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.

 

Nasa's Unexplained Files *** Full Video ***

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Thanks Gortex....just remembered I have this saved on my DVR...gonna watch tonite!

(after the UFO landing at the Olympics of course)





posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by JimOberg
 





Note that the turn is not observed -- if it happened, it was off-camera to the left.


The turn of the object from 3.25 close to the left hand side of the tether is very much on camera to my eyes though , and with no obvious deviation from the other objects around it ... interesting ?


I watched it again and still don't sede that main object turning -- we must be looking at different objects.

Other objcts do indeed turn. I addressed some potential prosaic physical causes for such behavior in my '99 FAQs'.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
So, Jim.. you seem to think there is a reasonable explanation for just about every aspect of Ufology. Do you believe that we are alone in this universe? If not (and how could anyone seriously believe otherwise these days) what's it going to take for you to admit that yes, you personally believe that this thing could be a real UFO craft or this being could be a real alien? There must be some point at which you can say, for me personally, this is believable.

Perhaps that should be your 100th question.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I nearly felt asleep while watching it... it doesn't show anything. Though why would an astronaut confuse some space debris with a 'boogie'? They still haven't seen any spaceship, so I cannot say they saw aircraft,



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 





Though why would an astronaut confuse some space debris with a 'boogie'?

Beyond me ... but you can't Blame it on the boogie



Sorry mate I couldn't help it ..... I'll get my coat



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
I nearly felt asleep while watching it... it doesn't show anything. Though why would an astronaut confuse some space debris with a 'boogie'? They still haven't seen any spaceship, so I cannot say they saw aircraft,


Oh dear- I think you meant 'bogie' right? As in 'we've got a bogie at 10 o'clock'? Its WWII pilot speak for 'unidentified or enemy aircraft', and was used in this situation because he (the astronaut) was aware that all sorts of people were listening in, and he didnt want to say 'I can see a UFO'.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Oh dear- I think you meant 'bogie' right? As in 'we've got a bogie at 10 o'clock'? Its WWII pilot speak for 'unidentified or enemy aircraft', and was used in this situation because he (the astronaut) was aware that all sorts of people were listening in, and he didnt want to say 'I can see a UFO'.


Thunda, that's a reasonable explanation if you assume that the third-hand and selectively-edited version you're basing it on is the best information available. There IS better information out there about Borman's comment, from Borman himself -- it's just that the UFO promoters will NOT make it available to you, perhaps because they want you to reach the conclusion they desire, whatever the authentic event might have been. In any case, it's seemingly a deliberate coverup to keep you ensnared by half-truths and wild guesses.

Free yourself.

Try to locate the direct testimony of Frank Borman, in places such as 'Air & Space' magazine. You might discover that you MIGHT possibly have been misled, even conned, about this particular story.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Thunda
Oh dear- I think you meant 'bogie' right? As in 'we've got a bogie at 10 o'clock'? Its WWII pilot speak for 'unidentified or enemy aircraft', and was used in this situation because he (the astronaut) was aware that all sorts of people were listening in, and he didnt want to say 'I can see a UFO'.


Thunda, that's a reasonable explanation if you assume that the third-hand and selectively-edited version you're basing it on is the best information available. There IS better information out there about Borman's comment, from Borman himself -- it's just that the UFO promoters will NOT make it available to you, perhaps because they want you to reach the conclusion they desire, whatever the authentic event might have been. In any case, it's seemingly a deliberate coverup to keep you ensnared by half-truths and wild guesses.

Free yourself.

Try to locate the direct testimony of Frank Borman, in places such as 'Air & Space' magazine. You might discover that you MIGHT possibly have been misled, even conned, about this particular story.


Hmmm, right, Mr Oberg. I can assure you I am quite 'free' as you put it. Instead of being so cryptic in your answers, how about you tell us what he meant, then? Maybe you can 'free' us all. I am of the understanding- coming from an Air Force family, that when a military pilot says he spots a 'bogie', then he is talking about an unidentified or enemy aircraft. Please enlighten us as to what is incorrect about that statement.

Just think, in one sentence you could change one of the oldest UFO 'misconceptions' out there......



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
By the way guys, a "bogey" is not an unidentified enemy aircraft.

I believe the term everyone is looking for here is "bandit."



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissonantOne
By the way guys, a "bogey" is not an unidentified enemy aircraft.

I believe the term everyone is looking for here is "bandit."


A bogey is a term used in the Air Force for an unknown aerial target, one that hasn't or can't be identified as friendly or hostile , a Bandit is an aircraft identified as an enemy.




edit on 17-8-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So, Jim.. you seem to think there is a reasonable explanation for just about every aspect of Ufology. Do you believe that we are alone in this universe? If not (and how could anyone seriously believe otherwise these days) what's it going to take for you to admit that yes, you personally believe that this thing could be a real UFO craft or this being could be a real alien? There must be some point at which you can say, for me personally, this is believable.

Perhaps that should be your 100th question.


I find it strange Jim didn't reply to my post here. Jim, Please respond to my post. With respect, thank you.

