Famed NASA Astronaut almost, kind of, (not really) says Extraterrestrials are here!

page: 20
112
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Persoanlly, i find him a darn sight more credible than "It's truth but not as we know it Jim Oberg"


It's a common temptation to quickly believe input that already agrees with what we believe, and we're all subject to that bias. That's why serious investigators know to make themselves check even harder stuff that they recognize as reenforcing pre-existing views.

So when you read (from Sightings TV) that "In April of 1979, Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev lifted off from Star City to dock with the Soviet Solyut 6 space station," a reasonable first step would be to verify checkable facts:

Did Afanasyev blast off in April 1979?

Do cosmonauts lift off from 'Star City'?

Did Afanasyev dock with a space station "Solyut 6" (a typo for "Salyut 6")?

You are able to perform these simple checks, I presume. Please do so and report results, and the implications of those results.

Are any of those statements true?

With those results, you may make an estimate of how much you can rely on the narrator's description of the Russian commentary from Afanasyev. You may feel it is justified to try and determine how much of the original Russian is being accurately translated. Or not -- depends on your calibration from the article's first three alleged facts.


I'm guessing you have no intent to reply to this challenge about how you trust the Afanasyev story more than you trust me, so here are the answers, for the other readers on this thread.

Firemoon evidently trusts that Afanasyev blasted off in April 1979, as the story states. Every other documented source agrees with me, that Afanasyev didn't become a cosmonaut until 1985 and made his first spaceflight in 1991. But Firemoon evidently believes that we are all wrong and his TV program source is right.

Firemoon evidently trusts that Russian cosmonauts lift off from 'Star City' in Russia? Every other documented source agrees with me, that 'Star city' is the name of the cosmonaut training center NE of Moscow, and that all cosmonauts lift off from the Baykonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, about 2000 miles away. But Firemoon evidently believes that we are all wrong and his TV program source is right.

Firemoon evidently trusts that Afanasyev docked with the space station "Salyut 6". Every other documented source agrees with me, that Salyut-6 fell out of orbit years before Afanasyev even became a cosmonaut-trainee, and that all his space dockings were with Mir and the International Space Station. But Firemoon evidently believes that we are all wrong and his TV program source is right.

Firemoon evidently trusts that Afanasyev saw and drew an alien spaceship (while aboard Salyut-6 in 1979), based on a narrator's reading of what is claimed to be Afanasyev's own words. May I suggest that an unbiased observer would want to get a much better source of accurate space information, considering this TV program's track record on the claims it makes that CAN be independently checked -- and debunked. But Firemoon evidently believes that we are all wrong and his TV program source is right.

Source: www.spacefacts.de...

Born 1948, selected as cosmonaut 1985, made three visits to Mir (Soyuz TM-11, Feb 1990; Soyuz TM-18, Aug 1994; Soyuz TM-29, Feb 1999) and one to the ISS (Soyuz TM-33, Oct 2001). All launched from Baykonur.
edit on 5-11-2010 by JimOberg because: link




posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
here we go again anything but answer the question. Jim put up or shut up.

You pick and obviously faked example i have never quoted because it is fake to prove how weak my case is.Classic deception tactic. You handiily can;t find the links on this thread i gave you but then prate endlessly on about something i haven't even asked you about.

i tested you, you failed. I asked you to give me 4 answers on this thread. One was a control because i suspected that would be the only one you actually dealt with without deception tactics. You did exactly what i knew you would. You answered the STS 80 question directly, the others you are still avoiding by posting things i haven't even mentioned and trying to attribute them to me by association. You have been quite clearly exposed on this thread as being utterly biased in your whole view of the topic. You have absolutely no interest in talking about the difficult stuff, but happy to talk stuff, in detail that wasn't asked. No 1 way of spotting someone being deceptive.

I ask you a simple question... Why doesn't NASA release all the encrypted stuff that doesn't include personal stuff with families etc. Your answer?? A long pointless off topic post about how someone faked an encrypted question... Ie you didn't answer a direct question, you then proceeded to give reams of unsolicited detail. That is kids stuff when it comes to spotting deception tactics

Now we are into the stretch it out, try and see if you can completely loose any coherence in the thread tactic. Make it look like to the uneducated you are on topic by keep mentioning the word Russian and Cosmonaut, whilst at the same time actually ignoring the question. Keep asking for clarification of the question, cos that confuses even further and makes it look like the questioner is lacking in their ability to frame a sensible question.

Grade 1 deception tactics for kids... now go back read the questions you were asked answer them or please just quit.

Oh and when i want English lessons from someone who can't spell or pronounce the word Aluminium i will let you know, ok?:



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I plan to incorporate a lot of my explanatory entries on this thread into a FAQ at my home page, so I'd like advice on which explanations made sense and which needed work. I'll also be putting in links to discussions in which the statements are disputed.

