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.

 

History channel announce Secret Access: UFOs on the Record

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think it's a mistake to only consider UFO sightings made by "trained professionals," like airline pilots or military people. They only represent a very small percentage of witnesses, and it further suggests that people who aren't pilots or soldiers are lousy at recognizing and describing what they saw or what happened to them.

It also pushed the argument toward "UFOs are ET ships," which is a road we've been down for 50 years with no success.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It wasn't a bad doco

It went to great lengths to build a consensus that many witness are extremely credible people. One of the biggest hurdles is the perception by the media and much of the public that only nut-job, rednecks in trailer-parks see things.
I appreciated the fact that the producer took large strides in trying to build a positive-perception of people who see things they cannot explain.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TXRabbit because: spelign



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 



I especially liked Arizona Governor Fife Symington's admissions of witholding truth, and Colonel Halt's Rendelsheim testimony.


Take a look at his family tree, and you'll find he's related to some folks that aren't strangers to the early days of the UFO phenomenon (i.e. those on the coverup side)....



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
It went to great lengths to build a consensus that many witness are extremely credible people.


This is an interesting point. Almost all of the topics on ET revolve around the evidence itself - physical / visual etc.

Last nights episode seemed to be geared towards not so much the evidence, but the people presenting the evidence. We have been trying to convince people for years about the evidence that points towards ET, only to be dismissed because of the people reporting it, and so much much the evidence iteslf.

I am curious if we will see the same thing in future media endeavors, where the focus is on the people.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by spikey
 


Thanks, Spikey -- no surprises, same old stuff talked to death here on ATS over the years. Do some homework before you salivate too enthusiastically.





No surprises in your predictable 'rebuttal' either Oberg.

No comment on just one of the many examples i gave you? Nothing about Gordon Cooper's comments...transcribed...and on tape, admitting in absolutely NO uncertain terms, the very thing you pretend to scoff at?

Instead of an partially veiled, and frankly weak ad hominem attack on my level of research or enthusiasm for the truth, why not pretend to address the questions instead for a change?

I'll make it very clear for you, so there's no ambiguity...Are you claiming the quotes and video taped interviews of America's Hero and pioneering astronaut Gordon Cooper, that i have presented are 'misrepresentations' of his words or the knowledge he was conveying to us regarding the existence of UFOs or not?

It's a simple question, and if you have the same courage of your convictions as Colonel Cooper, NASA astronaut obviously did, there should be an easy and simple answer.

If you cannot concentrate on supplying a simple answer to this one question, your reduced to a basic troll.

Opinion of me personally means nothing whatsoever to me, other than i see through it quite easily.

What do you say Jimmy, was Cooper an all American heroic liar or not?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Toxicsurf
 





And O'berg attacks Gordon himself, and the fact that his stories have grown over the years. Doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it though. ..


Course he does..it's the only way he can discredit him, without coming across as a faceless nobody spewing vitriol about an American hero...he can't argue with the plain human fact that these events happened to Cooper over 40 years before he made the interviews, and details will be given in one interview that aren't given in another.

Cooper wasn't a computer with digital recall, he was a human being, an exceptional one but human all the same, and subject to variation when recalling specific detail and relaying it to a third party.

I'm 43 years old...if i told two different people, on two different occasions an account of an event that occurred when i was 8 years old, there will be details recalled and relayed to one, and not necessarily recalled and relayed to the other, and visa versa.

We're all like that.

To clutch at straws and attempt to use that very human fact as a means to discredit a man of Colonel Coopers reputation and calibre, is a despicable display of arrogance and vanity on Obergs part, and offers nothing in the way of rebuttal to what Gordon actually said.

He has no trouble trying to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him, so why should i expect him to respect what Gordon Cooper, and a large percentage of other Astronauts and Cosmonauts have to say in support of UFO's observed in high altitude tests, or in space itself.

His card is marked as far as i'm concerned...i incorrectly assumed it was an overinflated ego that drove him, but i've long since realised this is not the driving force. He chimes in with off the cuff put downs, i'll chime in with rebuttals, simple as that.

ETA:

If you want to drive his 'red flagger' into an overdrive frenzy, just type NASA into every post, it'll keep the wonderful chap busy at the least.


edit on 26/8/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Spikey, you don't have to like the results of these investigations, but it won't do to pretend they don't exist.

space age myths and legends
www.jamesoberg.com...


