Astronaunt Credibility: What do we believe?

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop
For my future sanity, was the man there or not or are you being sarcastic here?
My sarcasm detector registers a zero, though it's not always 100% accurate


Did you read the article by Jason Colavito? What's not to like?




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by nv4711
 


Terrific piece of original scholarship. I stand corrected and accept this evidence that Armstrong was there.


Just got back to this topic...

For my future sanity, was the man there or not or are you being sarcastic here?


Thanks.


No, the evidence he was on a trip to the Andes is solid -- but the report he visit an ancient astronaut technology cave site appears to be a total fabrication.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Loopdaloop
For my future sanity, was the man there or not or are you being sarcastic here?
My sarcasm detector registers a zero, though it's not always 100% accurate


Did you read the article by Jason Colavito? What's not to like?


Well I believe it happened as if it was a lie there would be no logical reason behind it!
I just got back to this thread and since my last post where people were of the perspective that I was posting absolute falsehoods, it seems a complete reversal.

Whether or not subsequently he decided to debunk Von Daniken and was disappointed by what happened on the trip as written in the article by Jason Colvaito, Neil Armstrong DID go in the first place.

The question is why....

This leads back to my initial question which was sidetracked:


Can we assume Neil Armstrong was Credible?


The people that knew him said that he was a man that was 'never wrong'.
They described Neil as 'reasoned, thoughtful and never bamboozled', 'with no airs and graces'

This does not sound like the description of a man that would get involved with 'fringe' pursuits.
I believe he must have had some other insights which led him to believe, initially, that Eric Von Daniken might actually know something that corresponds to what he knew. In the end Neil was disapointed...but it still begs the question of why he went in the first place.

Did he make the decision to search for the Tayos library to find extraneous evidence of that which he knew, but he could not speak.

My hypothesis is he went because he did hold beliefs about alien's visiting this planet in the past.
Whether or not Von Daniken is or is not credible, he went along with him, he must have thought Daniken might be... Armstrong was looking for answers. If he did not believe he would have been no where near that expedition!

I'm of the opinion that he felt that if he did find something in the jungle, it would be something that he could talk about and it would be beyond the realms of what NASA could or not control.

The fact that Armstrong did no longer want to talk about or give interviews about one of the most significant 'achievements' in american history suggests he is miffed with NASA about something.

In a way, to do so could be thought of as very passive aggressive! Especially due to the positive PR that NASA would get from having him speak about it, it might have even drummed up extra funding for mars.



Originally posted by JimOberg


No, the evidence he was on a trip to the Andes is solid -- but the report he visit an ancient astronaut technology cave site appears to be a total fabrication.



I agree with you on this bit, as it was highly unlikely that they would ever find anything. It would be like someone going on an expedition to find the lost ark or the Holy Grail! However Von Daniken would not have arranged a trip anywhere like that unless he actually thought he would find something! Either Von Daniken 'bamboozled' Armstrong, which is unlikely or there was another reason!
edit on 18-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: spelling (terrible)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Loopdaloop
 



This does not sound like the description of a man that would get involved with 'fringe' pursuits.
I believe he must have had some other insights which led him to believe, initially, that Eric Von Daniken might actually know something that corresponds to what he knew.


There is no evidence that Neil Armstrong knew anything about von Daniken's "theories." He simply appears to have been under the impression he was helping a fellow academic get some public support for his work.


he was unaware of von Däniken’s wild claims about them or Hall’s alternative theories. It took only a day’s exploration at Cueva de los Tayos to determine two essential facts. First, there was no metal library where von Däniken had claimed. Second, in Armstrong’s own words: “It was the conclusion of our expedition group that they [the caves] were natural formations.”


www.jasoncolavito.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Did you read the article by Jason Colavito? What's not to like?

However Von Daniken would not have arranged a trip anywhere like that unless he actually thought he would find something! Either Von Daniken 'bamboozled' Armstrong, which is unlikely or there was another reason!

In other words, you DIDN'T read the article by Jason Colavito, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it.

Maybe you should re-read it more carefully.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Did you read the article by Jason Colavito? What's not to like?

However Von Daniken would not have arranged a trip anywhere like that unless he actually thought he would find something! Either Von Daniken 'bamboozled' Armstrong, which is unlikely or there was another reason!

In other words, you DIDN'T read the article by Jason Colavito, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it.

Maybe you should re-read it more carefully.


I did read it... (not that I'm sure when Jason Colavito became a credible source, nor am I sure why it was the word of this person which led Jim O Berg to believe that the trip happened in the first place which is why I thought he was being sarcastic) But it was impossible for Armstrong to have NOT known about Von Daniken or how he got his money. Von Daniken was famous then and not as an 'academic' as the poster before you posited.
The caves, were always going to be 'natural', you and I both know that. But he went in the first place!

edit on 18-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: spelling (terrible)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Did you read the article by Jason Colavito? What's not to like?

However Von Daniken would not have arranged a trip anywhere like that unless he actually thought he would find something! Either Von Daniken 'bamboozled' Armstrong, which is unlikely or there was another reason!

In other words, you DIDN'T read the article by Jason Colavito, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it.

Maybe you should re-read it more carefully.


I did read it... (not that I'm sure when Jason Colavito became a credible source, nor am I sure why it was the word of this person which led Jim O Berg to believe that the trip happened in the first place which is why I thought he was being sarcastic) But it was impossible for Armstrong to have NOT known about Von Daniken or how he got his money. Von Daniken was famous then and not as an 'academic' as the poster before you posited.
The caves, were always going to be 'natural', you and I both know that. But he went in the first place!

edit on 18-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: spelling (terrible)


Your big mistake is that you seem to believe that Daeniken was on the 1976 expedition to Cueva de los Tayos. He wasn't. The expedition organized by Stanley Hall was a joint british-equadorian venture, consisting of over 100 people, British and Equadorian military, British cavers and botanical and zoological experts.

How Armstrong got involved?


Stan Hall said. "The name of Prince Charles, who had recently received a degree in archaeology, was proposed, but I knew Neil Armstrong had Scottish connections. My mother was an Armstrong and via another Armstrong in Langholm, where Neil Armstrong had been made an honorary citizen, I made contact. Months later, I got a reply that Neil Armstrong was willing to join us on this mission.


The expedition cartographed the cave and cataloged 50 new plant and animal species they found in the cave system.

Armstrong never met Daeniken nor was he in any way endorsing him . In fact, in a letter dated February 24, 1977, Armstrong wrote to Daeniken, complaining: " It has been brought to my attention„ that you had various articles published in magazines in Germany and Argentina, connecting the expedition with your theories. Pictures have been published showing me at the Tayos cave. I have never been interviewed or questioned by any publication, concerning the expedition. In Ecuador, I was asked whether the caves showed any signs of a higher civilization, and I said "No". (translated back into English by me from an article in the German magazine "Der Spiegel", 1978).

So, in short, Armstrong didn't know Daeniken, never met him and was "not amused" that Daeniken was trying to connect him and the 1976 expedition with his "theories".



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Big thank-yous to everyone who has been doing the digging and finding NEW stuff related to this myth.

Those of us who have followed along for the ride have attained a new level of realistic comprehension of the story BEHIND the myth.

Dang, this is the ATS hive-mind at its cosmic best.

Hats off, colleagues and friends. Let's make this a habit and set some standards.

Dang.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



Dang, this is the ATS hive-mind at its cosmic best.


I agree with you 99% and the best is yet to come. And you know what Richard Nixon said... food for thought:





posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Big thank-yous to everyone who has been doing the digging and finding NEW stuff related to this myth.

Those of us who have followed along for the ride have attained a new level of realistic comprehension of the story BEHIND the myth.

Dang, this is the ATS hive-mind at its cosmic best.

Hats off, colleagues and friends. Let's make this a habit and set some standards.

Dang.


Jim, while it's always nice when you heap merit on those who have conducted some measure of successful research, you are going over the here with your above comments. Threads such as this one which eventually show cohesiveness in member achievements is a rarity. The majority of threads is about boring subjects started by people who have no concept of how to conduct proper research and the high level of gullibility reigns supreme. Like you, I applaud the conclusion of this thread and do wish we had more such as this one. But we know videos from YouTube rule and believers outrank us.

After all, we had to plow through 9 pages riddled with questionable thinking until nv4711 lit the torch and now we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. As you so criticized one of the typical "contributors": "And the knee-jerk gullibility you share with so many other people..."

I included a photo of Neil that did not resemble the photo of the alleged Neil while on the expedition. What gives?

Lastly, was the article verified by independent researchers? It seems to have been accepted without questioning.
Is there a confirmation in Neil's private or public papers?



edit on 20-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct format.
edit on 20-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg
Big thank-yous to everyone who has been doing the digging and finding NEW stuff related to this myth.

Those of us who have followed along for the ride have attained a new level of realistic comprehension of the story BEHIND the myth.

Dang, this is the ATS hive-mind at its cosmic best.

Hats off, colleagues and friends. Let's make this a habit and set some standards.

Dang.


Jim, while it's always nice when you heap merit on those who have conducted some measure of successful research, you are going over the here with your above comments. Threads such as this one which eventually show cohesiveness in member achievements is a rarity. The majority of threads is about boring subjects started by people who have no concept of how to conduct proper research and the high level of gullibility reigns supreme. Like you, I applaud the conclusion of this thread and do wish we had more such as this one. But we know videos from YouTube rule and believers outrank us.

After all, we had to plow through 9 pages riddled with questionable thinking until nv4711 lit the torch and now we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. As you so criticized one of the typical "contributors": "And the knee-jerk gullibility you share with so many other people..."

I included a photo of Neil that did not resemble the photo of the alleged Neil while on the expedition. What gives?

Lastly, was the article verified by independent researchers? It seems to have been accepted without questioning.
Is there a confirmation in Neil's private or public papers?



edit on 20-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To correct format.
edit on 20-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comment.


From my reading of this thread, the 'point' was to discuss the credibility of astronauts, their beliefs when it comes to 'ufos' or life on other words and how this impacts upon their said 'credibility' so for some who feel that they have a conclusion, I would disagree.

I'm interested to know how the formula to calculate validity of source here as it is strange that an blog by 'Jason Colavito' is considered a 'valid source' whereas 'Phillip Coppens' is not.

Similarly nv4711 does not provide a reference for his quote or a link to the original article that he 'translated' from 'das spiegal', which is in itself a magazine that is known for its distortion, manipulation and disinformation as opposed to real analysis. Moreover I am astounded that this particular magazine is considered a valid anything, especially considering its utilisation by "ex" nazi Rudolph Augstein for nazi-symphasing propaganda, whilst wearing the mask of a liberal. It was Augstein who famously attempting to espouse Rudolph Hess of his wrongdoing as well as claimed that Hitler might not have known about the gas chambers and thus what was happening to the Jews
(!) (Der Spiegel, 4/1995, Seite 41).


Originally posted by nv4711


Your big mistake is that you seem to believe that Daeniken was on the 1976 expedition to Cueva de los Tayos. He wasn't. The expedition organized by Stanley Hall was a joint british-equadorian venture, consisting of over 100 people, British and Equadorian military, British cavers and botanical and zoological experts.

How Armstrong got involved?


Stan Hall said. "The name of Prince Charles, who had recently received a degree in archaeology, was proposed, but I knew Neil Armstrong had Scottish connections. My mother was an Armstrong and via another Armstrong in Langholm, where Neil Armstrong had been made an honorary citizen, I made contact. Months later, I got a reply that Neil Armstrong was willing to join us on this mission.


The expedition cartographed the cave and cataloged 50 new plant and animal species they found in the cave system.

Armstrong never met Daeniken nor was he in any way endorsing him . In fact, in a letter dated February 24, 1977, Armstrong wrote to Daeniken, complaining: " It has been brought to my attention„ that you had various articles published in magazines in Germany and Argentina, connecting the expedition with your theories. Pictures have been published showing me at the Tayos cave. I have never been interviewed or questioned by any publication, concerning the expedition. In Ecuador, I was asked whether the caves showed any signs of a higher civilization, and I said "No". (translated back into English by me from an article in the German magazine "Der Spiegel", 1978).

So, in short, Armstrong didn't know Daeniken, never met him and was "not amused" that Daeniken was trying to connect him and the 1976 expedition with his "theories".


You, I and the dog knew there nothing was going to be found in those caves and if Armstrong did write that, it would be of no surprise. I do however sincerely doubt Armstrong did not know why Stan Hall decided to arrange a trip there in the first place (or the EvD link) YET:

He still went. (www.youtube.com...)


His passive aggression against NASA is also still of interest.
edit on 22-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop
snip
From my reading of this thread, the 'point' was to discuss the credibility of astronauts, their beliefs when it comes to 'ufos' or life on other words and how this impacts upon their said 'credibility' so for some who feel that they have a conclusion, I would disagree.


The OP:
"Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell, and Buzz Adrin have publically stated their belief that we have been visited by extraterrestrial entities. These are highly decorated American heroes, M.I.T. Graduates, and experienced combat pilots. What are we to believe? I tend to believe them as credible witnesses. Did they really see E.T. UFOs? Or did they see secret advanced aircraft?"

As I'm sure you realize almost all threads deteriorate from the OP as members contribute their favorite theories which branch out until the OP is pushed out of the limelight.

The fact that said astronauts have stated their beliefs do not impact on reality because all that they are doing is presenting what they believe and not what they have experienced which I doubt rests on absolute knowledge. Like all of us they are affected by media which rarely provides factual data. It doesn't matter what astronauts or anyone believes because we have not been visited by extraterrestrial entities. I am sure about this because at no time have I ever seen nor heard of existing evidence to prove it. If Ets had visited us life on planet earth would have changed and yet here I get up everyday and there's nothing new. Even if entities were to reveal themselves to the proper channels how could they explain to our satisfaction that they are, indeed, from outside our local cosmic real estate? Questions are simple to formulate but the answers have to contain information that no one on earth can formulate. Hasn't happened yet.

The only truth that I can accept from astronauts is that they may have had sightings, just as I have. But to make definite statements outside of sightings cannot be accepted unless evidence is offered.
edit on 22-11-2012 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comments.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I myself do not believe they made contact with ET but i do believe they believe in such things.


FK



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

From my reading of this thread, the 'point' was to discuss the credibility of astronauts, their beliefs when it comes to 'ufos' or life on other words and how this impacts upon their said 'credibility' so for some who feel that they have a conclusion, I would disagree.

I'm interested to know how the formula to calculate validity of source here as it is strange that an blog by 'Jason Colavito' is considered a 'valid source' whereas 'Phillip Coppens' is not.

Similarly nv4711 does not provide a reference for his quote or a link to the original article that he 'translated' from 'das spiegal', which is in itself a magazine that is known for its distortion, manipulation and disinformation as opposed to real analysis. Moreover I am astounded that this particular magazine is considered a valid anything, especially considering its utilisation by "ex" nazi Rudolph Augstein for nazi-symphasing propaganda, whilst wearing the mask of a liberal. It was Augstein who famously attempting to espouse Rudolph Hess of his wrongdoing as well as claimed that Hitler might not have known about the gas chambers and thus what was happening to the Jews
(!) (Der Spiegel, 4/1995, Seite 41).



You, I and the dog knew there nothing was going to be found in those caves and if Armstrong did write that, it would be of no surprise. I do however sincerely doubt Armstrong did not know why Stan Hall decided to arrange a trip there in the first place (or the EvD link) YET:

He still went.


1) It's "Der Spiegel", not "Das Spiegal" - Funny how you manage to twice misspell the name of the Magazine that you seem to know so well.
Just because you make it a credibility issue, a quick reality check of what Augstein said in the article you're referring to. Augstein wrote an article on the occasion of the 50th year of the liberation of Auschwitz. In his article, he hypothesized that, given the brutal system of the Nazi regime and how orders were given and executed, it is conceivable that Hitler didn't even know exactly how and where the Jews were murdered - Himmler and the SS were tasked with the "final solution" and he (Hitler) couldn't care less how it was done. In a sense, like somebody hiring a hitman to kill his wife, all he wants is her being killed, not caring how and where. If you would read the full article, that becomes abundantly clear.

2) If you don't like "Der Spiegel", how about the man himself - Erich von Daeniken?

Daeniken actually quoted from Armstrongs letter in his book "Im Kreuzverhoer" ("Cross Interrogation"). . The quote in Daeniken's book is even more revealing:
Daeniken writes: (Again, translated by me):

"On 18 February 1977, I wrote a letter to Mr. Armstrong. On 24 February he replied. I quote from his letter, another document which I will gladly show to anyone interested. I quote from Armstrongs letter:

'I visited the expedition location in early August of last Summer. I have never read your books and knew nothing of any connections that you have with this caves. I have not commented in any way, regarding your hypothesis. It has been brought to my attention that... ' "


(Erich von Daeniken, "Im Kreuzverhoer", pg. 117)

From there, it is what I have quoted in my earlier posting, except that Daeniken (not surprisingly) left out the part where Armstrong wrote that he was asked whether or not he thinks the caves show evidence of a higher civilization, to which he answered "No".
Daeniken apparently quoted Armstrong's letter in an (failed) attempt to show that the press was using Armstrong to destroy his (Daeniken's) credibility.

Scan of Page 117 of Daeniken's book "Im Kreuzverhoer", quoting from Armstrong's letter:



It is proven without a doubt, that Armstrong did not know Daeniken, did not know about Daeniken's theories and did not in any way support the idea of a higher, let alone ET civilization or a "metal library" in the Tayos caves.

If you, or Coppen have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
edit on 24-11-2012 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2012 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FuriousKitty
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I myself do not believe they made contact with ET but i do believe they believe in such things.

FK


How can you, when the Aldrin 'belief' is plainly depending on deceptively edited comments and narrator voice-overs.

Mitchell does believe, basedo n stories from people he trusts, but no personal experience.

Cooper did believe, apparently based on two personal incidents [Germany in 1951 and Edwards AFB in 1957], but nothing while at NASA, or later. His actual versions of the 1951 and 1957 incidents were never checked by any UFO proponent -- the simple assumption was he deserved total credibility because of his astronaut status.

Was that proper and prudent? That's the central theme of the OP.





top topics
 
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join