discuss that since so many people are demanding 'proof'.




reply to post by JimOberg


just for the record...

as expected, you didn't answer the question


i certainly don't believe Cooper is lying about everything and there's a good possibility that he did look at the film of the supposed craft landing.





[edit on 9-11-2009 by easynow]

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.