How far have we gotten in opening up new insights into possible prosaic explanations for the video and for the stories associated with STS-80?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by inven104u2
. Why would they sate something that were not true? Anyone care to comment?

It appears they were misquoted. If you were to ask them in person almost all of the astronauts would say they do not believe that aliens visit earth.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I have no need for starting a new thread, because if I did you would just do exactly what you do here and that would just take up bandwidth that someone else can use. If you don't show anything here you won't there either.
What makes you think I would go and read what you wrote when you have obviously shown bias against anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology and opinions.I don't care if he talked to god himself no person is perfect and if he said something over the edge that one statement does not make his credibility a problem,but if it does then your credibility is just as bad as his. We can go down this road if you like, but I am not going to play this little game you seem to want to play with people. If I am correct I recall someone calling you out about Mr.McClelland and you seemed to just not reply to this person which I find funny. I have to ask who we are that published this material about Mr.McClelland. Again you have shown bias toward this man so why read something that shows your opinions of him? All what evidence other than what you wrote which doesn't hold up for squat. So there is also evidence that Mr.Musgrave has said he didn't know what e saw and that was in an interview after his STS-80 flight. It is funny that you say you reconstructed the events of that flight and what you did is the final word on this.So when you did this you were in orbit right so that there were no variables in your reconstruction? I guess since you did this everything that other people say are all wrong? Also remember just because you wrote something about a subject that doesn't mean you are the final world about it.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I must ask you if you have any way to back up your claims? Again I see you throwing out opinions and trying to make them sound factual. So russian ufologists have no clue as to what they are doing? Again I ask can you back that claim up with any evidence? If so please post it and if not please quit trying to demean people and acting as though they have no clue what they are talking about. I would go as far to say that there are those who know more than you do about this subject. Please just backup your claims when you make those statements about other people.

That's funny I don't see anything in that post that shows me demanding anything from you. I would suggest you get it right before putting words in my mouth.

Ask =


Demand =


So please I am asking not demanding you to get it right in the future. Thank you.
edit on 5-11-2010 by tsurfer2000h because: added text



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
 



Bro, you need to clean that last post up a bit.


Edit: I meant that in a nice way.
edit on 5-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't know what I'm doing wrong with the text. I'll pass out free glasses in my next edit!



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Members: I know that you can see the various STS-80 clips at youtube which are no longer downloadable unless you have software that allows you to do so. I have a Rapidshare account. Can any of you post a link to source that has the whole STS-80 footage that can be downloaded?

I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.

I don't accept his conclusions.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.

I don't accept his conclusions.


Hi The Shrike, I do not accept some of Jim’s conclusions also and that is no doubt vice versa, but what could be wrong about that?
Is it not so, that if we all would have the same views and opinions, or even agendas so to say, about matters like this, it would not be necessary anymore for having such interesting discussions?

It’s all in the UFO/UAP game so to say.

My two € cents.


edit on 6/11/10 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Have you read Mr. Oberg's Bio? And any of his work? I think he has every reason, and then some, to take the stance he has taken. A man with his background, history, and employment record has a reputation and a career to protect. And I say that not to defend or offend him or anyone else here. He simply cannot afford to state anything other than what he has already stated. Folks with his prominence who have worked hard to carve out for themselves a niche have been canned and/or blackballed for the slightest mistakes in the past several years. The only thing I don't understand is why anyone in his position would bother going 15 rounds on a thread in a forum. It's certainly not a requirement. It almost makes me want to say: "me thinks thou dost protest too much."
But that's just me.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Aside from pop-psychoanalysis, can we agree on some facts while agreeing to disagree on their interpretation?

What I find the most striking fact about this video -- and it's a fact nobody else had even looked for, much less discovered -- was the unique lighting conditions that it shares with other famous space UFO videos. It occurred in the brief interval of post-sunrise observation of the down-sun horizon (performed for the MLE experiment) before passage across the terminator bathed even the shuttle's own shadow zone in reflected light from Earth's surface.

Same conditions for the famous cases on STS-48, 63, 75, and a few others.

The implications of this may be fundamental to understanding the event. But first we have to reach consensus on whether the coincidence is authentic. It is a claim "of fact" subject to confirmation or refutation -- can anyone else try?

The other argument I put forward is that merely looking at a video of such events, divorced from any knowledge of the illumination conditions or other context, is inadequate to form plausible hypotheses for what is seen. Our earthside visual experience is not suited to ambiguous interpreting events like this under conditions so alien to those we evolved under.

