UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

reply to post by mysterioustranger

Lol thanks, I will follow that.

Indian citizens and sons and daughters of India have been going into space for a long time. The OP can be especially helpful if he can locate any comments in the India press by Sharma, Chawla, and others related to UFO experiences in space, comments that may not have been noticed outside the country.

The greatest challenge facing any novice UFO enthusiast, as I see it, is to devise a technique to use existing search engines to locate attempts to contradict or debunk famous stories of this type. As now implemented, these searches seem to only be able to locate echoes of previous unsourced assertions.

For example, if one were to speculate that the alleged Scott Carpenter quote may be entirely fictitious, how could a search string be formulated to locate a posting in support of that skeptical view -- so it could be balanced against the original claim?

Ditto the Afanasyev story. If there existed internet material trying to prove the quote is a hoax, how would anyone find it?

No apologies necessary on your use of English. Almost all of us who use it are descended recently from people who did not. I personally think that the flourishes and musicality that Indian people bring to their unique variation of the ever-changing language is a precious gift to all those others of us who use it.

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for replying, sir.What do you think about the UFOs(satellite/gas/ballon in NASA's language) in the images posted by NASA? and what about this illusion of squirrel? :
Illusion

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thanks for replying, sir.What do you think about the UFOs(satellite/gas/ballon in NASA's language) in the images posted by NASA? and what about this illusion of squirrel? :
Illusion

'

Forgive me for leaving Mars pictures to the martians, I'll stick to the topics I've personally investigated.

Try my Afanasyev challenge. I believe the quotation is bogus, a deliberate lie not by the cosmonaut but by the producer of the TV show who wrote the script of the alleged 'translation'. But you should not take my word for it -- try to locate the links with evidence supporting this verdict.

Good luck with your country's upcoming Mars probe.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The greatest challenge facing any novice UFO enthusiast, as I see it, is to devise a technique to use existing search engines to locate attempts to contradict or debunk famous stories of this type. As now implemented, these searches seem to only be able to locate echoes of previous unsourced assertions.

For example, if one were to speculate that the alleged Scott Carpenter quote may be entirely fictitious, how could a search string be formulated to locate a posting in support of that skeptical view -- so it could be balanced against the original claim?

This is exactly how a claim of such extraordinary events should be handled. Some type of data base or reference examining cases in totality. Sources of quotes that are traceable to the actual originator. Like you said, that's the only fair balanced way to approach these cases and quotes. Unfortunately, many members here don't follow through with this level of investigation. That only piles on more one-sided, uneducated, biased views of this phenomenon. It's not productive and doesn't help it at all.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


I am very new, I just collect things and put it then ask for reviews to learn.

Come on people, we all know how this thread is going to end!

Nothing here to see, keep going, move along!

I bet the arguments will be something like: bad quoting/translation; misinterpretation of what those characters really said; inability to trace the origin of those comments (threfore those comments are second-hand info and cannot be trusted, etc

The astronauts/cosmonauts sightinhs were debris, pieces of heat shield, dirt on the lense, refraction, you know the drill, right?!

Your intentions are good OP, but this thread was condemned from the start.

reply to post by meaningless333

inability to trace the origin of those comments (threfore those comments are second-hand info and cannot be trusted, etc

And why is that wrong ?
Surely if a quote is to be believed it has to link back to the source of that quote and be acknowledged by the alleged originator of that quote .

reply to post by gortex


Rather touchy, aren´t you today, sir?
I´m quite surprised since usually you are a polite and balanced member.

There is nothing wrong on trying to get the info right and from it´s source.

For instance, those Reagan quotations (and while posting my first comment i was thinking on them) about an alien menace (Youtube has then) were broadcasted at the time on the news worldwide.
Are you questioning this?

Originally posted by meaningless333
reply to post by gortex

 

Rather touchy, aren´t you today, sir?
I´m quite surprised since usually you are a polite and balanced member.

There is nothing wrong on trying to get the info right and from it´s source.

For instance, those Reagan quotations (and while posting my first comment i was thinking on them) about an alien menace (Youtube has then) were broadcasted at the time on the news worldwide.
Are you questioning this?

You picked an easy one. Now try the cosmonaut Afanasyev fable.

reply to post by JimOberg


Talking about picking an easy one?

Mr. Oberg, you a NASA expert trying to lure me (an average joe) into discussing the comments of an russian (?) cosmonaut on a space mission?

