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.

 

10 Astronauts that beleive in the Extraterrestrial presence!

page: 5
101
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by christianpatrick

Originally posted by ChemBreather

And More... This is realy a stupid thing to talk about since 99% of the world thinks the Earth revolves around the Sun ....

Am I understanding correctly, you don't believe that?


It's not 99%, it's only about 80% in the USA and globally the percentage is most likely lower due to lower education levels in some less developed nations.


news.softpedia.com...

20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth.

According to a 1999 Gallup Poll, only 6% of Americans think the moon landing was hoaxed. So there are far more Americans who believe the sun revolves around the Earth, than think the moon landing was hoaxed. Shocking, but true.

columbianewsservice.com...


According to a 2008 Roper Poll, 55 percent of all Americans believe that there is life on other planets, and 72 percent of them believe that it is more intelligent than humans. In another Roper poll in 2002, 48 percent believed aliens had visited Earth at some point.


I suspect the percentage of Astronauts believing in life on other planets is similar to the general population, like the 55% number, or perhaps higher. But I suspect the percentage of astronauts believing aliens have visited Earth at some point is far lower than 48%, though probably not zero. I wasn't able to find any percentage figures on the astronaut beliefs, so post 'em if you got 'em.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa

Originally posted by expat2368
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


Come on now, gimme a break.

10 or more highly trained astronauts say they saw evidence of ET ships while they were in space and you have the kahunas to make comments like that about them?

I am curious who died and left you to say the final word about anything those people who risked their lives in space exploration said or did?

I will never understand as long as I live why this particular subject brings out people who totally refuse to believe even when faced with testimony from sources like the astronauts. Interesting thing is those are the very people that when ET finally lands will go bonkers, jump out of windows and off bridges. The rest of us will just say "about time" and go on about our lives.


If you go to any retirement home you will hear all kinds of stories. That doesnt make them true. one time I had a guy tell me that the government took his children and put them on the moon. These rantings by the elderly dont make them true, I think its a shame that other people are capitalizing on the mutterings of these older people who should be left alone and forgotten about instead of exploited.


This is a stupid statement! So, you think all old people have lost their marbles, so we can't believe anything they say. That is so ignorant and arragont
Its people like you that makes people think twice about coming forward about seeing something strange
its sad that some people are like this. Im not saying they are telling the truth, but i think if anything, they are just lying, but to bring in their age, thats stupid!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....

You say.....



but to bring in their age, thats stupid


Unfortunately, age can bring with it some problems, so it's not a completely stupid point to make.

However, it should be approached on a specific case by case basis as commentary is analysed.....not as a broad term of derision.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....

You say.....



but to bring in their age, thats stupid


Unfortunately, age can bring with it some problems, so it's not a completely stupid point to make.

However, it should be approached on a specific case by case basis as commentary is analysed.....not as a broad term of derision.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


It is a very stupid statement! You should not stick up for people like this, really! It brings down the respect for skeptics a notch or two
Of course you will get some old people who may suffer from something that warps their memory, but normally they are diagnosed with something.

Its really sad because everyone respects a person like buzz, but what do you think would happen if he turned around tomorrow and said "i saw a huge silver dics shapped object in space" He would be ridiculed, and we will stat hearing the same old people say he is losing his mind, age catching up with him etc.

So why the hell should they come forward, would you?

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jay-morris]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....

I agree strongly with you that it is grossly insulting & inaccurate to suggest that all old people are crazy.

I said the issue must be considered on a case by case basis, as part of analysing who is saying what & why they are saying it.

I didn't say that all old people are "crazy".

Seeing that you mentioned Buzz.....I don't think Buzz is crazy or anything like that. I think Buzz is mischevious.....in a positive way


To be blunt.....

As tragic & as sad as it is, astronauts can suffer from dementia as they get older, just like everybody else.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....

I agree strongly with you that it is grossly insulting & inaccurate to suggest that all old people are crazy.

I said the issue must be considered on a case by case basis, as part of analysing who is saying what & why they are saying it.

I didn't say that all old people are "crazy".

Seeing that you mentioned Buzz.....I don't think Buzz is crazy or anything like that. I think Buzz is mischevious.....in a positive way


To be blunt.....