That's also been objected to here, but not so far as I've seen on any rational grounds. What is the argument against this point of view?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Aside from pop-psychoanalysis,


I take it that's referring to my outing of your quite obvious deception tactics? Nothing to do with psychoanalysis Jim it's purely behavioural. I'd have thought a scientist like you would know better. You are a scientist aren't you?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Have you read Mr. Oberg's Bio? And any of his work? I think he has every reason, and then some, to take the stance he has taken. A man with his background, history, and employment record has a reputation and a career to protect. And I say that not to defend or offend him or anyone else here. He simply cannot afford to state anything other than what he has already stated. Folks with his prominence who have worked hard to carve out for themselves a niche have been canned and/or blackballed for the slightest mistakes in the past several years. The only thing I don't understand is why anyone in his position would bother going 15 rounds on a thread in a forum. It's certainly not a requirement. It almost makes me want to say: "me thinks thou dost protest too much."
But that's just me.


As I stated in another reply, I have "known" Jim since the early '80s when I became an anomaly hunter/debunker and I acquired his now rare 1982 book "UFO's and Outer Space Mysteries" and then in the early '90s when UFO forums started to grow in number and started with alt. he and I started to spar until a few years ago and we agreed to disagree about his views about NASA space videos from STS-48 on.

When we "collaborated" at Unexplained Mysteries Jim paid me online compliments about my research quality. Because of his video recommendations acquiring/borrowing them directly from NASA I made a discovery in 2000 I called "STS--63 Anomalies" and which is still at rense.com: www.rense.com...

So while Jim's POV is 180 degrees from mine I still respect his position and his knowledge. But like you say, since he doesn't want to admit to the reality of UFOs he runs into a lot of hostility here and everywhere and I also wonder why he keeps coming back to pro-UFO forums. I know he wants to educate but his vast space knowledge is not what most members want so whatever he technically says goes in one member and out another!
edit on 6-11-2010 by The Shrike because: Remove unnecessary text.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Thanks for the background, and the article link. Which I read BTW. One more step in understanding where everybody fits in some of these discussions.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Here's some more background on why I think it's important to observe visual anomalies and properly identify them:


NASA's "Moon Pigeons" Report (1971) www.jamesoberg.com...

Skylab-3 mission (1973) fuel leak threatened mission: “the astronauts reported a stream of sparklers outside their window”. history.nasa.gov...

STS-63 Thruster Leak Nearly Cancels Critical Rendezvous (1995) / www.wordiq.com...
“Three of 44 orbiter Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters -- small firing jets used for on-orbit maneuvering -- sprang leaks prior to rendezvous… After extensive negotiations and technical information exchanges between U.S. and Russian space teams, Russians concluded close approach could be safely achieved.”

Strange Shuttle Sights: Unearthly and Mundane (Space.com, 1999)
www.space.com...

Was ‘mystery object’ a shuttle clue? [Columbia disaster] (MSNBC, 2003): www.msnbc.msn.com...

Anomalous visual phenomenon: www.seedmagazine.com...

Space station crew spots bits of debris (MSNBC, 2004): msnbc.msn.com...

Astronaut Chiao's "UFO fleet" identified (MSNBC, 2005): www.msnbc.msn.com... (also describes solution to Apollo-16 ‘crescent moon’ UFO film)

Why NASA watches out for true UFOs (2008, MSNBC): today.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Hey Jimbo,

Here is an entertaining video with some good 16mm DAC footage of some of those moon pigeons in action. I'm not making any claims about it, just saying you might enjoy it with your coffee:



A still frame from the video, in which appears to be depicting a fast-moving moon pigeon casting a shadow on the lunar surface :



Bigger version from the video file:

img43.imageshack.us...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Members: I know that you can see the various STS-80 clips at youtube which are no longer downloadable unless you have software that allows you to do so. I have a Rapidshare account. Can any of you post a link to source that has the whole STS-80 footage that can be downloaded?

I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.

I don't accept his conclusions.


You don't accept his conclusions because they contradict the idea that these are alien spacecraft, which is what you want to believe.














edit on 7-11-2010 by Beast Of Gevaudan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


nothing to see there.... it has all been clarified in the fact sheet.... please move on....







posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan
You don't accept his conclusions because they contradict the idea that these are alien spacecraft, which is what you want to believe.


and how did you arrive at that conclusion?



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why NASA watches out for true UFOs (2008, MSNBC): today.msnbc.msn.com...


and what exactly are true ufos? and which ones are the false ones?



nasa's general stances re ufos, as quoted on the previous page.... totally paints a different picture.... moreover, all the other stuff which you have pointed out.... are those your personal expert opinions? or were they endorsed by nasa?






new topics
top topics
 
112
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant