NASA secret files

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Those videos don't give me a hand at all. As previously stated by many...videos are all debunked. Actually I'm surprised that he even engaged in such a same old boring thread, by his account. He has debunked those videos, hundreds of times, and I'm really confused as to why a NASA engineer with such an experience, would commit to repeating the same debunking that has been already done, to little old stupid me. I feel as it is his job to do it. He obviously feels that this thread is "same old fringe UFO nuts" going wild over nothing. So why bother? How do you find time and energy to respond to every nut out there?


Where I do have a hand...is asking him...weather he thinks if there was contact established with an advanced alien civilization, would the government tell the public about it, or would they hide it. He knows the answer to this question is NO. They would hide it, after which I would ask him, why does he than think, that I'm to trust his word on debunking potential space visitors ?

Him answering truthfully with his opinion on this question, would destroy any credibility he has as a NASA debunker.

I'm sorry that some people feel the word 'ignorant' should be banned from the English language because it hurts people's feelings when it is applied to them.

But the observation remains: the less somebody knows about real spaceflight, or the more nonsense somebody mistakenly believes is true about real spaceflight, the more prone they are to give credibility to interpretations of space videos that require extraordinary causes.

And the indisputable fact that mass quantities of young people are enthusiastically embracing those speculations based on such a flimsy factual foundation has got to be of concern to anybody interested in the impact of spaceflight on popular culture, and on the notion that popular culture should drive political processes.

Since I have come to believe that the proper detection, identification, and response to SOME unexpected spaceflight visual phenomena can be critical to mission success and crew safety, it should be no surprise that I want sharper recognition procedures to filter out such signals from background noise, quickly enough to influence on-going mission events, in time to prevent setbacks and even disasters.

Such a process, which I suggest is currently absent in most circles, has the secondary benefit of identifying specific examples of observations that could fulfill the fundamental goal of exploration: be surprised by things you didn't expect to encounter. And the range of those potential surprises, even those we can anticipate, is enormous, and essentially boundless.

As for governmental reaction to the possession of information suggesting ET contact, I suspect there are numerous possible options, ranging from denial to suspicion of human hoaxing to xenophobic public proclamations. I think it's implausible that every country or organization would react in the same way, but rather seek to use it for local advantage over other countries.

As for the motives of any hypothetical ET visitors, even the most simple-minded human-based speculations can devise motives that would prompt a wide range of policies, from total invisibility to gradual acclimatization to covert negotiations to mass demonstrations. Hard as it may be for posters here to believe, there really ARE some subjects I feel inadequately informed to make pompous proclamations about.

But the realities of authentic human spaceflight operations, as opposed to Hollywood fantasies and popular guessing based on faulty earthside analogies -- yeah, that's a field I think I can claim some expertise in, with justification.

Thanks to those who have checked out "99 FAQs".... be careful, once infected with enough doubts about the superiority of your OWN interpretations of the dogmas of this theme, you may find your views shifting. And once you discover the really interesting puzzles, the counterfeit distractions will lose their appeal.

And you're also correct, finding a balanced range of opinions, and contrary views on this theme, is not easy. STS-80 astronaut Tom Jones has a home page and on it he discusses the 'circle formation' video and why the UFO interpretation is nonsense, but it really is next-to-unfindable using current search engines. Try it.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Those videos don't give me a hand at all. As previously stated by many...videos are all debunked. Actually I'm surprised that he even engaged in such a same old boring thread, by his account. He has debunked those videos, hundreds of times, and I'm really confused as to why a NASA engineer with such an experience, would commit to repeating the same debunking that has been already done, to little old stupid me. I feel as it is his job to do it. He obviously feels that this thread is "same old fringe UFO nuts" going wild over nothing. So why bother? How do you find time and energy to respond to every nut out there?

Maybe he just enjoys it. I get the impression that he seems to like to inform people. I also think he like's to argue for the sake of arguing...like playing chess...the more you play the better you get at it. Maybe he likes the attention he gets as he seems to get a lot of it. Maybe there is girl here that he likes and he is trying to impress?

