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

Originally posted by UsuallyNot
Just for clarification

Satellites, broken satellites (some containing frozen animals for some reason), other man-made space junk.
Artist impression by ESA

But pieces of space junk that are disc shaped and 50-150ft in diameter flying through the clouds? Seen by 5 trained observers!

Space junk exists well above the clouds.

Sorry, nice try, but no.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ffee8caf796.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by warequalsmurder

Originally posted by UsuallyNot
Just for clarification

Satellites, broken satellites (some containing frozen animals for some reason), other man-made space junk.
Artist impression by ESA

But pieces of space junk that are disc shaped and 50-150ft in diameter flying through the clouds? Seen by 5 trained observers!

Space junk exists well above the clouds.

Sorry, nice try, but no.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ffee8caf796.jpg[/atsimg]

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

Sorry, Nice try, but no. Show me where these astronauts in the OP said that they saw a 50 - 150 foot disc shaped object flying through the clouds. NONE of the astronauts in the entire history of NASA have made such a claim. Show me where they did since that is what you seem to be claiming.

Could someone, a UFO buff, please post a long and detailed summary of credible witnesses, including Astonauts, and others, like pilots for example, along with their reports. Let's take a look at the record, and then if possible, debunk them all one by one..

Thanks.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


New Age - you seem to be a big fan of Occam's Razor, yet you use that to say that theories are more likely than facts. I think you must not truly grasp the meaning of Occam's Razor. Simply put, the simplest explanation is the most likely. That is Occam's Razor. So in this case I would say that we know for a fact that there are man made space ships. Some people believe that aliens are visiting us because some "smart" or "respectable" people saw something that they could not identify. They further this argument with claims about how much better the character of an astronaut is to the average person. Have you ever heard of Lisa Nowak? She was an astronaut. Kinda unstable one if you ask me.

So, the leap from unidentified object to alien visitation to you is more plausible than secret government space ships from the government that is chock full of honesty. Basically.

I'm not the one who is doing the "assuming" at all here. That would be you. You are taking something that you believe in (have faith in) and are trying to fit some assumptions regarding what people saw into your preexisting belief. If there was verifyable, undeniable proof that the aliens are visiting us I'll be the first to high five you and say I was wrong, but until then I have to go with the most logical explanation of things and aliens isn't the most logical explanation for something unidentified. Occam's Razor says that the simplest (most mundane) explanation is usually correct. Your entire argument is assumption and theory invented to explain that assumption. That is contrary to Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by DomCheetham

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

If what reports are true? That some astronauts believe in alien life? They aren't reporting any first hand evidence of anything extraterrestrial at all - only their belief that there are aliens. None of them are saying that they have verifyable knowledge of alien visitation.

edit on 29-10-2010 by tallcool1 because: clarity

If you are under orders to keep quite about your experiences of UFO's, what are you gonna do?

Support other poeple claims instead.

The problem with your line of argument is it starts out by assuming the thesis you are supposed to be trying to prove.

Mitchell and Cooper have made it clear: they were never under any restrictions in discussing what they experienced on their space missions. Are you going to pick and choose what you feel like believing in their testimony?

Source: Merriam-Webster .com

Definition of IF
a: in the event that
b: allowing that
c: on the assumption that
d: on condition that

Originally posted by tallcool1

Sorry, Nice try, but no. Show me where these astronauts in the OP said that they saw a 50 - 150 foot disc shaped object flying through the clouds. NONE of the astronauts in the entire history of NASA have made such a claim. Show me where they did since that is what you seem to be claiming.

Read the Link yourself.
www.disclose.tv...

You mean to tell me that Mr. Musgrave is not a astronaut now? And that he is lying for the other astronauts that were on board who he claims saw the same thing?. Have any of these astronauts come forward to deny what he said? No they have not.

Please stop trying to be a wiseguy. You need to be wise in the first place which you clearly are not.

Now there, you've been shown. Reread the OP and his link. Then weep.

If you go to Story Musgrave’s official website, you’ll find him saying this:

Text“In terms of personally seeing any kind of evidence, I have seen glorious things out there, but I have never seen anything which I consider having the signature of life or an intelligent being.”

Source: www.spacestory.com...

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I've dug around this topic once or twice in the past. Does anyone here have a direct, documented quotation from an astronaut that states they have first hand knowledge of Aliens visiting Earth? I have not been able to locate such a smoking gun, despite thread after thread of this.

I am not interested in the astronaut that says "someone told them" or "they believe based on...." I am interested in a direct quote from any of them stating they are here.

Check here...www.ufoevidence.org...

UFO sightings, Savage said, "are transient events. They are not repeatable, so they are not subject to scientific study per se. It's something that we don't have any research into here at NASA."

reply to post by rusethorcain


I have briefly reviewed the biased site you have linked to. I am short on time and really don't care to read dozens upon dozens of out of context quotes that have been discussed in this and millions of other threads yet again.