That´s like Golias (you, Mr Oberg) defying David (me) to armfist fight!
You may think i´m dellusional (or even nuts) for believing in that UFO craze stuff, but I know my limitations and that´s an uneven challenge, Mr. Oberg. You have the technological knowledge, the contacts and surelly a vast bascket of resources (even outside help?) to face me.

It just amazes me that Mr. Oberg and Gortex (two ATS longtimers spent so much effort with an ATs rookie like myself! Did I touch any wrong button?

I just keep wondering why you, Mr. Oberg, dont show up at certain threads posted by certain members (like Karl12(?) and the like)?

By the way, and what about Carpenter´s, Gorbatchov and Reagan quotes, what do you have to say Mr. Oberg?

Talking about picking an easy one, Mr Oberg?

Originally posted by meaningless333
By the way, and what about Carpenter´s, Gorbatchov and Reagan quotes, what do you have to say Mr. Oberg?
Talking about picking an easy one, Mr Oberg?

Stop selling yourself short. I don't have any magic wand or super powers, that are beyond your reach.

How about asking Carpenter?

Mail to retired astronauts is forwarded by NASA.

True, I happen to have his email, so that made it easier.

How would you search the internet for what I found?

Why should you believe it just because I say it?

One big reason:

Do you imagine there AREN'T a legion of enthusiasts out there who do their best to fact-check and triple-check my claims, hoping to find errors they can trumpet? Some actually do, for which i am grateful, and constructively responsive.

And re Afanasyev, can you devise an internet search strategy to see if anyone has offered links to Russian articles where the cosmonaut's original story can be found -- and translated with available internet tools. Learn to use them, or get reconciled to remaining forever at the output end of the great alimentary canal called the 'UFO Web'.

Re Reagan and Gorbachyov, I'm not in a position -- or an inclination -- to dispute the context or intent or accuracy of the words attributed to them.

It's less embarrassing in the long run to stick to areas where you have earned a reputation for accuracy.

But folks around here, armed only with genuine curiosity and ordinary experience and normal intelligence have again and again contributed original and useful findings to these stories and the history of their development, using internet search skills and other techniques.

So man up and get serious about being part of the solution, not part of the problem.

reply to post by JimOberg


Mr. Oberg part of the problem are those people who go derailing threads (like the one that you recently tried to make into a copyright issue), the people who eargly and furiously jump on anyone here that tries to share its experience/story and are so intelectualy arrogant to issue certificates of mental illness or insanity (by just reading a story).
Those people that possess an static conception of knowledge, those who think that the theoretic bounderies of our know science are stonewalls that cant be overcomed.

Copernicus, Thyco Brahe, Galileo just to name a few made that bould step to defy orthodox thinking and knowledge. They exposed themselves to ridicule and risked their own lifes (The Holly Inquisition was not a Monty Phyton´s joke) by just claiming that they saw things differently. And time proved that they were the ones that got into history books.

So, those people that are part of the problem - the ATS debunking police. Skepticism is one thing, debunkers are way different.
Skepticism is a fundamental tool to discern true facts from rubbish.

ATS is increasingly becoming a place where people are afraid of exposing themselves to mockery by sharing their experiences. No one is obliged to take them as true or as infalible reports. Even to listen to them.

The pursue of knowledge and information is compromised.
Just imagine if Vallee or Hynek had adopted the attitude of Prof. Edward Condon in the face of those wild reports/facts they compiled and studied.

Maybe that´s a reason why so many contributors left ATS in recent years.

We have some strange phenomena going on for decades (even centuries?) on our skies, land and seas.
We have reports showing that happens day or night, inside or outside buildings, with good or bad weather.
We have radar evidence.
We have the testimony of military/test/civilan pilots, policeman, ordinary people with various degree of education.
We have patterns of events worldwide in a time long before the Internet (and by thousands (tens?)) of people that were not contaminetd by each others stories.
We have a wall of silence imposed on the military and scientif personnel about this subject (UFO´s and its ramifications).

And we still dont have a clue!
And those people that are really part of the problem haven´t yet contributed to anything.