As tragic & as sad as it is, astronauts can suffer from dementia as they get older, just like everybody else.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Yes, but as respected as buzz is, what do you think would happen if he cam out tomorrow and said he did see a large disc shapped ufo while in space"?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I cannot believe the debate still goes on about the E.T presence i mean cmon seti says they aint found nothing the gov keeps their mouths shut the astronauts say stuff! Plain & simple their on the god damn moon /mars etc etc life is everywhere VERY VERY close to home if people cannot understand in this day and age wots really going on i do show sympathy the likes of Mr Hawking making a statement as he did is another cover to keep u confused look beyond the lies! If any of us could peek at the moon at close range we'd be straight back here to report f@ck someones on the moon!!!! GAME OVER



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



Yes, but as respected as buzz is, what do you think would happen if he cam out tomorrow and said he did see a large disc shapped ufo while in space"?


If he truly meant it, I think it would cause a hell of a fuss.

It could be the sort of thing that would open up proper discussion of this topic on a much broader front.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by saucerprobe
I cannot believe the debate still goes on about the E.T presence i mean cmon seti says they aint found nothing the gov keeps their mouths shut the astronauts say stuff! Plain & simple their on the god damn moon /mars etc etc life is everywhere VERY VERY close to home if people cannot understand in this day and age wots really going on i do show sympathy the likes of Mr Hawking making a statement as he did is another cover to keep u confused look beyond the lies! If any of us could peek at the moon at close range we'd be straight back here to report f@ck someones on the moon!!!! GAME OVER


It does not matter what you think. It all comes down to evidence. If you want the world to know that ET is real, then evidence is the only thing to do that. Evidence that cant be argued with, thats what we need, and we are still waiting for it. While witnesess are interesting, thats not evidence im afraid. There are plenty of strange stuff in our skies that are unexplained, and they could be ET. But we need 100% evidence for that.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



Yes, but as respected as buzz is, what do you think would happen if he cam out tomorrow and said he did see a large disc shapped ufo while in space"?


If he truly meant it, I think it would cause a hell of a fuss.

It could be the sort of thing that would open up proper discussion of this topic on a much broader front.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


It will cause a bit of a fuss, like the others, but i am almost certain he will be ridiculed



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



It will cause a bit of a fuss, like the others, but i am almost certain he will be ridiculed



I agree.....he certainly would be ridiculed by many.

But I reckon he's so tough & he'd have so much positive support, I don't think he'd give a dam about the "ridiculers"!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Last night around 3.00 am to 4.00 am local time here Bergen ,Norway, i saw several very small star like objects jumping around the sky. First i thought it was me getting too tired and that it was a visual deffect because of the short time with dark night up here. But then a strong light that was stronger in light that betelgeuse popped out of nowhere, got stronger light and size and moved slowly in a linear way while slowly dimming away.

I could follow it for 3 seconds. That was 3.30 south west at the sky.

I think what i saw was the point of the object coming in to our universe where there must be a point where the "stealth" tech can't be used, hence seing the light and then dissolving as it is adjusted to this universe. Just writing this sounds crazy since its way out there. But i saw it..



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



It will cause a bit of a fuss, like the others, but i am almost certain he will be ridiculed



I agree.....he certainly would be ridiculed by many.

But I reckon he's so tough & he'd have so much positive support, I don't think he'd give a dam about the "ridiculers"!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


What do you think buzz meant when he was talking about the Monolith on Mars Moon Phobos? This has got alot of the believers excited. Has buzz ever explained what he meant by that statement, and put the record straight?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



What do you think buzz meant when he was talking about the Monolith on Mars Moon Phobos? This has got alot of the believers excited. Has buzz ever explained what he meant by that statement, and put the record straight?


Buzz was conjecturing & exploring the idea of how "wonderous & amazing" it would be for the "human condition" if we actually found a "monolith".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



What do you think buzz meant when he was talking about the Monolith on Mars Moon Phobos? This has got alot of the believers excited. Has buzz ever explained what he meant by that statement, and put the record straight?


Buzz was conjecturing & exploring the idea of how "wonderous & amazing" it would be for the "human condition" if we actually found a "monolith".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Ok, the only thing i have seen is him saying there is a Monolith on the moon of mars.

click here



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



Ok, the only thing i have seen is him saying there is a Monolith on the moon of mars.
click here



Yup.....it's what I said.

You need to hear all that he said to put it in context.

I'll see if I can find a video or transcript for you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
This is really a mind provoking thread. S & F !


As I'm not really all the way on this topic I would love some comments on the thread.

Like:
As for the skeptics. Please... a little more subtitle never heard anyone. Make love not war.
We are supposed to enjoy our time here.