Where I do have a hand...is asking him...weather he thinks if there was contact established with an advanced alien civilization, would the government tell the public about it, or would they hide it. He knows the answer to this question is NO. They would hide it, after which I would ask him, why does he than think, that I'm to trust his word on debunking potential space visitors ?
Him answering truthfully with his opinion on this question, would destroy any credibility he has as a NASA debunker.

If you assume he is in "the know"... why on earth would you take his word for it anyway? Either he is in the know or doesn't have a clue anyway.

at about 2:10. Please explain that.

Look at the background, it seems as though this segment of the video has been sped up.

Who listens to James Oberg anyway....

Actually who does listen to him?

As for the explanations, who knows what the truth is but Nasa's answer has a habit of changing over time just like the military with the Roswell excuses. I don't know if its a deliberate put you out of your stride ruse, stupidity or just they don't actually know but its hard to follow and trust them after its done whatever the reason.

All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low.

Same with the many military based sightings and events, these are military people saying things that are not exactly career enhancing and we get told they don't know what they were looking at yet they are in charge of multimillion dollar hardware DIRECTLY, not on the team, directly in charge of it...

Originally posted by Jeedawg
Look at the background, it seems as though this segment of the video has been sped up.

It would help if the original date/time of the videos were available so it could be validated, and checked against known shuttle activities that cause disturbances in nearby object motion -- such as thruster firings.

But that information is withheld by the original poster.

This makes formulation of any prosaic explanation impossible.

So then, demanding such an explanation is a trick.

Sad that so many enthusiastic posters hereabouts fall for that trick so easily.

Originally posted by JimObergSTS-80 astronaut Tom Jones has a home page and on it he discusses the 'circle formation' video and why the UFO interpretation is nonsense, but it really is next-to-unfindable using current search engines. Try it.

Search engines are a funny thing...you probably can't find it because the web is absolutely flooded with the alien version. The funny part is that I often find my own silly posts when I google things like "Very Large Tiny Martians" ...I just noticed that his name might be confused with someone elses! ...so that doesn't help either...the point i'm trying to make is if you want get search hits, post it uniquely and post it often.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

Maybe he just enjoys it. I get the impression that he seems to like to inform people. I also think he like's to argue for the sake of arguing...like playing chess...the more you play the better you get at it. Maybe he likes the attention he gets as he seems to get a lot of it. Maybe there is girl here that he likes and he is trying to impress?

These are all plausible reasons for his activity here, but I'm thinking...a guy with his expertise and background, (just glance over his CV), probably has loads of work on his hands. How does he find time or will for that matter, to discuss crazy nutty and most probably unsubstantiated theories with somebody who is, let's be honest, not on his level of know-how on space, mechanics or the subject at hand.

You still could be right...but, I find it weird to say the least.

If you assume he is in "the know"... why on earth would you take his word for it anyway? Either he is in the know or doesn't have a clue anyway.

You misunderstood me. He doesn't need to be in the know. I was making a case for a hypothetical situation. If there was a contact made during 50's, 60's, between...let's say US government and some alien race, would in such hypothetical situation, public be told about this? Would this be announced as a ground breaking discovery that it surely would be. But let's not limit this strictly to contact. Knowledge of alien existance?

I find it really hard to believe, having known this world for 37 years...that this information would be shared for the good of the man kind. We are just not there mentally yet.


Jim as an off/on NASA employee knows this, I assume. He knows that powers that control NASA and most other key government positions, would not allow this to become public. Not only for personal gain, but also for some of the right reasons. Like protecting the fragile public mind from the enormity of the discovery.

But he will not say it out right, as it would hurt his credibility...at least here on ATS, if nowhere else.

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low..

Well, how do you explain the comments on this video by two of the astronauts who were there, Tom Jones and Story Musgrave? What ever happened to the first principle of any investigation: gather eyewitness testimony?

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low.

