FireMoon's imagination has been impressive as he fantasizes the workings inside my head (all totally bogus 'explanations', by the way) so as to persuade himself that none of my investigations are worthy of being read or rebutted, just safely ignored.

The Russian angle was particularly priceless, since Russia saw the greatest influence of Soviet-era space and missile activity sparking UFO panics, a misidentification that the security apparatchiks seemed entirely pleased with.

The delicious irony is that UFO buffs such as FireMoon who proclaim their devotion to demolishing government coverups wind up as the last loyal defenders of the Soviet government coverups of some of their greatest space and missile secrets -- loyal to the coverups long after the regime that encouraged them is, mercifully, on the ash heap of history.

But not the Soviet-era phony 'UFOs' -- they keep flying on thanks to the mindset of most modern imagination-driven ufologists.

Originally posted by JimOberg
FireMoon's imagination has been impressive as he fantasizes the workings inside my head (all totally bogus 'explanations', by the way) so as to persuade himself that none of my investigations are worthy of being read or rebutted, just safely ignored.

The Russian angle was particularly priceless, since Russia saw the greatest influence of Soviet-era space and missile activity sparking UFO panics, a misidentification that the security apparatchiks seemed entirely pleased with.

The delicious irony is that UFO buffs such as FireMoon who proclaim their devotion to demolishing government coverups wind up as the last loyal defenders of the Soviet government coverups of some of their greatest space and missile secrets -- loyal to the coverups long after the regime that encouraged them is, mercifully, on the ash heap of history.

But not the Soviet-era phony 'UFOs' -- they keep flying on thanks to the mindset of most modern imagination-driven ufologists.

ah .... so you have soviet top secret clearance too? Hmmmm ... you must get around.

firemoon, you deserve the last word!

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
Today I received the "research" version of THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS which consists of 4 DVDs and which include 90 minutes of footage. That's 1 hour more footage than the original release. What do you think that extra hour shows? I'll skip the first 3 DVDs and study the footage first. Trust me, I'll be able to mention more interesting footage where your explanations will get lost in the debris (keeping fingers +sed!).

I look forward to the new thread.

But check out my expectations -- the new material STILL will not provide the date/time of the original videos so they can be independently corroborated and the context and illumination conditions determined. Can't have that, too much of a risk of a prosaic explanation, so you gotta withhold the data critical for further research -- while bragging that skeptics can offer no alternate explanations. At least, that's been the pattern so far and it's proven so very acceptable to the target audience.

Can you share a data point: how much did the DVDs cost you?

The date/time of the original videos may not be included but, frankly, you could consider that esoteric info which the average person has no need for. I say, negatively if you will, because I'm going to be possibly looking at objects that will not fall into the ice particle/debris category since there is no interest in them. The interest is in the distant (farther than the nearby periphery of the shuttles) objects. But I'm getting ahead of the actual contents.

As to your request:
Item Subtotal : $40.64
Shipping & Handling : $2.98
Total : $43.62
Paid by Visa: $18.62
Paid by Gift Certificate : $25.00

Linda, my wife, enjoys doing Internet surveys and she receives Gift Certificates usable at Amazon.com. So it really cost me $18.62 out of my pocket. A sealed set. On eBay they run from $36 to $60 plus s&h new and used.

Originally posted by franspeakfree




Certain members on this site do have agendas and that must be taken in to account.

edit on 29-10-2010 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)

never has this sentence been more relevant than in this thread,
The more i read the more it fit's (just going through the thread now)

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
Today I received the "research" version of THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS which consists of 4 DVDs and which include 90 minutes of footage. That's 1 hour more footage than the original release. What do you think that extra hour shows? I'll skip the first 3 DVDs and study the footage first. Trust me, I'll be able to mention more interesting footage where your explanations will get lost in the debris (keeping fingers +sed!).

I look forward to the new thread.
(snip)

I viewed the raw footage and I'm afraid there will be no new thread. The footage is not worth commenting on. It's the same footage as seen in the original release of THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS: THE SMOKING GUN. The raw footage on that was a 1/2 hour long and it left one longing for more. Well, this new DVD does not deliver. What you see is most of the same footage but longer versions so that when one see the ISS or MIR (I forgot already!) and the white objects going all over the place around it, over it, under it accross it, it just keeps going on and on. It gets boring real fast.

The white object I mentioned that is tracked for a long time, is now longer. I don't know what the othe 3 DVDs include and I'll look at them another time.

What I will include in a new thread is a debunking of the famous angling UFOs. They don't really angle.

Originally posted by stealthyaroura

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Certain members on this site do have agendas and that must be taken in to account.

edit on 29-10-2010 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)

never has this sentence been more relevant than in this thread,
The more i read the more it fit's (just going through the thread now)

When you cannot beat someone in the arena of ideas, change the subject. If they are saying something you don't want to hear, and more importantly don't want others to hear, make accusations, try to shut them down and silence them, or at least convince other people not to listen.

Those who make claims about "agendas" and "disinfo agents" know exactly what they are doing.

First post -- just read the entire thread.

Before I eat blueberries I place them in a strainer and rinse them with water.

No blueberries make it through the strainer, and I get to eat them all

Jim can predict with an accuracy approaching 100% that no videos/photos/recordings/etc. released by NASA will lead to anything relevant. Clearly not involved in any disinformation, but like Biff in Back to the Future II, he is playing an ego game and betting with knowledge of the end result.

My two kopeks.

How does this all relate to the question at the top of the thread -- the claims of a UFO sighted and videotaped on STS-80 with allegations of directly-quoted eyewitness testimony?

Originally posted by JimOberg
How does this all relate to the question at the top of the thread -- the claims of a UFO sighted and videotaped on STS-80 with allegations of directly-quoted eyewitness testimony?