I'll also add that I believe it's possible the the laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe as we understand them. A higher more advanced alien race may use a different reasoning for math, and thus have developed a different understanding of how physics works around us.

Math is just a language but it is not a universal language. Math as we humans understand it is unique only - to US. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Jim, what do you think about this idea?



edit on 17-8-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I find it strange Jim didn't reply to my post here. Jim, Please respond to my post. With respect, thank you.


I don't find it that strange. Most skeptics are asked this question regularly and the answers will never be satisfactory for most believers ... unless the answer is something like ... 'my bad, aliens are here already'



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I find it strange Jim didn't reply to my post here. Jim, Please respond to my post. With respect, thank you.


I don't find it that strange. Most skeptics are asked this question regularly and the answers will never be satisfactory for most believers ... unless the answer is something like ... 'my bad, aliens are here already'



I understand that sentiment but I am NOT a believer. I simply ask these questions based on proper reasoning. Therefore. I see no reason why he seemed to ignore my questions as he did. These things must be discussed with open minds because that is what true science is all about. I'm sure Jim as a true scientist will respect that and he just didn't see my post...I await his response to both of my questions, as I know he will reply to them when he has time and sees this post. As I said, With Respect. I don't have any agenda here, but wish to know what a top NASA scientist and writer thinks about these things.

I gave you a star for your insight. - there are many situations where you may be right.. I just dont think that's the case in this instance. In fact, I have thought like you before.. that's one reason why I'm willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt.
edit on 17-8-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Hmmm, right, Mr Oberg. I can assure you I am quite 'free' as you put it. Instead of being so cryptic in your answers, how about you tell us what he meant, then? Maybe you can 'free' us all. I am of the understanding- coming from an Air Force family, that when a military pilot says he spots a 'bogie', then he is talking about an unidentified or enemy aircraft. Please enlighten us as to what is incorrect about that statement.

Just think, in one sentence you could change one of the oldest UFO 'misconceptions' out there......


I'm not the gatekeeper or single-point-failure node for this information, so you shouldn't use me as an excuse for YOU not wanting to find, or trying to find, all angles and spins on these kinds of stories.

What interests me most is how an intelligent, curious person such as you seem to be could track down what the direct eyewitness, Frank Borman, thinks of the way these air-to-ground snippets have been commonly interpreted [or misinterpreted]. Haven't we all been multiply bitten by partial, slanted, out of context alleged quotes by people we never seem interested in asking directly? Why cling to such an ineffective approach to determining reality?

The information IS on the Internet, and I've posted it myself on my 'space age folklore' page at my website. But it should be discoverable independently by any truly interested searchers for the 'whole story'. Try it, please, and let us know if it can be done as easily as I hope it is.

Then with a full set of facts and testimony and context we can argue over reasonable interpretations of the case.

Without it, it's playing solitaire til dawn with a pack of 51.

Remember the parable of the fish? Give a hungry man a fish, and he's hungry again tomorrow. Teach him to fish, and he'll never be hungry again.

You're asking me for a fish. I'm seeking to free you from needing OTHER peopleto get your fish for you.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So, Jim.. you seem to think there is a reasonable explanation for just about every aspect of Ufology. Do you believe that we are alone in this universe? If not (and how could anyone seriously believe otherwise these days) what's it going to take for you to admit that yes, you personally believe that this thing could be a real UFO craft or this being could be a real alien? There must be some point at which you can say, for me personally, this is believable.

Perhaps that should be your 100th question.


Sorry the essays on my home page aren't clear. By no means do I believe, or argue, that there is a'reasonable' [or 'prosaic'] explanation for every UFO report -- I've found a few very interesting and original explanations [if not 'ET' explanations] for a lot of them, That makes studying the body of reports and identifying really interesting ones worth the effort.

The awesome question of our uniqueness or commonness in the universe is an issue I never expect to get to the bottom of. It's connection to the origin of 'UFO reports' is also unclear to me. What I think I can contribute is a sharpening of the methodology of investigation of the corpus of these reports.

One major theme -- arguing by elimination [we don't KNOW of any prosaic explanation therefore the report MUST be caused by an extraordinary stimulus] is a bankrupt notion. It assumes a level of omniscience and insight to the goings-on of this world that does not strike me as justified. And the history of 'UFO investigators' being over-confident in their ability to 'weed out' prosaic causes, failing again and again and again, compels me to accept the role of us simply not knowing about certain things.

The nature of potential positive proofs of, say, ET contact, is addressed in several essays on my home page, developed in conjunction with OMNI Magazine investigations in the 1980s and 1990s.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'll also add that I believe it's possible the the laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe as we understand them. A higher more advanced alien race may use a different reasoning for math, and thus have developed a different understanding of how physics works around us.

Math is just a language but it is not a universal language. Math as we humans understand it is unique only - to US. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Jim, what do you think about this idea?


The possibility that physical constants might vary over space and time is an eternal puzzle for physics. Observing deeper and deeper in distance and back in time seems to suggest the basic principles are similar, if not identical, to locally -- but it's why we keep looking.

Is there any reason that pi should have different values, or 'e', elsewhere or elsewhen in the Universe?

