Astronaunt Credibility: What do we believe?

Originally posted by Cosmic911
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?

I pose this question to forum members...what are your thoughts on this subject.

Don't forget that Neil Armstrong claimed that we were 'warned off' by aliens on the moon
The first man on the moon also had an interest in the Tayos Library of Gold and went on a visit there, the same library which Erich Von Daniken states possibly contains the history of the ancient alien visitors. www.philipcoppens.com...

For men who are scientists, I believe them.

Wow. Daily, huh? If true, that is huge news. Notify Congress immediately, and provide your proof of that claim. They may be happy to know this, as they evaluate its funding plans in future. Before you tell Congress, how about a peek at what you got, here in the thread? Pretty please.

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes I am guilty of exaggeration with the "Daily" comment but they have been guilty of tampering with photos and omitting certain facts. People are capable of looking that up for themselves. As for evaluating their funding, one only need check their budgets to see how much funding they spend on things like cross agency support which is half the space operations budget. If I was congress, I would be looking at why they are giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to another agency that seems to produce so little in the way of results. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by Cosmic911
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?

I pose this question to forum members...what are your thoughts on this subject.

Don't forget that Neil Armstrong claimed that we were 'warned off' by aliens on the moon
The first man on the moon also had an interest in the Tayos Library of Gold and went on a visit there, the same library which Erich Von Daniken states possibly contains the history of the ancient alien visitors. www.philipcoppens.com...

For men who are scientists, I believe them.

Although I am a believer in extraterrestrial UFOs, I'm taking a harder look at these statements and claims. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm starting to think that a lot of what these men said, or didn't say, may have been taken out of context. I have to look at them closer. I'm only a little familar with Erich Von Daniken so I can't comment on the Tayos Library. I do know Mr. Armstrong has largely remained quiet about his career at NASA, and specifically, UFOs. I guess I have a lot of homework to do!

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Although I am a believer in extraterrestrial UFOs, I'm taking a harder look at these statements and claims. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm starting to think that a lot of what these men said, or didn't say, may have been taken out of context. I have to look at them closer. I'm only a little familar with Erich Von Daniken so I can't comment on the Tayos Library. I do know Mr. Armstrong has largely remained quiet about his career at NASA, and specifically, UFOs. I guess I have a lot of homework to do!

Wow what an outstanding attitude and quite a turnaround from the Opening Post, you get two thumbs up from me!

You really have to be skeptical of BOTH sides of the story. Then weigh and balance the evidence for each side, and see which side comes out as more credible. The folks making UFO documentaries and selling UFO books generally don't want you to know the other side of the story.

The one exception I've seen to that was the TV series "UFO files", they actually did a decent job in some cases of presenting both sides of the story, but the successor show, UFO Hunters failed pretty miserably to show both sides of the story, I suspect because the show's producers felt that a lot of believers watching the show don't want to see the true skeptical viewpoint; either that or they were just incompetent, which I doubt.

Regarding the post you replied to, and the comment that Armstrong said they were "warned off", is kind of like this. Some guy, whose name I can't tell you, heard Armstrong say he saw a fleet of pink flying elephants. Now substitute "was warned off" for "saw a fleet of pink flying elephants". There's simply no reason to find either claim the least bit credible without a source.

Didn't anybody bring up the recording allegedly of an astronaut saying "We still have the alien spacecraft under observance" hoax? In case you haven't run across that yet, you will: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "warned off" claim doesn't even have a hoaxed recording to back it up!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"You really have to be skeptical of BOTH sides of the story. Then weigh and balance the evidence for each side, and see which side comes out as more credible..."

I agree. Although I want to believe, this has always been my personal philosophy. I've openly posted that I often de-bunk my own beliefs. I think you have to eliminate the subjective, the conjecture, and the nonsense, and then, whatever you're left with, has to be the most logical truth.

Thanks for the reply! Cheers!!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yeah, got a little off topic, and a little passionate there, I just get tired of the professional debunkers in here sometimes, and the religious types always saying ETs are all demons. Sorry about that, but the links do have some good Intel on them.

Originally posted by boncho
Essentially, [if you ask people to change their stance because of these people] you are asking if people should believe that other people believe something...

I can say that I believe that they believe something, but that doesn't change the opinion where I choose to believe something. So in other words, it means little of anything in proving or disproving the existence of alien life or even just that there are unexplained UFOs .