Gordon Cooper UFO-related stories

2008 Note-of-Interest: Why Would Cooper Tell Such Tales?
www.jamesoberg.com...

1984 - The Hunt For Gordon Cooper's UFOs
www.zipworld.com.au...

Reply to Cohen critique (2003)
www.jamesoberg.com...

Cooper saves shuttle with relayed telepathic warning from space aliens
www.jamesoberg.com...

Cooper’s Gemini Stories Versus NASA History Archives
www.jamesoberg.com...

Cooper’s Imaginary Gemini-5 Meteor Attack
www.jamesoberg.com...

Cooper Garbles McDivitt’s UFO Story
www.jamesoberg.com...

Massive Effort To Locate Cooper UFO Report
www.jamesoberg.com...

1997 - Wall Street Journal on Cooper’s Business Disasters
www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
He has no trouble trying to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with him, so why should i expect him to respect what Gordon Cooper, and a large percentage of other Astronauts and Cosmonauts have to say in support of UFO's observed in high altitude tests, or in space itself.


What I respect is investigated truth, not knee-jerk credulity to any internet-posted story. And what I found -- and documented -- was a dismaying pattern of reportorial malfeasance by promoters of these stories, a patterm which you remain true to.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
No comment on just one of the many examples i gave you? Nothing about Gordon Cooper's comments...transcribed...and on tape, admitting in absolutely NO uncertain terms, the very thing you pretend to scoff at?

I'll make it very clear for you, so there's no ambiguity...Are you claiming the quotes and video taped interviews of America's Hero and pioneering astronaut Gordon Cooper, that i have presented are 'misrepresentations' of his words or the knowledge he was conveying to us regarding the existence of UFOs or not?


I'm concluding from this that you haven't seen my research results posted over many years, and thus are assuming that your ignorance of them is proof they don't exist? You are maybe demanding a one-on-one remedial tutorial for having come to class so late?

My views on Cooper's statements are well documented. The misrepresentations I refer to specifically include claims you made that Scott Carpenter or Gene Cernan admitted they had seen UFOs in space, or your presentation of the X-15 sightings while omitting critical information such as the small size of the material observed, etc. Can you provide any defense of such misrepresentations you personally made here recently?

My original question referred to any mention of such cases in the TV documentary discussed here. I actually misunderstood your reply to suggest that you were answering my real question and that these stories were in the production in question. I did not realize you were incaple of understanding a simple question.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




I'm concluding from this that you haven't seen my research results posted over many years, and thus are assuming that your ignorance of them is proof they don't exist? You are maybe demanding a one-on-one remedial tutorial for having come to class so late?


Holy Mother of Maalox! Since when did you rate UFO expert?



This is about denying ignorance, not embracing it on behalf of somebody's ego. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I wish i saw this show



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charizard

Originally posted by LifeInDeath


No offense, but I just find this hard to believe. I don't see how a potentially mile-wide V-shaped craft could have anything to do with radar jamming. Now I do agree that the 10 PM lights that were video taped by many people were indeed flares and that they were deployed as either a cover or a distraction for the earlier massive craft that overflew the state.

I can't speak to the supposed V-shaped craft people saw. Beyond a few peoples' testimony to that, I've never seen any real evidence that ever happened. I think the "flares" were maybe really the test devices this guy was talking about. If they were flares, they might have been used as visual markers in the sky to site the line of where the system was being deployed. The Airforce could fly planes back and forth "behind" that line, and then see if the civilian and probably their own test radars picked them up. Just my theory.



One interesting theory I heard on another UFO program discussing the Belgium wave was that the Belgium highway is light up so brightly at night, it can actually be seen from space, so that might have been what attracted the aliens to that particular location.

Having been to both Belgium and Luxembourg (though that was a long time ago), I'd think the Luxembourg highways would be far more brightly lit than Belgium's. The Belgium highways were lit about the same as most American highways, IIRC, but the Luxembourg highway I drove on had about 10 to 20 times the light fixtures on it - far, FAR more than would have been necessary. Never saw them at night lit up, but during the day I could certainly see all of the light poles. They had them spaces like every 20 yards, it seemed. Since there was no border posts my family and I drove from Belgium, right through Luxembourg and into Germany without realizing we had left Belgium - only when the ridiculous amount of light poles stopped did my mom realize we'd actually missed Luxembourg, where we had intended to stop for the night.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gar1986
Sounds like good watching. My only concern is, if they were telling the 'truth' on this show, then wouldn't the government make sure that it never aired? I am hoping what they say in the doco is all true, but if it was, I doubt it would be allowed to air.