Can you do me a favor? Can you narrow down exactly where on that site I can find a documented (either video or recording, or something written by the astronaut and verifiable) statement where an astronaut says he personally has direct knowledge that aliens are here? Not that someone told him, not something he heard, not something he believes...but direct, first hand knowledge only?

And I am not looking for a gray area quote. I'm talking a 100% clear quote that doesn't require interpretation.

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

So, the leap from unidentified object to alien visitation to you is more plausible than secret government space ships from the government that is chock full of honesty. Basically.

I'm not the one who is doing the "assuming" at all here. That would be you. You are taking something that you believe in (have faith in) and are trying to fit some assumptions regarding what people saw into your preexisting belief. If there was verifyable, undeniable proof that the aliens are visiting us I'll be the first to high five you and say I was wrong, but until then I have to go with the most logical explanation of things and aliens isn't the most logical explanation for something unidentified. Occam's Razor says that the simplest (most mundane) explanation is usually correct. Your entire argument is assumption and theory invented to explain that assumption. That is contrary to Occam's Razor.

edit on 30-10-2010 by tallcool1 because: spelling

Occam's Razor has its limits. Does Occam's Razor prove useful for explaining the world around us? Yes. Is it foolproof? Far from it. It's definitely more plausible to assume that UFO's are anything but extraterrestrial but yet this simple assumption leads us to stray away from a more exotic alternative explanation that perhaps and ultimately may be the correct one. With sufficient research one will find enough circumstantial evidence that leads an objective individual to assume that UFO's are indeed intelligently controlled yet whether they are extraterrestrial in nature is the main issue.
Suppose extraterrestrials where indeed visiting Earth and their technology includes spaceships that can turn into a bird or some blurry blob as an evasive measure to maintain secrecy and confusion among the human populace, Occam's Razor in this case will lead us to believe is indeed a bird yet that's not the case. To decipher UFO's would perhaps require exotic, out of the box thinking which is the same type of thinking that is not popular with many established institutions who thinks UFO's are a taboo subject. History is littered with naysayers who used their authoritative position to impose their skepticism on those who would listen, from the President of Royal Society who in 1883 stated that "X-rays will prove to be a hoax" to Albert Einstein who stated that "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable". The UFO phenomena may very will be one of those events that perhaps in the distant future people will look back and determine that UFO proponents (not believers) and not the skeptics turned out to be correct about the extraterrestrial hypothesis. But to be fair, it can also go the other way.

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

New Age - you seem to be a big fan of Occam's Razor, yet you use that to say that theories are more likely than facts. I think you must not truly grasp the meaning of Occam's Razor. Simply put, the simplest explanation is the most likely. That is Occam's Razor. So in this case I would say that we know for a fact that there are man made space ships. Some people believe that aliens are visiting us because some "smart" or "respectable" people saw something that they could not identify. They further this argument with claims about how much better the character of an astronaut is to the average person. Have you ever heard of Lisa Nowak? She was an astronaut. Kinda unstable one if you ask me.

So, the leap from unidentified object to alien visitation to you is more plausible than secret government space ships from the government that is chock full of honesty. Basically.

I'm not the one who is doing the "assuming" at all here. That would be you. You are taking something that you believe in (have faith in) and are trying to fit some assumptions regarding what people saw into your preexisting belief. If there was verifyable, undeniable proof that the aliens are visiting us I'll be the first to high five you and say I was wrong, but until then I have to go with the most logical explanation of things and aliens isn't the most logical explanation for something unidentified. Occam's Razor says that the simplest (most mundane) explanation is usually correct. Your entire argument is assumption and theory invented to explain that assumption. That is contrary to Occam's Razor.

edit on 30-10-2010 by tallcool1 because: spelling

Mundanity and simplicity are not the same thing at all.



Now I could say these are chinese lanterns, but is that really believable to you?

reply to post by tallcool1


The idea of Occam's Razor, is that it does not operates on ANY assumptions whatsoever, and takes into consideration only all the available information and phenomenon, all of it, and then and only then slices in favour of the simplist explanation.

And I still have a little research to do to show that at least in theory FTL "travel" is possible, because that is what you are hanging your hat on, that it is utterly impossible.

Have you read the testimonials from these pilots, and astronauts, even some of the self-professed abducties? Are you aware of analysis that's been done on implants?

Have you looked at the quesiton, from every angle and perspective, with an open mind, or, do you begin with one assumption, and then work your way out from there?

Ok, so, you're suggesting, that since these craft appear to be real and out there, that they therefore MUST be experimental military craft decades in advance of present day commercial technology, solely on the basis that the alternative isn't "plausible" (interstellar travel by alien sentients to our planet) and perhaps that could be in the realm of possible (local technology), but c'mon, anti-gravity spacecraft decades ago?, flitting around as if violating the laws of physics - you think that's US? You call that more plausible, according to Occam's Razor?

