NASA Astronaut Camarda Denies Bogus 'UFO Quotation"

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Are you like one of those Sheldon Cooper characters who acts like an arse without realizing you are doing so?
I am asking seriously here, because you generalize about people and condescend to them in like half of your posts here.

Well, sweet words and seductive arguments have brought ufology to its current state, which doesn't seem to satisfy many folks hereabouts, so maybe tone is less important than content.

As for nasty generalizations, isn't that SOP for UFO conspiracy theory believers? "Never A Straight Answer"?? Did you ever find that offensive, or protest-worthy?

How about a fair-and-balanced application of your rebuke?

Seriously, the idea that 'everybody has a right to their own opinion' [no argument from me] seems to have been widely perverted into the foolish belief that 'everybody has a right to their own facts', a lot.

It's those believed-in but wrong facts that I intend my rhetorical fire be aimed at, and I try [not always successfully] to avoid proclamations of personal intentions or motives. Hold my feet to the fire when I stray there, but also do the same who play that unfair ad hominem against me, please, huh?

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, to be honest, I don't trust the Government. This includes NASA. No offense to you, or anyone who works there, personally, but no, I do not trust them.

In my estimation it is a near certainty NASA is sitting on info that would be beneficial to UFOlogy. I say this because of the sheer number of confirmed anomalous objects documented by the military. These things fly in our skies. Now you personally may not have any answers, but I am confident SOMEONE up there does. Your VIPs.

But yeah, I understand your position, Jim. Have for awhile actually. Even before your comments yesterday. I got your back.

reply to post by JimOberg


Mr.Oberg I must admit I've scratched my head more than a few times over the past few years while trying to digest your post and threads.
With that being said, I also rarely pass on the opportunity to read your post as I respect your experience and opinion.
My issue in this case is with how you've worded your question to Dr.Camarda.

The statement

Since most of the 'space UFO stories' on the Internet are totally bogus, or grossly distorted, I'd be curious to learn
what's behind this one.

What I may be seeing here I believe would be called angling for a particular answer, or perhaps a form of word bias. This is of course done by the wording of your question.


With your statement above he is quickly see the answer you are anticipating.



At the link below there is a really interesting article discussing Persuasive Question-Asking:

WWW.kkcomcon.com...
Persuasive Question-Asking:

I've posted a small section below. MODS if this shouldn't be posted please remove..Thank you

How Question Wording Influences Answers
DR. KATHY KELLERMANN
Trial Consultant

Questions put words in answerers’ mouths. Questions shape answers through
word choice, response framing, assumptions made, and form. Subtle changes
in language influence how people understand and answer questions.
Response framing suggests and excludes answers, limiting the answers that
are acceptable and influencing which answers respondents make.
Presumptuous questions that are unbalanced (one-sided) and/or assumptive
lead people to think differently, and so respond differently. A question’s form
amplifies and diminishes tendencies people have to agree or disagree, to
speak openly or save face, and to feel threatened or comfortable. Questionasking
is a skill, and changes in word choice, suggested responses,
presumptions, and form affect answers people provide.

Thanks for the post Jim, but your going to at least give it a chance...
Why not ask instead
" I came across a rather interesting article on the internet and I was hoping you could confirm or deny its authenticity."? Just a thought.

thnx
tom

reply to post by wutz4tom


I read his statement a little differently.
"Since MOST of the stories are totally bogus."

I would be more interested in the cases in which Jim thinks may have some validity. That is, afterall, what he is implying.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Apparently no one wants the truth Jim. For popularitys sake I guess its better to start a more controversial thread where members troll and insult one and other.
On a more personal note what are your thoughts on our status of lone intelligence in the universe? Do you ever watch Morgan Freemans "Through the Wormhole" ?
For myself I often use a quote from the movie Contact. "If we are it, it seems an awful waste of space"

Sure the humanoid 5' tall thinks he is better than the 6' humanoid because he is
taking up less space and a 6' tall humanoid has to be more wasted.
He is only 5' wasted. A sociopath thinking he is better than everyone else is not
even aware of his waste. The Illuminati alien wasteland of movies can't be right.

Being dissatisfied with space probe Earth is a suckers game cause the Illuminati
refuse to tell you any knowledge to make you happy standing on it.

Picking on people to make their point of superior beings will not stop.
The Illuminati are too powerful.

reply to post by JayinAR


Thinking NASA has no secrets of the UFO should be correct.
If they knew UFOs they would be the smartest people on earth.
New know they only use Newtonian physics in a Quantum Universe.
Wow tell them to scrap the travel the universe plans and call all aliens.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Well, they ARE working on warp technology.
Also, I didn't say they KNOW UFOs. What I said is they are almost certain to be sitting on info that would be beneficial to UFOlogy.

I understand your position is one where you maintain UFOs are all black tech derived from Tesla's research. While I think that is an interesting hypothesis, I disagree strongly. So it is doubtful you and I will ever share many views on the subject. Thanks for your reply though.