"A perfect circle" can be proven. can you prove that from this video? If not how do you know this? If that was a "light show" then we are dealing with some pretty boring aliens that know nothing of how to get human attention.

How to be a Debunker: Persuasion & Propaganda 101

#1) Begin with a conclusion and plant your agenda

This makes formulation of any prosaic explanation impossible.

#2) Diminish and downplay the available evidence

It would help if the original date/time of the videos were available so it could be validated

#3) Pollute the issue with distracting speculations in line with your agenda

checked against known shuttle activities that cause disturbances in nearby object motion -- such as thruster firings.

#4) Distance yourself from the issue, avoid commitment, and alienate the source of the evidence

But that information is withheld by the original poster. So then, demanding such an explanation is a trick.

#5) Manufacture an "in-group" and "out-group", subtly pushing your agenda as the way to the "in group" (also known as the "reverse bandwagon")

Sad that so many enthusiastic posters hereabouts fall for that trick so easily.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

a guy with his expertise and background, (just glance over his CV), probably has loads of work on his hands.

I have loads work on my hands...I am at work...yet I am discussing the sillyest thing I could possibly discuss...why? I have know idea.

How does he find time or will for that matter, to discuss crazy nutty and most probably unsubstantiated theories with somebody who is, let's be honest, not on his level of know-how on space, mechanics or the subject at hand.

I don't know about what Jim does, but I often sneak into the bathroom and pretend I am...well, you know....and the ipad makes this a lot easier to accomplish.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low.

"A perfect circle" can be proven. can you prove that from this video? If not how do you know this? If that was a "light show" then we are dealing with some pretty boring aliens that know nothing of how to get human attention.

A light show, basic maths, how we interact and have done for ages.

Can I prove its a perfect circle, no, no more than you can proves its not...Pointless and circular.

What I can say is that thing in the video would be classed as a lottery winning chance of just happening at that time with so many ongoing coincidences.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, how do you explain the comments on this video by two of the astronauts who were there, Tom Jones and Story Musgrave? What ever happened to the first principle of any investigation: gather eyewitness testimony

When astronauts, NASA employees, pilots and other reliable professionals support the "party line", they are deemed to be credible witnesses beyond reproach. But when they provide eyewitness testimony that doesn't mesh with the program, they are alienated and defamed. As for the "first principle of any investigation: gather eyewitness testimony" statement, the scientific community doesn't exactly roll out the red carpet and give any credence to eyewitnesses in UFO sightings. It all seems a little hypocritical.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low..

Well, how do you explain the comments on this video by two of the astronauts who were there, Tom Jones and Story Musgrave? What ever happened to the first principle of any investigation: gather eyewitness testimony?

Forgive me for almost laughing, with all the code words for anomalies, accidental slips, odd remarks, changing stories, fellow astronauts saying they have seen proof of aliens and so on, how do I take them seriously Jim?

I can't Nasa has been caught being creative before so the reliability of a Nasa employee holds no water in all honesty. I'm not accusing astronauts of all being liars but when you have a selection saying one thing and another set saying otherwise then its hard to go for either section.

reply to post by draco49




I'm not sure about Jim being that deceiving. He looks really benign in the picture

Originally posted by Mclaneinc

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
All I know is that there's a percentage of 'incidents' that don't work by the nasas excuse, the circle formation being one of them, the likelihood of so many objects moving into an almost perfect circle and then performing a light show as a random act or whatever the Nasa excuse was is pretty low.

"A perfect circle" can be proven. can you prove that from this video? If not how do you know this? If that was a "light show" then we are dealing with some pretty boring aliens that know nothing of how to get human attention.

A light show, basic maths, how we interact and have done for ages.

Can I prove its a perfect circle, no, no more than you can proves its not...Pointless and circular.

Prove my car is not a transformer...except now I am borderline mentally ill....same.