If you are asking people to actually change their own belief system, just because someone else feels a certain way... well, I think they call that religion.

edit on 16-10-2011 by boncho because: clarify

Gordon cooper doesn't just "feel" a certain way though. His account is very specific. Have you even read it or are you just speaking in general terms (that is, without examining the available evidence?)

-rrr

I've read through this thread and have been follow the various astronauts claims for a long time but have a question. Has any astronaut claimed to see an actual biological alien, or only unidentified craft/phenomena?

Because to me U.F.O. does not mean E.T.

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
I've read through this thread and have been follow the various astronauts claims for a long time but have a question. Has any astronaut claimed to see an actual biological alien, or only unidentified craft/phenomena?

RPH, have you tried to filter out the reports of astronaut claims, from actual astronaut claimns -- since a lot of the reports are bogus, made up by writers and promoters, as even Gordon Cooper complained about. The actual quotes that can be attributed reliably to astronauts is a much smaller collection than the entire body of folklore on this subject out on the Internet.

reply to post by JimOberg

...have you tried to filter out the reports of astronaut claims, from actual astronaut claims?...

How on earth would I do that, short of talk directly to them in person? I guess audio or video (not taken out of context) would be an acceptable filter...but I don't want to take the time to hunt for all of that. Maybe some else has already done the research? Link(s) anyone?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Although I am a believer in extraterrestrial UFOs, I'm taking a harder look at these statements and claims. I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I'm starting to think that a lot of what these men said, or didn't say, may have been taken out of context. I have to look at them closer. I'm only a little familar with Erich Von Daniken so I can't comment on the Tayos Library. I do know Mr. Armstrong has largely remained quiet about his career at NASA, and specifically, UFOs. I guess I have a lot of homework to do!

Wow what an outstanding attitude and quite a turnaround from the Opening Post, you get two thumbs up from me!

You really have to be skeptical of BOTH sides of the story. Then weigh and balance the evidence for each side, and see which side comes out as more credible. The folks making UFO documentaries and selling UFO books generally don't want you to know the other side of the story.

The one exception I've seen to that was the TV series "UFO files", they actually did a decent job in some cases of presenting both sides of the story, but the successor show, UFO Hunters failed pretty miserably to show both sides of the story, I suspect because the show's producers felt that a lot of believers watching the show don't want to see the true skeptical viewpoint; either that or they were just incompetent, which I doubt.

Regarding the post you replied to, and the comment that Armstrong said they were "warned off", is kind of like this. Some guy, whose name I can't tell you, heard Armstrong say he saw a fleet of pink flying elephants. Now substitute "was warned off" for "saw a fleet of pink flying elephants". There's simply no reason to find either claim the least bit credible without a source.

Didn't anybody bring up the recording allegedly of an astronaut saying "We still have the alien spacecraft under observance" hoax? In case you haven't run across that yet, you will: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "warned off" claim doesn't even have a hoaxed recording to back it up!

edit on 19-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

With regard to he said, she said, who said... this whole forum is based upon that however your talk about 'elephants' and hoaxes fails to address the point. [however this would not prevent me from reading evidence to the contrary, im also not sure why you directed me to a thread quoting James Oberg the famous debunker/disinfo man who has been discredited within this thread once already, who is reportedly, ironically a Christian! (!)

My point was - with reference to Armstrong joining the search for the Tayos Library was that he certainly continued to act in a way which would be consistent with someone who did hold those thoughts, as if he didn't believe, then he wouldn't be off in the jungle searching for hard evidence of alien visitors!

Perhaps, his reasoning might be that if he did find evidence of in the jungle would be beyond the remit of whatever code of secrecy he must of had to take working for NASA - who knows.

However, he does now famously refuses to have any discussion about the moon landings, which for the man who arguably committed the worlds biggest achievement, and thus on paper a major PR spinner for NASA and the US government he is certainly making a point about something.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
Of course they're credible, they're about as credible as it can get! We won't take regular citizens accounts usually because we don't think they know anything, the astronauts are trained, experienced directly, I mean what more do we want out of them?

A lot other people felt exactly that way when Cooper endorsed a series of money-making aviation industrial projects in the 1980s. But they all turned out to be con jobs [Cooper was one of the victims], and people who believed then exactly as you do now, who believed Cooper's endorsements, lost millions and millions of dollars.

