reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
what i really don't understand on this thread and many similar ones is that people will quite easily take some random nobody's word that these claims
are true or that a misquoted, misrepresented out of context astronauts statement is true proof of alien/ufo's yet wont listen to mr oberg who is
probably one of the most qualified people on this planet to research these cases and give us the truth!!!. thanks rich
OBERG SEES STS-37 UFO
by Dan Pinchas
Where does Mr. Oberg fit into this? Remember that the STS-37 UFO comes into view as the shuttle is on the daylight side of the earth. Well,
believe it or not, Mr. Oberg, while in the Mission Control Center, had watched that UFO make its appearance yet another time, when the shuttle was on
the night side of the earth. In 1992, Mr. Oberg and I exchanged snail mail and in one of his snail mails dated July 14, 1992 he states: "Last but not
least is a page from my personal log written during the STS-37 mission last April, when I was in the Mission Control Center for the deploy of the GRO
science satellite. While watching a long stretch of NIGHTSIDE video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right. Although I was
sure there was a rational explanation, it was an impressive apparition. I personally never thought it was an alien spacecraft but you are welcome to
follow up on it. And I'm presuming you have been taping the NASA Select video since STS-48." I put the above article in the newsgroup
alt.paranet.ufo, and it wasn't long before Mr. Oberg replied. It was apparent that he was beginning to back pedal and now said that what he saw on the
big screen at Mission Control was a lighted city passing by the screen. Well, that explanation doesn't wash! During a typical shuttle, Mr. Oberg sees
hundreds of lights from cities as they slowly appear to move across the screen due to the rotation of the Earth and the orbiting of the shuttle,
nothing out of the ordinary, just routine. But he obviously observed something that startled him, for he used the words, "...While watching a long
stretch of nightside video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right"..."it was an impressive apparition."
So sue somebody for saying it.
Let's see what your case is in favor of "no."
The pro UFO - "alien being from the heavens" existing side has a larder
of evidentiary materials, exhibits A-Z and multiplied a few hundred
1. a mountain of written and photographic testimony from credible unbiased and unpaid witnesses astronauts, police and military men as well as
groups of up to a few thousand at a time.
And unbelievable as indeed it is
....(this is to express my empathy for why and how you cannot wrap your mind around it, nor open your
considerations enough to make the tremendous leap. It is scary. I fully understand)
2. ... physical evidence; like burnt trees, circular patches of earth with high levels of radioactivity, resultant radiation poisoning in alleged
witnesses, metal deposits...anomalous materials gathered at sites
3....clear tangible archeological supporting evidence, cave drawings, written inscriptions of accounts,
artifacts and artwork depicting spacecraft and aliens.
4. A huge amount of biblical supporting evidence - taken to be "just symbolism" - a little hard to believe considering this is an accumulation.... of
what were not always religious texts per se... but healthy chunk of mankind's earliest knowledge
gathered together in a book.
5. not insignificant is (perhaps understanding disclosure is imminent) humanity has received the next best thing to an actual admission aliens exist
by the Church.
[And lets face it "they" have been around long enough to know things the rest of us only wonder about and certainly long enough to skew the
information. They still
rule the Queen and her motley crew of lower sub-leaders...
I think they're all respectfully waiting for the old
broad to pass before "airing dirty laundry" but then people have called me crazy too.
moving on to my final point...
6. Ask the audience.
Pro UFO side has approximately 75% of the planet in agreement.
Again... Let's see what the case is in favor of "no."
edit on 29-10-2010 by rusethorcain because: this stuff is out there (in the skies and on
the internet)...you (we) must deal with it.