Originally posted by wutz4tom
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Mr.Oberg I must admit I've scratched my head more than a few times over the past few years while trying to digest your post and threads.
With that being said, I also rarely pass on the opportunity to read your post as I respect your experience and opinion.
My issue in this case is with how you've worded your question to Dr.Camarda.

The statement

Since most of the 'space UFO stories' on the Internet are totally bogus, or grossly distorted, I'd be curious to learn
what's behind this one.

What I may be seeing here I believe would be called angling for a particular answer, or perhaps a form of word bias. This is of course done by the wording of your question.

Not an unreasonable question, but it raises an issue to be addressed to you.

How many times in the past did you ever apply that concern to any pro-UFO statements or claims?

Is the number significantly different from zero? Surprise me.

The wording is related to the widespread attitude among the astronauts I've worked with -- especially the dozens with whom i've touched on this subject -- regharding the widespread stories that they've seen UFOs but have been ordered to lie about it. Their attitudes range from bemused mockery to fiery contempt for promoters of such stories, and total callousness towards 'anybody stupid enough to fall for them.'

Again and again I've had to plead and cajole that lots of well-meaning spaceflight-oriented kids really think that the sheer number of such stories, fabricated over many decades, indicates that SOME at least MUST be authentic. .So if they can help clarify or straighten out the record, one by one, they will be helpful. Most agree and cooperate. Still, a lot don't even want to bother, figuring it's useless and only opens them to harrassment from 'UFO nuts'. Even Gordon Cooper openly complained about hoax stories using his name, and Ed Mitchell has also denounced people claiming he secretly admitted to space UFO encounters.

What would you advise doing to encourage more openness from astronauts and NASA in general? Reward it amd encourage it, or denounce it as 'more lies'? Which do you think might be more effective?


Here's a specific example.

What should NASA do about Alice Eve's recent ravings from her space station web chat? Realize that whatever choice NASA makes, somebody hereabouts will declare THAT choice as proof of a continued coverup.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

In my estimation it is a near certainty NASA is sitting on info that would be beneficial to UFOlogy. I say this because of the sheer number of confirmed anomalous objects documented by the military. ......:

You make this estimation in the total absence of any reliable reports from NASA, right? Are you THAT impervious to relevant evidence? Have you crafted a fool-proof anti-reality armor for your existing worldview?

Surely you can't want to appear to be approaching the problem with that attitude?

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, is it not one of NASA's jobs to monitor the skies?
The military, at one time and maybe even today, had a hell of a time with these objects. Radar returns, visual confirmations and the like. To say that these things TOTALLY ESCAPE NASA's attention would make me feel naive, not biased.

Originally posted by JayinAR
I would be more interested in the cases in which Jim thinks may have some validity. That is, afterall, what he is implying.

Subtlety is not my style, you may have noticed.

I'm not implying anything, I'm saying outright that my analysis suggests strongly that some space observations are NOT 'ordinary' but are important indicators requiring attention. They may be clues to phenomena requiring urgent attention and reaction. Or to spacecraft malfunctions, or missile/space activities of other humans, or of others.

Detection of indications of ET activity cannot be eliminated as a candidate explanation, but once you accept that possibility, ALL ordinary identification procedures have to be suspended, since a technology capable of interstellar travel would presumably be capable of controlling its detectability and appearance to primitive cultures, so it could appear as anything it wanted to, or nothing at all.

In that situation, we would be utterly powerless in any identification efforts. So how does it help to seek evidence that by going-in assumption would be counterfeit? Wuithout a reasonable recognition criterion, I've got to just leave that question for those acting on faith, and concentrate my limited resources on situations where they may contribute to solutions. Like the Camarda quote, or so many others like it.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, is it not one of NASA's jobs to monitor the skies?

Not the near-skies, no.

NASA coordinates searches for NEOs out distant from Earth, and among all the rocks has on occasion detected artificial objects of unknown origin. And they have announced the observations promptly. No coverups. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

reply to post by JimOberg


I understand that.
But if a person were working from the assumption that anomalous objects were appearing in near Earth skies, would it not follow logically that they got here from the areas of the sky NASA DOES monitor?

ETA: not necessarily, I suppose. .but if one was working from the ET hypothesis, it would follow.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I understand that.
But if a person were working from the assumption that anomalous objects were appearing in near Earth skies, would it not follow logically that they got here from the areas of the sky NASA DOES monitor?

ETA: not necessarily, I suppose. .but if one was working from the ET hypothesis, it would follow.

edit on 25-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

How exactly do you assume anybody would see them, if they didn't want to be seen? Once you postulate such a 'cause', ANY combination of consequences -- any presence or absence of all features -- would be 'explainable'.

I cannot see this model as creating any checkable/falsifiable hypotheses, so it's useless to me as an investigator.

And aren't you straying far from the bogus Camarda quotation?

reply to post by JimOberg


Yeah, I guess so. Haha.
There really isn't much more to say though. I trust what you say. I am not gonna snail mail him a letter to verify what I already accept. And honestly I doubt people who do doubt you will be bothered to either. In any event, apologies for straying off topic.