Too bad you didn't get a chance to invest your own life savings in such a project vouched for by Cooper. You might have come to a different conclusion, this time a reality-based one and not a NASA-propaganda-based one.

See www.jamesoberg.com...

In attempting to discredit the views of astronauts you choose to discredit Cooper by calling his endorsements 'con jobs' however you then state that Cooper was one of the victims. If Cooper was the victim himself of a con lured by the power of money then it does not make him a lier. It makes him easily fooled, however Lots of people fall victim to the lure of money and promoting view points that they know to be bunkem don't they

Originally posted by Loopdaloop

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
Of course they're credible, they're about as credible as it can get! We won't take regular citizens accounts usually because we don't think they know anything, the astronauts are trained, experienced directly, I mean what more do we want out of them?

A lot other people felt exactly that way when Cooper endorsed a series of money-making aviation industrial projects in the 1980s. But they all turned out to be con jobs [Cooper was one of the victims], and people who believed then exactly as you do now, who believed Cooper's endorsements, lost millions and millions of dollars.

Too bad you didn't get a chance to invest your own life savings in such a project vouched for by Cooper. You might have come to a different conclusion, this time a reality-based one and not a NASA-propaganda-based one.

See www.jamesoberg.com...

In attempting to discredit the views of astronauts you choose to discredit Cooper by calling his endorsements 'con jobs' however you then state that Cooper was one of the victims. If Cooper was the victim himself of a con lured by the power of money then it does not make him a lier. It makes him easily fooled, however Lots of people fall victim to the lure of money and promoting view points that they know to be bunkem don't they

Please read more carefully -- the schemes were con jobs, I never called Cooper's endorsements of them, "con jobs". If you are so easily confused by simple English, it might help explain how you are so easily confused by other con jobs by UFO promoters who falsely attribute statements to astronauts.

I've never said Cooper was a 'liar' [although numerous people around here, some quire recently, have said I am one], and we may be near agreement that he was overly gullible -- such as his story of the telepathic warnings from space aliens about a design flaw in the shuttle.

Where gullibility comes closer to home is folks around here whose gold standard of reliability includes youtube ravings, fictionalized false 'quotes', and even a prank or two [eg, "We still have the UFO in sight" from a space shuttle astronaut, supposedly].Or any space-related story from Clark McClelland or David Sereda or Ken Johnston or Martyn Stubbs or Jaime Musson.

Originally posted by Loopdaloop
..... im also not sure why you directed me to a thread quoting James Oberg the famous debunker/disinfo man who has been discredited within this thread once already, who is reportedly, ironically a Christian! (!)

Because you might learn something about the real world, and about yourself, who seems to be-- ironically -- an eager-believing open-mind-brain-fall-out hyper-credulous person who might benefit from Christianity, for which I will pray.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, when NASA presents NASA/LRO images as proof of the NASA/Apollo lunar landings, is that really credible or should we wait for the Japanese HDTV? Just a random question from a random ATS employee !

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, when NASA presents NASA/LRO images as proof of the NASA/Apollo lunar landings, is that really credible or should we wait for the Japanese HDTV? Just a random question from a random ATS employee !

My jousting at Apollo-hoax-con-jobs is suspended while I focus my explanations and explications more narrowly -- 'space UFO' reports. It's a matter of limited time and energy, sorry.

Whether what the astronauts say or don't say, not EVERYONE has to be lying or duped or wrong.

Watch this (it's about a well known case):


Do you people honestly understand or grasp the number of people who have seen UFOs????? Probably several thousands of professional people have reported this going back more than 60 years.

I don't know what to think. But I know that simple explanations don't work. It's too lazy to say that all of these people are wrong or duped or lying. It's too convenient. Too easy. Too unconvincing.

I think that a psychological explanation would be just as amazing as an ET explanation. Once more, maybe these craft are man-made. Whatever the case is, the debate is overcooked and past its time. Every time I see these debates vomit collects in my throat and I force it down with a acrid resolve to keep the mess inside. That's what it all amounts to. A load of garbage that has collected over the bitter agonizing years.