These astronauts held the position of being the most reliable source around, Jim actually helped me to look a bit further.

The position now go's to my grandparents. Who I consider wise people.

I don't actually know what frightens me more. Aliens who apparently must remain a secret ?
Or the need to lie about it.

The last option bothers me the most. I'd love the alien thing to be true but the opposite is just as likely. It freaks me out a bit.

PS.
Anyone who is so disrespectful to offend old people cause they are... well older


My personal opinion would be to show that behavior can not be tolerated.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Jay-morris.....



Ok, the only thing i have seen is him saying there is a Monolith on the moon of mars.
click here



Yup.....it's what I said.

You need to hear all that he said to put it in context.

I'll see if I can find a video or transcript for you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I will try and get it myself, but if you find it before me, that will be great!
I know myself that it most prob is nothing, but the way he worded it, he said there is a Monolith on the moon. But, the first thing i thought was not an artificial structure, but something natural that looked a bit odd.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
In view of some questions that have arisen.....

Here are 2 links regarding Oberg:

www.jamesoberg.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

________________________________________

Here is Oberg’s article regarding Cooper’s Area 51 “sighting”:



Area 51 and Gordon Cooper's 'Confiscated Camera'


By Jim Oberg
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 11:34 am ET
29 September 2000

Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper, in his new book Leap of Faith, presents a tale of government cover-ups related to spy cameras, to Area 51, and to similar subjects top-secret subjects, based on his own personal experiences on a NASA space mission. As a certified "American hero," his credibility with the public is impeccable.

But several space veterans who SPACE.com consulted about one of Cooper's spaceflight stories had very different versions of the original events. And some of them showed me hard evidence to back up their skepticism.

According to Cooper, in 1965 he carried a super-secret spy camera aboard Gemini-5 and accidentally got some shots of Area 51 in Nevada. Consequently, the camera and its film were confiscated by the Pentagon, never to be seen again. He was personally ordered by President Johnson not to divulge the film's contents.

"One special mounted camera we carried had a huge telephoto lens," he wrote. "We were asked to shoot three specific targets from our spacecraft's window because the photo experts wanted to be able to measure the resolution of the pictures.

"That's exactly what we did: Over Cuba, we took pictures of an airfield. Over the Pacific Ocean, we took pictures of ships at sea. Over a big U.S. city, we took pictures of cars in parking lots. Beyond that, we were encouraged to shoot away at other airfields, cities, and anything else we wanted along the way."

In an exclusive interview with SPACE.com, NASA's former chief photo analyst, Richard Underwood, confirmed the existence of the experiment but remembered details about it in a very different way than Cooper did.
Now retired in Nassau Bay, Texas, Underwood recalled the camera was a 35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens. That is a "cataoptic system" (folded optics), with a foot-long barrel giving "several thousand" mm's of focal length (Cooper recalls it was 1250mm). Mounted on the spacecraft window, it was shot at 1/50th of a second at various ground targets passing directly below the spacecraft.

"It was the same camera that Ed White took outside with him on his space walk in June," Underwood recalled. "We just slapped a big lens assembly on the front end."

Considering the optical characteristics of the camera, Underwood calculated that the theoretical maximum resolution -- the smallest object discernable in photographs -- could be as small as a hundred feet or so. That was what the Pentagon was hoping for.

Cooper, however, distinctly remembers differently about the image quality. "After splashdown," he wrote, "and while Pete and I were still aboard the recovery vessel, the exposed film from that mounted camera was rushed to a darkroom and developed. I was shown a few pictures -- including some unbelievable close-ups of car license plates."

Absolutely impossible, retired NASA space photography experts have told SPACE.com. "We never unloaded or developed space film on recovery ships," Gene Edmonds told SPACE.com from his home in LaPorte, Texas. "We always kept it safe for development in our own specialized labs back in Houston."

Nor, say space reconnaissance experts, would license plates be readable from a handheld camera in space -- or any other satellite in the 1960s. Writing recently in the Washington Post, Dr. Dwayne A. Day, a civilian specialist in space reconnaissance, had criticized Hollywood movies for exactly this kind of exaggeration.

"The best resolution of an American spy satellite, achieved by an older series no longer in use, was reputed to be about 2 1/2 inches," Day wrote. "This means that the smallest visible object would be the size of a baseball, not the thin letters and numbers on a license plate." Day also told SPACE.com that this vehicle didn't show up until many years after Gemini-5.

