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.

 

Astronaut Story Musgrave's Views on Extraterrestrials

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
I happen to be an eyewitness and after I got through describing what I saw there would be no doubt that what I've seen is NOT associated with humans. But not all eyewitness know how to describe accurately and therein lies the rub.


No. "Accurate description" has nothing to do with the 'noise' factor.

The 'rub', Shrike, is that > 95% [how much greater is THE object of debate] of sincere, intelligent eyewitnesses ARE mistaken -- that figure is hardly in dispute after all these decades.

...and practically EVERY one of the ">95%" is absolutely convinced that THEY are NOT in the ">95%", just those OTHER guys.

But not THEM!!

So forgive me for being a little less confident than you, in assuming that accuracy is measurable by sincerity and certainty levels.

Let's discuss the facts that can be checked, that stand on their own.


Let's try this description and you tell me where it's inaccurate. I'm in L.A. in the Great San Fernando Valley. I go down to my apartment building's pool and recline on a pool lounge at around 11pm and it's a beautiful, comfortable night. The pool lights are off so I'm reclining in a dark area with the clear, star-filled sky above. I am relaxed and alert and enjoying the sky view. I have my zoom binoculars that go from 7x to 15x but I always start out at 7x. I see 3 stars in a vertical row, evenly spaced but with wide spaces. Cannot judge distance or size but as far as I'm concerned they're stars after all what I see are star-like lights that blend in with the rest of sky display. Only the fact that they're slightly brighter than the rest and that they are in a straight line makes me start to look at each one through the binoculars. As I'm about to put the binocs to my eyes, the top star shoots off to the south and a fraction of a second later the 2nd or middle star also hauls off to the south soon to be followed by the 3rd or bottom star. I'm flabbergasted to the say the least. NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.

Jim, I placed the above as a report on a UFO forum back in the alt.UFO forums of the early '90s. Soon after I did others chimed in with similar reports but they never put their similar experiences in a forum until after I did. Now at Google searching for "stars disguised as UFOs" gets you 548,000 results!

Please criticize my report. Where is it wanting that I left out data that makes it an incomplete report?

I can also tell you about the stationary UFO behind the small, gauze-like cloud that must have been "thinking" that no one could see it!

Or about the low-hovering craft that I looked at through my binoculars. Or any of my other sightings where my details leave no doubt as to what I'm describing. I am detail-minded. Probably in a minority which is what I was criticizing about other witnesses.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buzzEmiller
I had to snip your reply 'cause my article below was almost longer than the space ATS allows and I needed to introduce it. I edited the article for grammar but it's almost word for word as the one found at rense via the URL I include


Let me say a few words about my connection to the STS-63 video and its connection to Jim Oberg from12 years ago via the article below. The tumbling object I mention is now known as the "STS-63 Anomaly". Mine.

www.rense.com...

SIGHTINGS

STS-63 Anomalies
By Edward Lopez
3/27/00

In late 1999, I started communicating with James Oberg (Computer Systems Analyst) about our different POVs regarding the STS-48 (and 80) footage where a white object drifting in dark space amongst a field of similar-looking white objects seems to be "fired" upon and object is seen taking off at a high rate of speed. I could not accept the official explanations that the objects were ice crystals illuminated by the sun and affected by various Shuttle firing mechanisms.

The main problem with the official explanation is that the object was not part of the field of similar but still objects, even though some are seen drifting. The object "fired" upon emerges from the atmosphere and then starts its drift. If it had always been seen with the other objects there might not have been the uproar that some critics of the official explanation let loose along with other reasons for rejecting what really sounds like a weak explanation for the different activities that are seen. The only activity that I accept from the STS-48 footage is that, indeed, the main flash does come from the Shuttle (The Shrike, 3/15/12: I do not now accept the flash as coming from the shuttle.) Everything else has not been adequately explained by NASA.

James suggested that I view the STS-63 POST FLIGHT PRESENTATION videotape available from NASA. He did not specify what I was supposed to look for but I guessed that it had to do with a similar situation as far as the insinuated ice crystals.

The STS-63 videotape consists of the Shuttle's Astronauts presented individually by the Mission Commander, and video footage and slides of their Mission activities inside and outside the Shuttle. Thirteen minutes into the tape I discovered the first mystery of two. The scene shows a sunlit Earth filling more than half of the TV screen with the rest being dark, empty space. Mission Specialist Mike Foale starts to describe a maneuver the Shuttle is going to make around the MIR Space Station to give it a look-over inspection. As he says "...Because of that uncertainty...", a dark rectangular shape enters from the right, is seen against the Earth, and just before it disappears at the top center of the TV screen, it seems to start to make an end-over-end maneuver. No comments are heard from anyone about this anomaly.