The rest of the universe really does exist out there. What if, people? What if there really is a galactic government. What if there really are milky way intelligent life and we're left out of the loop like some jungle man in africa or south america. While we beat on our trees and cook our pigs and forage our jungle for food we will once in a while see a strange thing in the sky for which only our shaman has an answer. Not the hunter nor the builder nor the others know because the unknown is the domain of the dreamer.

H.G Wells wrote about atomic bombs in 1914. Jules Verne wrote about space travel nearly 50 years earlier. Submarines were written about before we had them too. We wrote about robots and aliens and computers and even the internet before these things had the opportunity to be real. Men imagined other stars and other earths revolving around those stars more than 400 years ago. Believe it or not, but man is a thinking being that foresees much of what is yet to be. It's modern day shamanism dressed in the guise of genius.

Maybe we can be inspired by this and realize that some of our fiction will turn out to be true.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Whether what the astronauts say or don't say, not EVERYONE has to be lying or duped or wrong.......Maybe we can be inspired by this and realize that some of our fiction will turn out to be true.

Sorry about your stomach reflux issue, there are medications to control it.

We were discussing astronaut 'credibility' here and you decided to hijack the thread
with an entirely new line of argument and evidence.

Does that mean you're willing to stop arguing that the stories attributed to astronauts are worthy of belief?

Please be honest enough to say so, and then start your own thread.

Re 'some' fiction turning out to be true, that's a common narrative argument ["They laughed at Galileo..." etc] that proves nothing about any single story or claim. Some lottery tickets turn out to be winners. What does that imply about all the others?

Most of the stuff people have laughed at, throughout history, turned out to be nonsense.

Was Neil Armstrong Credible?

Since the death of Neil Armstrong, I wonder how that impacts or detracts upon his levels of credibility.

For arguments sake lets say he went to the moon

If he went to the moon, that makes him credible.

However, he was also friends with Erich von daniken, who for some is considered not credible.

Yet through this association it is evident that Neil Armstrong felt that Erich von daniken was credible.
Neil believed in Erich's credibility enough to put his own money on the line and go searching for the Tayos Library. The question is why?

We know that Neil was a pilot, engineer, and astronaut. Frank Boreman reported that people admired his intelligence and 'wondered' at his unique personality traits. Frank described Neil as 'thoughtful' and different to other astronaughts that were all of 'the same mold'.

Mike Collin's says that personality wise Neil presented a 'certian facade, a cetain persona',
Mike said that he did not want to say 'hey, I think there's a chink in your armor here, and I want to, you know, probe a little' he reports that he did not do that, but 'if the world could be divided into thinkers and doers, test pilots would normally be doers and not thinkers yet Neil would be a doer.'

Buzz Aldrin described Neil as 'certainly reservid, deep and thoughtful - he would not utter things that would have much potetial of being challenged later because of their spontaneity"

Dick Gordon described Neil as 'very quiet' and that 'he would take a long time coming to a solution, butwhen it was made, that was that'. Neil was reported as being 'patient with rpocesses' and 'sometimes he could be impatient with people when they didn't meet his standards'

Dick said that it was possible to sense when Neil was upset about something as he would tent to withdraw more thatn normal. Buzz Aldrin agreed wit hthis and stated that Neil 'could be stubborn with hidden reason'.

William Anders, a member of the backup crew for Apollo 11 said that Neil was 'not one to be bamboozled'. Neil was not a shrinking violet; he just wouldn't scream or yell. William reported that he did not remember Neil ever being wrong, but he caught him wrong a few times. Collins said that Neil did not seem to meet anyone halfway.

John Glen described Neil as a 'friendly, nice guy, small-town just like where he came from, and he said that he did not think that either of them put on any airswith anyone.' He was also considered a very smart guy who could make an analysis of a problem very quicly and cool under pressure.


Now, back to the question: can we assume Neil was credible?
From the description of people that knew him they evidently thought so, he was a man that was never wrong.
He was reasoned, thoughtful and never bamboozled with no airs and graces.
The question is why then did he go with Erich searching for the Tayos library?
The only answer is that he must have believed in Erich's theories.
From what we know of Neil he is a man that would not have done that without evidence...
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. If he found evidence, the proof... yet it did not come from him. Perhaps he thought that it would open up the pathways to open discussion?


Thoughts?

btw: does anyone know the source for the Neil Armstrong 'Moonbase' comments ?