You too then have some explaining to do in support of your hypothesis. I purport that Alien Interstellar Travel to Earth is more plausible than what you are proposing and fits better with all the available data, when the wheat is sifted from the chaff, and there's a lot that too when it comes to UFO's I've give you that. For example why can NO ONE seem to get a crystal clear photo or video of one, in perfect FOCUS!

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Sure it's here:Source: www.spacestory.com...
Sorry you missed my post.

reply to post by Gygar


The Ufo looking thing at the end of the video look very like (yes it look extremely crazy) Hyperion, A Saturn Moon:



And other look like the first thing in the video with the correct sunlight direction:

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
But pieces of space junk that are disc shaped and 50-150ft in diameter flying through the clouds? Seen by 5 trained observers!

Space junk exists well above the clouds.

Sorry, nice try, but no.

Seems these 'trained observers' testify that the UFO nut's ravings are false. They were there. He's on record as making one wild claim after another.

Gee, this is tough: who do you believe?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Could someone, a UFO buff, please post a long and detailed summary of credible witnesses, including Astonauts, and others, like pilots for example, along with their reports. Let's take a look at the record, and then if possible, debunk them all one by one.. Thanks.

We're actually trying to do that right here, one by one -- but one side dodges away.

STS-80 'UFO video' -- is there a reasonable prosaic explanation?

I'm arguing 'yes' and have posted links to an explanation endorsed by astronauts on the flight.

People who refuse to accept it, are pretending the explanation doesn't exist.

Let's keep trying to follow your reasonable suggestion.

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
You mean to tell me that Mr. Musgrave is not a astronaut now? And that he is lying for the other astronauts that were on board who he claims saw the same thing?. Have any of these astronauts come forward to deny what he said? No they have not.

Please stop trying to be a wiseguy. You need to be wise in the first place which you clearly are not.

Now there, you've been shown. Reread the OP and his link. Then weep.

More likely, we'll laugh -- and then weep for YOU.

First, Musgrave HAS said this video has a prosaic explanation, the one posted by me on the WWW about twelve years ago and studiously ignored and covered up by writers such as the author of this story, who made up the 'facts' you seem to have so gullibly swallowed. I developed that explanation based on my own experience with spaceflight operations in Mission Control, which helped me understand a lot of genuinely weird and unearthly features of motion in space [I was in Mission Control for Story's very first space flight, STS-6 -- we've been colleagues and friends ever since]..

Please get a grip, open your eyes and mind, and realize that the genuine mysteries of spaceflight are far more exciting than the fake ones that have suckered so many well-meaning young enthusiasts.

reply to post by gortex


I have a quick question with the first one, are the moving lights, or little bulbs of light UFO's or are those asteroids? It looks like there is a major storm brewing there.

The second video was quite odd, if in fact those are UFO's I didn't realize how many were the sky at night. Like I said I haven't seen any in Maine at all, or maybe they are there but we can't see them, if in fact they are here, how come we don't get information on this?? On a clear night I am using my son's telescope to see if I can see these glowing objects out there.

Many cosmonauts have seen phenomena which are far beyond the experiences of earthmen. For ten years I never spoke on such things. The encounter you asked me about happened on May 5, 1981, at about 6 PM, during the Saljut Mission. At that time we were over the area of South Africa, moving towards the area of the Indian ocean. I just made some gymnastic exercises, when I saw in front of me, through a porthole, an object which I could not explain. It is impossible to determine distances in Space. A small object can appear large and far away and the other way around. Sometimes a cloud of dust appears like a large object. Anyway, I saw this object and then something happened I could not explain, something impossible according to the laws of Physics. The object had this shape, elliptical, and flew with us. From a frontal view it looked like it would rotate in flight direction. It only flew straight, but then a kind of explosion happened, very beautiful to watch, of golden light. This was the first part. Then, one or two seconds later, a second explosion followed somewhere else and two spheres appeared, golden and very beautiful. After this explosion I just saw white smoke, then a cloud-like sphere. Before we entered the darkness, we flew through the terminator, the twilight-zone between day and night. We flew eastwards, and when we entered the darkness of the Earth shadow, I could not see them any longer. The two spheres never returned. COSMONAUT MUSA MANAROV, MIR: MIR mission 1991


From the link i posted earlier in this thread www.ufoevidence.org...

Originally posted by FireMoon
Many cosmonauts have seen phenomena which are far beyond the experiences of earthmen. For ten years I never spoke on such things. ....COSMONAUT MUSA MANAROV, MIR: MIR mission 1991

This is great -- he was on STS-80, too? And was a witness to the phenomena we're trying to understand? That's very helpful, thanks! Who needs conflicting testimony from Musgrave and Jones, in that case!

[irony mode -- OFF]