Oh, it aired all right. I have it recorded on my DVR. Going to want it after while, when everyone is up and awake.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Holy Mother of Maalox! Since when did you rate UFO expert?


Am I the only one that see's the irony in this post?

If there were such a moniker as UFO expert, Jim Oberg would not only qualify but is possibly the only member in the entire ATS registry who would rate the title. ( with honorable consideration due for IssacKoi )

I respect individual prerogative but to denigrate somebody who has a solid body of published work based on first person research dating back 30 odd years is uncalled for.

The glib caveat of "denying ignorance" in this context is laughable as well.

On one hand you have someone providing original work backed by sourced research and data.

On the other you have a couple of flying saucer fan boys regurgitating the same disproven fallacies and sensationalized misrepresentations that anyone with an honest interest in the subject kicked to the curb years ago.

Somehow in the midst of all that you feel its acceptable to be rude and disrespectful.

Let me give you some good advice...

First, Oberg is one of a very small minority of ATS contributors who is worth listening to

Second, manners are free.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I thought this was one of the better documentaries that has ever been presented about UFOs. There is absolutely nothing new that longtime UFO enthusiasts haven't seen before. But that's not what this program was about. There is a new shift in the UFO agenda from the top public UFO figures, and that agenda is an extension of Keane's book.

"Take us seriously."

These guys are taking some of the most well-known cases that have hard data behind them, and using them to show the public that this isn't a joke. Notice how the entire feel of the documentary had a serious tone to it. There was none of that X-Files music in the background. Every time someone spoke, there'd be a matter of fact seriousness to their observation. Clearly, this group has a bigger goal in mind. They want to take the stigma off the studying of UFOs so we get more competent scientific people in the field who can look at these more serious cases and possibly admit that, yes, there's something more going on here.

I thought the program did in excellent job of that and it's maybe the second or third step (of about 10) towards making this phenomenon more accepted.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'm not buying into that Belgian photo being a hoax at all. A couple of days before a documentary that is going to extensively go into one of the most famous UFO photos of all time, that photo is coincidentally "debunked." A photo that has been around for 20 years no less. If that doesn't scream fishy, I don't know what does.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim,
I'll bite. Excluding this Gordon Cooper debate, what is your theory as to what some of these cases are? Specifically the JAL ALaska case.

I try to take level approach to these cases, and dismiss a good majority of them, but I don't see any rational explanation as to what could be mistaken for the JAL sighting, given the fact it was observed by two pilots, and verified on multiple, independent radar systems.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
regarding Jim Oberg's comments on Gordon - you'll have to excuse me since I don't know Oberg from my local grocery bagger. So even though it's been stated that he's one of the most important posters here, I'm just looking at this objectively from the document he posted.

I read the first PDF titled "Why Did Gordo Tell UFO Stories?" and I sincerely hope that his other rebuttals about Gordon's credibility aren't nearly as poorly written as this one. The argument basically comes down to "Gordon was angry about being dismissed from NASA." I'm not a psychiatrist, but I don't know how somebody putting their reputation on the line by claiming something that makes them look to a lot of people like a crazy person, hurts the body he was supposedly trying to get back at.

There is also a strange assertion in the document about a lawsuit that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The point of the document was so scattered and confusing, but I'm still not even sure what the point of it was. The only thing I have to go on is the title, and the title doesn't have anything to do with what's laid out afterwards. If a simple question is posed and isn't explored in a single following sentence, how am I supposed to trust this person anymore than I'm supposed to not trust Gordon?

This is an easy one. I'm going to trust the NASA astronaut.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ReaverTheBeliever
 


Here is Oberg's wiki page, take a look at his resume and judge for yourself if he is qualified to comment...

James Oberg

Regarding Gordo, I try to stay away from the topic as I am not interested in disrespecting one of the Mercury 7.

If you are really interested there is plenty on the web both good and bad to help you form an opinion. Keep in mind that he was terminated by NASA and amongst a lot of questionable behavior Gordo has publically claimed to have saved a shuttle crew with a telepathic message from extraterrestrials in space....



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Even if only .01% are real, its amazing. How could ALL of them be fake ? Even if just 1 out of the millions of sightings are real, its all we need.

Huh, that being said, I just thought there are more people that believe in religions of the world with absolutely no proof...
edit on 27-8-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join