Also, I have to concede you have a point about detectability. It almost seems conclusive at this point that we aren't ever gonna get any good info from any astronauts.

I am still intrigued with what Mitchell says.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim,

Would you be willing to write another thread explaining some of what I will quote below? And if you already have, will you kindly provide a link?
Thanks in advance.

I'm not implying anything, I'm saying outright that my analysis suggests strongly that some space observations are NOT 'ordinary' but are important indicators requiring attention. They may be clues to phenomena requiring urgent attention and reaction. Or to spacecraft malfunctions, or missile/space activities of other humans, or of others.

ETA: Nevermind. Found one of your threads. And it actually addresses a question I was hoping to ask you. Should be a great read.

Is there any evidence to support the OP outside of heresay?

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
Is there any evidence to support the OP outside of heresay?

The fact it was posted by Jim Oberg is evidence enough for me , I may not always agree with him but if he says that's what it is then that IS what it is .

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Jim, isn't your entire thesis a case of the False Dilemma fallacy. Specifically 'falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus' which means 'false in one thing, false in everything':

en.wikipedia.org...

By no means. The logical fallacy I'm most interested in is the treatment of the onus probandi for establishing a new theory of reality.

The burden is on the claimant's side, it's not a level playing field.

Quite so, but the claimant does need to be in a position to prove his claim, and with so much of the really good evidence classified top secret, I feel there is an unfair burden placed on the claimant.

I guess what I'm really driving at though, with the fallacy mentioned earlier, is that the entire subject of UFOs has become one big false dilemma.

For some reason the debate now seldom strays from two possibilities; either some UFOs are alien spacecraft, or all UFOs have a prosaic / commonplace explanation, with believers and skeptics firmly divided into these two lobbies.

I wonder what would happen if we deleted the word 'aliens' from every text written about UFOs and start fresh i.e. try and find an anthropogenic explanation for all the really challenging cases like Rendlesham for example.

But I don't mean that in a skeptical way. I mean accept that these incursions do actually happen, for the purposes of argument, and then try and figure out what group of humans, and not aliens, could be in possession of such advanced technologies.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
Is there any evidence to support the OP outside of heresay?

Nope, there is no evidence to support Oberg's socalled "e-mail conversations with famous Camarda", it looks like it was made up. Beside, Mr. Camarda is not here to defend himself. And why should famous Mr. Camarda waste time writing with Oberg? I don't think Mr. Camarda even have time to write with Mr. Oberg. And i doubt Oberg have Camarda's e-mail adress.

And what if we assume Mr. Camarda did respond to Oberg's socalled query? If we assume Mr. Oberg did write to Mr. Camarda, and Camarda responded the way as Oberg claim, then i think there might a good chance that Mr. Camarda is thinking that there may be a good chance that Mr. Oberg may be hired by NASA as a disinfo agent to discredit NASA employees or former NASA employees no matter what it takes, when it comes to UFOs, and or Mr. Camarda is thinking that Mr. Oberg may be hired by NASA as one of those to tell NASA employees to shut up about UFOs. If this is the case, and if we assume Camarda did respond to Oberg's socalled "query" the way as Oberg claim, then i think there may be a good chance that Camarda had to lie to Oberg, and don't want to share the true informations with Oberg, because Camarda maybe think that there might be a good chance that Camarda himself is risking to lose his job if Camarda continue to speak openly about UFOs outside NASA while Camarda still works for NASA.

galactic.no...

My name is Donna Hare. During ‘70 and ‘71 I worked in Building 8 of NASA for a contractor, Philco Ford.

He said that some [of the astronauts] who wanted to talk were threatened. They’d signed papers not to talk. They would have their retirements taken away. I was just overwhelmed with that piece of information so I started asking questions. Certain people that I knew were key people in the organization so I’d take them away from the site. We’d go to lunch and I’d talk to them. And alone they would tell me things and then swear if I ever said they said it, they would say I was lying.

There was a point in time when I had some people come out and tell me I shouldn’t talk about this. They didn’t threaten to kill me but I got the message I shouldn’t talk about it. But I’d already talked about it so much it didn’t really matter anymore.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

In a letter from Colonel Charles Senn, Chief of the Air Force Community Relations Division, to Lieutenant General Duward Crow of NASA, dated 1 September 1977, Colonel Senn made the following astonishing statement:

"I sincerely hope that you are successful in preventing a re-opening of UFO investigations."

From around 4:03 into above "UFO Hunters: The Nasa Files (Part 2 of 5)" Donna Hare said >>I became aware that there were craft at NASA that were kept secret, and i had seen pictures in a lab.While at NASA her work focused on graphic design, during her 10 year she believe she saw someone supress evidence.Can you describe what you saw in detail?I was working in Building 8, and what the technicians there who's working on mosaic, and one of the things i've noticed was a spot.>I said >>Is that a bubble of emulsion?No, bubble of emulsion don't leave round shadows on the groundWe have to airbrush these out before we send them to the public.