Not t nitpick but the question at the top of the thread (thread title!) is really meaningless because it doesn't matter what astronaut says what about "Extraterrestrials". Making a positive comment about Ets doesn't come from first-hand experience so it's simply speculation/assumption. What one sees on the video is open to speculation and doesn't qualify any one person, astronaut or not, to make conclusive statements that logic dictates are just so much hooey.

Since we are all allowed our opinion base on all seeing the same video, and the most popular opinion is that what is seen in the video qualifies for UAO status, then that's where it has to be left. Something was video'ed that is definitely not associated with the shuttle as far as ice particles, debris, etc. No one knows what it was and no one's word regarding same is authoritative.

Besides, we all know that some astronauts seem to have lost it when they make unsubstantiated comments about something they know anything about and being an astronaut only gives them the right to speak authoritatively about astronautics. Everything else is personal opinion and sometimes that opinion sounds as if a crackpot made it (Mitchell!).

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg
How does this all relate to the question at the top of the thread -- the claims of a UFO sighted and videotaped on STS-80 with allegations of directly-quoted eyewitness testimony?

Not t nitpick but the question at the top of the thread (thread title!) is really meaningless because it doesn't matter what astronaut says what about "Extraterrestrials". Making a positive comment about Ets doesn't come from first-hand experience so it's simply speculation/assumption. What one sees on the video is open to speculation and doesn't qualify any one person, astronaut or not, to make conclusive statements that logic dictates are just so much hooey.

Since we are all allowed our opinion base on all seeing the same video, and the most popular opinion is that what is seen in the video qualifies for UAO status, then that's where it has to be left. Something was video'ed that is definitely not associated with the shuttle as far as ice particles, debris, etc. No one knows what it was and no one's word regarding same is authoritative.

Besides, we all know that some astronauts seem to have lost it when they make unsubstantiated comments about something they know anything about and being an astronaut only gives them the right to speak authoritatively about astronautics. Everything else is personal opinion and sometimes that opinion sounds as if a crackpot made it (Mitchell!).

Shrike, you are competing maybe to be the poster child of the reality-resistent UFO eager-believer?

When you assert that objective reality doesn't matter, it's only what each person sincerely, deeply, in their soul, hold their breaths until they turn blue, tell everybody they meet the way they want to universe to be -- that makes a reality? And that nothing that anybody else ever discovers new about an incicent has any bearing on the pure, immutable, adamantine confidence that anyone has about any way they want to imagine things are -- none of it matters?

Suit yourself. I sure hope for your family's sake that you apply more reality-based criteria to decisions you make about medical care, hygiene practices, personal finances, and traffic safety methods. Give me a 'heads up' if we're ever sharing a highway, will yuh?

Originally posted by JimOberg
(snip)
Shrike, you are competing maybe to be the poster child of the reality-resistent UFO eager-believer?

When you assert that objective reality doesn't matter, it's only what each person sincerely, deeply, in their soul, hold their breaths until they turn blue, tell everybody they meet the way they want to universe to be -- that makes a reality? And that nothing that anybody else ever discovers new about an incicent has any bearing on the pure, immutable, adamantine confidence that anyone has about any way they want to imagine things are -- none of it matters?

Suit yourself. I sure hope for your family's sake that you apply more reality-based criteria to decisions you make about medical care, hygiene practices, personal finances, and traffic safety methods. Give me a 'heads up' if we're ever sharing a highway, will yuh?

Whadda ya mean? Who's my competition? No one is as good as me and the title is mine!

It seems to me that from day one back in the '90s on alt.ufo this or that, you were "asserting" that objective reality didn't matter because those of us who were disagreeing with your analysis of the videos under discussion weren't reacting to reality. Reality being, in your objective reality, ice crystals, space debris, water dumps, shuttle engine firings, etc. Our objective reality said that the objects we were discussing were in the distance and, therefore, could not be what you were claiming.

Then some astronauts were quoted and they sounded similar to you but not because they were quoting their objective reality, they were quoting NASA rhetoric and possibly ordered to say the things they did. Additionally, one or two "outlaw" astronauts started to spout their beliefs which had nothing to do with their objective reality.

We (UFO enthusiasts/witnesses have always discussed what we see in the videos and we discuss the public statements made by astronauts. However, I don't accept anything said by an astronaut that doesn't deal with past experience. Their beliefs are their own but people should know better than to accept questionable comments just because the person making them held a position that few attain. They are not authorities in everything and I doubt 100% that any of them has information about extraterrestrials which this thread is discussing.

Let's see, I've rarely made a bad decision about medical care so I'm so healthy that my doctor doesn't even want to see me for my annual checkup. My hygiene practices have also kept me healthy and I don't smell. My personal finances are very also very healthy. And since I stopped driving in 1987 when I returned to NYC, I only deal with traffic when I cross the street. But you can be that if we ever share a highway at night, I'll dim my headlights and hope we're not on the same lane coming towards each other!

BTW, I watched the 4 DVDs of THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS - SPECIAL EDITION and when Martyn Stubbs was being interviewed at Leeds, he doesn't speak well of you and I think it's Graham Birdsall that also chimes in. I didn't keep a record of what was said or where it was said. I've put the DVDs up for sale on eBay.

This man that some see fit to slander is my uncle Clark. My dad would roll in his grave if he were to know people that do not know him could speak of him poorly. One of the thrills of my childhood was travelling down to Cape Canaveral and having Uncle Clark give us a priviledged behind the scenes tour. Something within him changed dramatically when he began to receive threats from his superiors for simply sharing what he saw. A country and a career that he loved had suddenly turned on him. Please do not judge this man who is a total stranger to you.