What I can say is that thing in the video would be classed as a lottery winning chance of just happening at that time with so many ongoing coincidences.

people win lotteries

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by draco49

 

I'm not sure about Jim being that deceiving. He looks really benign in the picture

Don't get me wrong. The man is highly qualified and has an impressive history in the field of spaceflight. But the evidence of an agenda is clear by his own statements. His use of persuasion methodology is right out of the book.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
…much of it is guesswork. How do I know that...? It's in the words...
for instance...let me just throw a couple for Jims 99 FAQs:
jamesoberg.com...

77 Q: How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Gordon Cooper. A: I’ve researched his stories deeply, and found that his tales tend to get more dramatic with the years – a typical narrative effect. I’ve found many independent witnesses to both his pre-NASA stories [Germany and Edwards AFB] who all describe much less spectacular occurrences [writers who claim the stories have never been explained are ignorant of these research activities]. In other cases where Cooper recounted documented spaceflight experiences, he often added unreal dramatic details, possibly for audience satisfaction. Some fantastic stories can only be explained as designed to generously please his audiences – best example is his autobiography account of how he saved the space shuttle from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens. Links TBD 78

Q:
How can you dare to disbelieve a true American hero such as Edgar Mitchell? A: I’m happy to accept Mitchell’s personal opinions on other stories he’s heard, but he has nothing to contribute to the ‘space UFO’ subject. I’m glad that there are some intelligent people trying to map the limits of human knowledge – and beyond – as he has done since his space career. When I analyze his published works, such as the report of his private ESP experiment on Apollo-14, I get the impression of a man so excited by the concepts that he may not bring sufficient skepticism and rigor to his criteria for credibility. His report on his ESP experiment, for example, strikes me as ‘ad hoc’ modification to the ‘success’ scoring criteria after the fact, to make essentially random results look significant by changing the rules after the game. I’m glad he had the boldness to conduct the experiment, but I’m not alone in concluding that a proper assessment of the results show nothing significant.

Here's Jim debunking Cooper and Mitchell. Apparently they are crazy, and overly excited, not scientific enough for him.

“Apparently” is inaccurate, Mario. You have closed your eyes and mind to evidence contrary to your cherished beliefs.

For Cooper, I performed and published extensive interviews with his contemporaries, with documentation and parallel records, and with searches for independent investigations. I examined other stories he has told about his own space experiences, compared to the same context of existing documentation and other witnesses. Nobody else, to the best of my knowledge, had ever done this [please correct me if I’m wrong].

Based on THIS unprecedented research, which you seem to dismiss with a wave of ‘just one man’s opinion’, I concluded his stories have diverged from original events farther and farther over the years.

For Mitchell, I read and analyzed his ESP paper [I doubt you’ve ever done that, or even can find ANYBODY else who has -- correct me if I'm wrong], and assessed other checkable claims of his, against other witnesses. This seemed to me to be a proper approach to gauging the credibility of similar stories he tells about related themes. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t – but don’t pretend it’s ‘just an opinion’.

Can it be true that you just don’t recognize real research when you are shown it?

Here is more of Jim guessing:

85 Q: How many of the stories are outright hoaxes?

A: Not many, but a few. The oft-repeated ‘we still have the alien spaceship in view” comment looks like a prank by a radio amateur transmitting over a radio band where the actual air-to-ground was being re-transmitted for local listeners in Greenbelt, Maryland.

...looks like a prank to Jim....

This is grossly inaccurate, Mario. The story looks like a hoax TO THE RESEARCHER WHO ORIGINALLY PUBLICIZED IT, Donald Ratsch. He later withdrew his endorsement of it, and reported that HE now believed it was a prank. Now, I'm guessing you just didn't know about Ratsch's retraction -- but then, how can you be so certain of something that you are clearly so ... what's the word? -- 'ignorant' about?

Thanks for checking over the “99 FAQs” and providing me insights on how they can be written more clearly so as to be less prone to misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

I don't know about what Jim does, but I often sneak into the bathroom and pretend I am...well, you know....and the ipad makes this a lot easier to accomplish.

You guys make me laugh

Kidding aside...Jim is a real space engineer with loads of experience. That much I'm sure. Let's not get overboard with the conspiracy