About 21 minutes into the tape, one of the two female Astronauts says that they have one last chance to say goodbye to MIR and the scene changes to a similar night scene as seen on the STS-48 footage with similar white objects. (Ice crystals from now on will be said with tongue-in-cheek.) Even though the narrator says that MIR is in the middle of the frame, it's not visible unless it's one of those seemingly far-away white objects. This footage is only seconds long but it became very interesting. After playing the tape back 'n' forth a few times and looking at the various pulsing white objects, I noticed a triangle of white objects near the bottom right of the TV screen. The bottom point object is seen really pulsing. Other ice crystals are seen pulsing but not as strong as the one in the triangle.

Just as in the STS-48 footage a white object EMERGES from the two top white objects and starts to drift away from the triangle. At this time a meteorite streaks by and that's the end of the footage. No explanations are given and no Shuttle firings are seen to activate drifting ice crystals.

When I told Oberg of my two discoveries his only reply was, "Interesting." His supposed purpose for my watching the tape must have backfired and I'm glad to have seen similar activity to the STS-48 footage. There must be additional footage that could show where that white object drifted to because in the STS-80 footage a lot of round objects are seen materializing from Earth's atmosphere, "blooming", drifting, "rendezvous-ing" with other similar objects and some are seen moving at high speeds along with meteorites.

I am not a conspiracy supporter but there are things happening in space for which the official explanations are lacking in common sense and logic. My opinion of the STS-48 footage is shared by what seems to be the majority of people with at least one Ph.D. (Jack Kasher) which puts us in good company. Sun-lit ice crystals? No way!

edit on 15-3-2012 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Shrike, is there ANYTHING about my research results you find credible or useful?

Do you have any suggestions to enhance these features, or do you basically admit, you're never gonna believe it no-how, ever?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Let's try this description and you tell me where it's inaccurate. I'm in L.A. in the Great San Fernando Valley. I go down to my apartment building's pool and recline on a pool lounge at around 11pm and it's a beautiful, comfortable night. The pool lights are off so I'm reclining in a dark area with the clear, star-filled sky above. I am relaxed and alert and enjoying the sky view. I have my zoom binoculars that go from 7x to 15x but I always start out at 7x. I see 3 stars in a vertical row, evenly spaced but with wide spaces. Cannot judge distance or size but as far as I'm concerned they're stars after all what I see are star-like lights that blend in with the rest of sky display. Only the fact that they're slightly brighter than the rest and that they are in a straight line makes me start to look at each one through the binoculars. As I'm about to put the binocs to my eyes, the top star shoots off to the south and a fraction of a second later the 2nd or middle star also hauls off to the south soon to be followed by the 3rd or bottom star. I'm flabbergasted to the say the least. NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.


I'll be happy to criticize this report.

You assume the conclusion. That's where you're wrong. See? Simple as that.

You saw things that you mistook for stars that then moved. Conclusion: they are UFOs that were hiding as stars.

If you can't understand the very basic breakdown in logic and reason in that, I truly don't know what to tell you. I can tell you that I wouldn't put any stock whatsoever in someone who thought this type of reasoning was valid.

I would urge people who want to be taken seriously to stop assuming their own conclusions and start being a bit more intellectually honest with both themselves and everyone else here. You might have seen something interesting, but the very moment you presume to know what that thing was, where it came from, and even what its "intentions" are, you've crossed the line into dishonesty.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike, is there ANYTHING about my research results you find credible or useful?

Do you have any suggestions to enhance these features, or do you basically admit, you're never gonna believe it no-how, ever?


Jim, I've been following your research as expressed in many forms: in books starting in 1982 with "UFO's and Outer Space Mysteries: A Sympathetic Skeptic's Report" and I still have my copy. On TV in various presentations whether straight or in challenges to your opinions; on the Internet. It has always resulted in credible, useful and, sometimes, disagreement.

My problem is that your knowledge on space matters is light years ahead of my comprehension so I cannot comprehend your position because my position is strictly from a less-educated brain development. I can safely say that I am aware and understand the world I live in. My wife's brother-in-law is a superb endocrinologist but we don't speak the same language so we don't engage in conversations about his field. However, my brother-in-law is an award-winning professional photographer and he and I can talk about photography 'til the cows come home! I don't think that he nor the endocrinologist would understand your specialty.

I'm guided by my fantastic vision and what I've learned using common sense, logic and reason. To me, without purposely insulting you as I wouldn't dream of it, you speak a different language which I have devoted no time to learn. It's not the same as learning phonetics. I'd have to go through the same education you did to make sense of what you impart.

So, basically, I view a video which holds certain visual information which I think I understand and which many others agree with. Your explanation is technically correct for I cannot say "While your explantion may be technically correct..." But your technically-correct explanation cannot be accepted by my brain for I'm seeing things that do not conform to your explanation.

I see white objects, orbs or not, that I cannot accept as ice crystals for they are not in movement, scattering as I've seen real ice crystals behave. These objects are at a distance for the shuttle's camera is showing a heck of a lot of the earth. It's night on earth as the camera shows. The sun is not in view nor its illumination. The lens of the camera have been opened to accept the earth's darkness. The white objects are not in motion as ice crystals would be and ice crystals would be be minute in the overall image. Some of these objects are appearing out of the atmosphere and if they're not appearing they would have been visible from day one. Some of the objects are drifting, some are seen hauling way below the shuttle. You see a flash and the "drifter" makes an angled take off at high speed while the others are not affected. The view doesn't change even though we just witnessed what is claimed to be a thruster firing which is a violent explosion of energy in the vaccuum of space where resistance is low or non-existent. A thruster firing is used to change the attitude of the shuttle and the force generated by the thruster should have some effect on the camera view and it doesn't change one iota. If the shuttle was going to be moved for a purpose that didn't amount to a hill of beans it would have engaged a smaller thrust. I'm not really qualified to offer that explanation as a matter of fact but there are too many factors I cannot ignore. The shuttle camera is "lowered" and eventually shows the side of the cargo bay and the camera's lens opening has to be closed as the bay side is extremely bright compared to the earth's overpowering darkness. On the way to the cargo bay the camera shows other objects including 3 objects traveling in a triangle formation. Etc., etc.

No, James, what I see and what is explained doesn't jibe with me. And I cannot apologize for not seeing what you are describing for we are talking apples and oranges. You can say I'm not a good fruitman.

Trivia: Your middle name is Edward, my first name is Edward. We were both in the Air Force. You are a Fellow of CSICOP, I was a member.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by The Shrike
Let's try this description and you tell me where it's inaccurate. I'm in L.A. in the Great San Fernando Valley. I go down to my apartment building's pool and recline on a pool lounge at around 11pm and it's a beautiful, comfortable night. The pool lights are off so I'm reclining in a dark area with the clear, star-filled sky above. I am relaxed and alert and enjoying the sky view. I have my zoom binoculars that go from 7x to 15x but I always start out at 7x. I see 3 stars in a vertical row, evenly spaced but with wide spaces. Cannot judge distance or size but as far as I'm concerned they're stars after all what I see are star-like lights that blend in with the rest of sky display. Only the fact that they're slightly brighter than the rest and that they are in a straight line makes me start to look at each one through the binoculars. As I'm about to put the binocs to my eyes, the top star shoots off to the south and a fraction of a second later the 2nd or middle star also hauls off to the south soon to be followed by the 3rd or bottom star. I'm flabbergasted to the say the least. NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.


I'll be happy to criticize this report.

You assume the conclusion. That's where you're wrong. See? Simple as that.

You saw things that you mistook for stars that then moved. Conclusion: they are UFOs that were hiding as stars.

If you can't understand the very basic breakdown in logic and reason in that, I truly don't know what to tell you. I can tell you that I wouldn't put any stock whatsoever in someone who thought this type of reasoning was valid.

I would urge people who want to be taken seriously to stop assuming their own conclusions and start being a bit more intellectually honest with both themselves and everyone else here. You might have seen something interesting, but the very moment you presume to know what that thing was, where it came from, and even what its "intentions" are, you've crossed the line into dishonesty.


My conclusion was correct and my reasoning is valid. They flew, they were unidentified, ergo, UFOs. You show me what human-constructed object can be seen hovering in space, is able to haul off from a standing start to thousands of miles an hour instantly.

I didn't state that I knew what "that thing" was, you did. I assumed they were stars and so would anyone that would have been with me and looked at the sky at the same time.

I didn't state I knew where it came from,, you did.

I didn't state I knew what its "intentions" are, you did.

You fail debate 101.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
No, James, what I see and what is explained doesn't jibe with me. And I cannot apologize for not seeing what you are describing for we are talking apples and oranges. You can say I'm not a good fruitman.


I cannot believe you read the answers I posted. Disagree with what I'm claiming, for sure -- but refuse even to try to understand it? -- not well played.

Your reconstruction of what you think you see in that video is full of implicit assumptions and conclusions, not raw perceptions. Apparently your mind is building a defensive wall by conjuring up imaginary must-have-beens against any arguments that it has reached the wrong explanations for what it was interpreting based on what it was seeing.




edit on 16-3-2012 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
No, James, what I see and what is explained doesn't jibe with me. And I cannot apologize for not seeing what you are describing for we are talking apples and oranges. You can say I'm not a good fruitman.


I cannot believe you read the answers I posted. Disagree with what I'm claiming, for sure -- but refuse even to try to understand it? -- not well played.

Your reconstruction of what you think you see in that video is full of implicit assumptions and conclusions, not raw perceptions. Apparently your mind is building a defensive wall by conjuring up imaginary must-have-beens against any arguments that it has reached the wrong explanations for what it was interpreting based on what it was seeing.



edit on 16-3-2012 by JimOberg because: typo


You may have misread my comments. I truly cannot shift mental gears to understand your explanations. I have read them, trust me. I didn't refuse to understand. But my eyes/brain tell me something that is easier to digest even though I may be kidding myself. I don't use others' reasoning to support my views but the truth is that the ratio between accepting your explanations and what they perceive is in my estimation from the results seen in the forums since they formed is approximately 70% for anomalous objects/activities and 30% for your prosaic explanations. My percentages may not be correct in the long run. But with the popularity of UFOs among the populace, you might not convince the majority.

As a comparison, there is no evidence for sasquatch except for some questionable videos and photos. Yet, scientists have a difficult time convincing people that it doesn't exist. It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine
cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine
cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!


Our exchanges have always been stimulating, and along with other conversations have contributed to my learning how to be more clear and on-point in offering explanations. My "99 FAQs on space UFO stories' will be posted on my website soon.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine
cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!


Our exchanges have always been stimulating, and along with other conversations have contributed to my learning how to be more clear and on-point in offering explanations. My "99 FAQs on space UFO stories' will be posted on my website soon.


And you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll read 'em and make a serious effort to understand them.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine
cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!


Our exchanges have always been stimulating, and along with other conversations have contributed to my learning how to be more clear and on-point in offering explanations. My "99 FAQs on space UFO stories' will be posted on my website soon.


And you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll read 'em and make a serious effort to understand them.


Well, we're trying out drafts of some of them here, and so this is the place to start. Please look back at my posts.

ATS is an excellent forum to grapple with the greater truth that when people disagree, it's usually not because one is omniscient and the other is stupid, or one is lying and the other is psychically able to detect this -- or some such asymmetrical cultural gap...

but maybe because two experienced and intelligent people are basing conclusions of data sets and experiences that are different, and are BOTH incomplete.

THIS is the place to identify these mutual incompletenesses, and remediate them, facilitated by the lubricant of good will and common curiosity.

.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
My conclusion was correct and my reasoning is valid. They flew, they were unidentified, ergo, UFOs. You show me what human-constructed object can be seen hovering in space, is able to haul off from a standing start to thousands of miles an hour instantly.


If your conclusion was simply that these lights were UFOs, fine. They were unidentified. But you didn't stop there, did you? To quote:



NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.


Now, I--and any other person who would derive conventional meaning from such usage of the English language--would take this statement to mean these UFOs were disguised as stars. This implies both intention and thus obviously some form of intelligence.

So, going back to logic, you were not just assuming these things were "unidentified"--you were assuming they were disguised as stars intentionally and, as your own retort back to me supports, that they were not just unidentified but also presumably extraterrestrial.

Now, perhaps you're going to reply that by "disguised" you were just speaking figuratively, and what you were really trying to say was simply that they looked like stars as a matter of appearance. If that's the case, then I would advise you to pay more attention to your choice of words, especially given the subject matter at hand. After all, if I mistook the white sedan behind me as a cop car in the rear view mirror, and when it passed me it was revealed to be in fact a white sedan, it would be rather odd to say, "That white sedan was disguised as a cop car", now wouldn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join