According to Day and other experts space.com talked with, Cooper's claim violates the laws of optics. "How could he even aim it?" one asked derisively. "You can't visually make out parking lots from orbit".
Nevertheless, NASA's Dick Underwood does recall that the 1965 Pentagon experiment's film was indeed grabbed while the crew was still on the recovery carrier. "Cooper was really upset," he added with a grin, confirming Cooper's account. "I was livid", Cooper had written, "but there was nothing I could do."

But Underwood and his associates remember a lot more about what became of the film than Cooper does. That is not surprising since it was their specialization to handle space photographs. As far as Cooper ever knew, the images had totally vanished, and that's the way he's been telling the story for years.

Not so, retorts Underwood. NASA was sent a set of prints from the roll after the Pentagon developed it and studied it. "Nothing too exciting showed up," he recalled.

Those pictures wound up filed right along with the other NASA-sponsored shots from Gemini-5, Underwood continued. "The NASA shots were all on 70-mm Hasselblads," he explained, "and the 35-mm shots in the archives came from the Pentagon experiment."

As Underwood recalls, more than a decade later, when astronaut Tom Stafford returned to military duty as a brigadier general and was assigned to direct space planning at the Pentagon, as a favor to Underwood he inquired after the original negatives. They were nowhere to be found. "He was told they must have been destroyed", reported Underwood.
Not at all, recalls another retired NASA photo expert. "They sent back the original negatives later when they realized they weren't very good," Tom Brahm told SPACE.com. "When I retired, they were still somewhere in the archives in Houston."

And that's exactly where I found these photos when I visited the photographic archives in Building 424 at the Johnson Space Center. Archive director Mary Wilkerson had collected the documentation and transparencies for my inspection.

Two rolls of 55 shots each, and 28 more from a third roll, had been catalogued in the NASA photo system on September 23, 1965, just a month after the flight, according to archivist David Sharron. The original documentation indicated the shots had never been classified, and from examining them it was easy to see why.

Each shot covered an area several miles on a side, with sharpness a bit better than a typical television screen. That's equivalent to a ground resolution of perhaps 50-100 feet, exactly what Underwood had estimated.
The views showed precisely what Cooper recalled observing: airfields, islands, even a large US city (Dallas, it turned out). The pictures of airfields showed runways, but aircraft and buildings couldn't be made out. On the city shot, it was impossible to see small letters, or even license plates, or even cars, or even parking lots at all. A crisscross pattern of roads and city blocks could be made out, but nothing smaller.

The catalog for the NASA archives described one other problem. There was little if any crew documentation of where the photos were taken. "The astronaut log is sketchy and difficult to use for any data of value," it said.
Dr. Day had also heard of this problem when he had researched the history of US spy satellites.

"What happened with Gemini was that the astronauts were sloppy in recording where they took their shots," he explained. "The guys at the National Photographic Interpretation Center determined that any manned reconnaissance system would still require a computer to keep track of where the camera was pointing and when it was shooting. People naturally started to ask 'If we have a computer taking the photos anyway, why do we need the guys?'"

For a number of similar reasons, the Pentagon lost interest in a manned military space station (the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, or MOL), and cancelled the program a few years later. The poor photography on Gemini-5 wasn't the main cause, Day continued, "but it was one of the early nails in the MOL coffin."

Cooper, meanwhile, never learned the photographs had been returned to NASA by a disappointed Pentagon. He later told a story about how somebody had explained the confiscation to him.

"Many years later," he wrote in his book, "at a 1997 NASA reunion at Cape Canaveral, a gray-haired man came up to me and asked if I remembered him." The man identified himself as the one who confiscated his film, and then asked, "Did anyone ever tell you why the film was confiscated?"

Cooper wrote that the man told him, "You had the most magnificent pictures of Area 51". Cooper was thrilled: "As for Area 51, I hope the Air Force is conducting experiments with flights with highly unusual aircraft -- even saucers with revolutionary propulsion systems," he wrote. "And the first person to come home with pictures of the mysterious Area 51? An astronaut from space."

Sadly, this may be yet another tale that doesn't stand up. It turns out, on Gemini-5 Cooper never flew over Area 51 at all. The spacecraft orbit always passed far to the south. It was physically impossible for him to have taken any near-vertical snapshots of the super-secret test range.
Even a simple check of his trajectory shows this. The Gemini's orbital inclination was 33 degrees, and the southernmost regions of "Area 51" are at 37 degrees north. That's a horizontal distance of about 300 miles, from an altitude of about at most 150 miles.

See next post.....


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join