I will not go to the trouble of making a link to justify all the above. There already enough threads here in ATS exposing those evidence (radar, pilots testimonies, etc)

reply to post by HiddenSecrets

A very interesting group of astronaut related events HiddenSecrets. Thanks for posting them. I believe those
who dispute their authenticity should do some research on their own to prove any false if that is what they
believe. In the meantime this is a forum, not a court of law, and nobody is going to prove anything anyway.
What most of us want is what is interesting in the UFO/Alien field - time, events, and more data may one
day prove something - for now most of us appreciate the interesting events and data even if it isn't always
the absolute truth - if an absolute truth exists.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Indian citizens and sons and daughters of India have been going into space for a long time. The OP can be especially helpful if he can locate any comments in the India press by Sharma, Chawla, and others related to UFO experiences in space, comments that may not have been noticed outside the country.

The greatest challenge facing any novice UFO enthusiast, as I see it, is to devise a technique to use existing search engines to locate attempts to contradict or debunk famous stories of this type. As now implemented, these searches seem to only be able to locate echoes of previous unsourced assertions.

For example, if one were to speculate that the alleged Scott Carpenter quote may be entirely fictitious, how could a search string be formulated to locate a posting in support of that skeptical view -- so it could be balanced against the original claim?

Ditto the Afanasyev story. If there existed internet material trying to prove the quote is a hoax, how would anyone find it?

No apologies necessary on your use of English. Almost all of us who use it are descended recently from people who did not. I personally think that the flourishes and musicality that Indian people bring to their unique variation of the ever-changing language is a precious gift to all those others of us who use it.

I googled: cosmonaut Afanasyev hoax...first site that came up had a comment (backed with pertinent info) in reply to the 'reported' quote, which pointed out that in 1979 Afanasyev had not yet even been accepted into the cosmonaut program, and then did not travel into space until around the mid-eighties...

...I then googled: cosmonaut Afanasyev biography...and found tons of genuine biographical resources which confirmed and expanded on this information....
I found timelines and descriptions about his missions, and nowhere was there ever any mention of a ufo siting...I have not posted specific links here, because I don't know how to do it, but just google what I did and you'll get to all the links I saw...
So, I don't know how that "Sightings" program got away with a totally false 'translation' of whatever story the guy was trying to tell, but in the 20-30 ufo sites I went thru, that program was the only source ever referenced for the story (and always 'quoted' exactly word for word) of that supposed siting...
I sure wish I knew what Afanasyev was really saying during that show...if anyone ever finds out, please let me know...

This universe is very big, there're many things that we've not seen but they exists.

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
This universe is very big, there're many things that we've not seen but they exists.

This is not an encouraging comment. You've just been shown a wonderful example of how an intelligent, curious person CAN use the internet to determine that a claim is unworthy of belief.

You could have congratulated her and resolved to be equally mature.

Instead, it appears you proclaim your desire to retreat into mystical mumbo-jumbo and deliberate self-imposed ignorance.

Am I misunderstanding your meaning?

Are we seriously being asked in an auto suggestive way to reject every single UFO quote ever made by any individual in either a military, space or governmental intelligence position , surely even a couple of prominent credible sources are worth their weight in gold to the possibility that the ET hypothesis is a valid and plausible possibility.

If a quote stands up to a credibility checking referance and is proven to have been quoted in its claimed context then that is a reality that should be highlighted more than those that do not stand up to legit check able reference.

K-PAX-PROT
.... If a quote stands up to a credibility checking referance and is proven to have been quoted in its claimed context then that is a reality that should be highlighted more than those that do not stand up to legit check able reference.

This is an excellent approach and I'm delighted to see we are in complete agreement.

My only question is: when do you plan to start? And where?

Are we seriously being asked in an auto suggestive way to reject every single UFO quote ever made by any individual in either a military, space or governmental intelligence position , surely even a couple of prominent credible sources are worth their weight in gold to the possibility that the ET hypothesis is a valid and plausible possibility.

By no means. I am suggesting that every alleged quotation be held as 'uncertain' UNTIL it has been verified, rather than automatically BELIEVED until somebody obtains overwhelming evidence it is misinterpreted, garbled, or totally bogus. It's just a question of where the burden of proof should lie, and with extraordinary claims, they are unworthy of knee-jerk belief until all their evidence HAS been verified. At least in a reality-based world.

AlienView
reply to post by HiddenSecrets

 

..... I believe those who dispute their authenticity should do some research on their own to prove any false if that is what they believe. ... - for now most of us appreciate the interesting events and data even if it isn't always the absolute truth - if an absolute truth exists.

'Proving' an unsourced, anonymous claim FALSE puts the burden of proof at the wrong end of the argument. But it clearly is the preferred approach for people who like believing things whether they are true or not, as you seem to indicate. We do apparently have different standards of 'truth'.