Or that the most astonishing of all relationships betweenv those two 'universal' values,
that 'e' to the power of pi times 'i' should be minus 1, is a fundamental mathematical identity.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
If we want to discuss the TV show in greater detail, and hear about my experiences in taking part in it, I repeat my suggestion that we work on developing a written transcript of all the comments so we can refer to them precisely. Any volunteers?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Thank you Jim for your answers and I appreciate your candor.

The math and physics as we understand it as being unique to Humans is something that is up to debate (among humans) . I feel that though the core principles we exhume from these studies are probably universal, the science behind them (if aliens use science as we know it at all) can be up to even greater interpretation. "They", can simply understand these things in a manner in which we do not, using their own methods of understanding and it has helped them, in turn create technology that we cannot therefore understand. (if aliens do indeed exist) I believe this would be a strong possibility.

So yes, Pi could still be Pi here and there if they use the same math and science we do. There is no reason to think that they do - they may view Pi in terms of their own that we cannot fathom. Take quantum physics and the interrelationship of the physical universe as according to Newton and compare it to today's modern quantum mechanics pioneers. They find many seeming contradictions in the two fields of study. It may be the same way between us and "them". Therefore, I hold to always rule nothing out that we cannot disprove with 100% certainty - and then, know that, that certainty is only due to our limited childlike understanding in the grand scheme of universal knowledge.

Damn this arcane English language. I do hope I have made my point clear or at least sufficiently less muddy.

And by the way.. I didn't get to read all of your essays.. I may have over looked some aspects that may have caused me to word my post differently. Touche.
edit on 18-8-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: addition



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Thunda
Hmmm, right, Mr Oberg. I can assure you I am quite 'free' as you put it. Instead of being so cryptic in your answers, how about you tell us what he meant, then? Maybe you can 'free' us all. I am of the understanding- coming from an Air Force family, that when a military pilot says he spots a 'bogie', then he is talking about an unidentified or enemy aircraft. Please enlighten us as to what is incorrect about that statement.

Just think, in one sentence you could change one of the oldest UFO 'misconceptions' out there......


I'm not the gatekeeper or single-point-failure node for this information, so you shouldn't use me as an excuse for YOU not wanting to find, or trying to find, all angles and spins on these kinds of stories.

What interests me most is how an intelligent, curious person such as you seem to be could track down what the direct eyewitness, Frank Borman, thinks of the way these air-to-ground snippets have been commonly interpreted [or misinterpreted]. Haven't we all been multiply bitten by partial, slanted, out of context alleged quotes by people we never seem interested in asking directly? Why cling to such an ineffective approach to determining reality?

The information IS on the Internet, and I've posted it myself on my 'space age folklore' page at my website. But it should be discoverable independently by any truly interested searchers for the 'whole story'. Try it, please, and let us know if it can be done as easily as I hope it is.

Then with a full set of facts and testimony and context we can argue over reasonable interpretations of the case.

Without it, it's playing solitaire til dawn with a pack of 51.

Remember the parable of the fish? Give a hungry man a fish, and he's hungry again tomorrow. Teach him to fish, and he'll never be hungry again.

You're asking me for a fish. I'm seeking to free you from needing OTHER peopleto get your fish for you.


Im asking you for a fish? No, Im not, Im asking you to stop being cyptic and say what you mean. Im not about to do some research because you tell me to, when you can just explain what you mean by your statement. Yes, Borman was with Lovell on Gemini VII. The facts are, on their second orbit Borman reported that he saw an unidentified spacecraft some distance from their capsule. Gemini Control, at Cape Kennedy told him that he was seeing the final stage of their own Titan booster rocket. Borman confirmed that he could see the booster rocket all right, but that he could also see something completely different. Then Lovell, not Borman, makes the following transmission:

Lovell: BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH.
Capcom: This is Houston. Say again 7.
Lovell: SAID WE HAVE A BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH.
Capcom: Roger....
(at this point the live broadcast of the conversation is interrupted by Capcom)
Capcom: Gemini 7, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting ?
Lovell: WE HAVE SEVERAL...ACTUAL SIGHTING.
Capcom: ...Estimated distance or size ?
Lovell: WE ALSO HAVE THE BOOSTER IN SIGHT...

Now, you can either tell us all what you mean by you claim that "Frank Borman, thinks of the way these air-to-ground snippets have been commonly interpreted [or misinterpreted].", or you can make no further comment, but going off on these random rants about how we have all been 'tricked' by these UFO forgers, and making statements about how you posted this that and the other on various other threads, does you no favours in the eyes of people who may have still had a modicum of respect for you due to your historic connections with NASA.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So, Jim.. you seem to think there is a reasonable explanation for just about every aspect of Ufology. Do you believe that we are alone in this universe? If not (and how could anyone seriously believe otherwise these days) what's it going to take for you to admit that yes, you personally believe that this thing could be a real UFO craft or this being could be a real alien? There must be some point at which you can say, for me personally, this is believable.

Perhaps that should be your 100th question.

I am tired of having people get all over Jimmy who is a true American and all that stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join