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

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

K-PAX-PROT
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 ...


You don't even seem to 'get it' about what's under question, or should be. You unconsciously ASSUME that the internet quotations were actually MADE by the people named, when that is actually an unestablished assertion. Reasonable proof is required by reasonable people -- it shouldn't be assumed from the get-go.




posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I believed many of those fantastical quotes were valid a few years ago when I was watching every fantastical UFO documentary and reading every fantastical UFO book where such claims were made. Why wouldn't I believe them?It wasn't until I came to sites like this where I learned just about every one of those claims was false or very misleading. Why would I continue to believe every story? So personally, I don't take any of those stories as valid and no, it's not up to me to prove them false.

If people just accept this stuff at face value without questioning, you will just end up with a mythology which is what we have now. So I don't get why each and every one of us is not asking questions and looking into things. Why give in to the delusion?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

lostgirl

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?

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


Sorry to quote my own post above, but I think it made a worthwhile contribution that no one is noticing, because I still can't figure out how to reply with 'quotes' properly...

PLEASE NOTE: My intention was not to debunk, I do believe in 'UFO' phenomenon....But I felt that Mr. Orberg made a valid point about potential unreliability of original source materials in UFO reporting...
I hoped very much to find confirmation of validity to the Afanasyev quote, but every single link I found linked back to the exact same original source, which if looked at without bias, can be somewhat questionable (unless anyone on ATS speaks fluent Russian).

So I decided to try researching via the back door (so to speak) by going at it from the de-bunking point of view, which resulted in the info above...



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lostgirl
 


lostgirl, you done real good -- but I was taking too long with a followup, concerning tricks for searching in russian. my fault, sorry you were puzzled -- it was the awesomeness of the response that delayed my own answer.

www.yandex.ru is the Russian 'google', and you can even search on latin letter keywords, or cyrillic. Then you can use handy Russian-to-english translators. Details to follow, gotta do some insurance issues right now.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lostgirl
 



Sorry to quote my own post above, but I think it made a worthwhile contribution that no one is noticing, because I still can't figure out how to reply with 'quotes' properly...


Yes you did make a worthwhile contribution. some of my best work goes unnoticed.

here is how to quote :

[*quote] quote goes here - end quote with [*/quote]

just remove the * I had to add them so it would show up.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HiddenSecrets
 


Hi. Nice post. This is totally off topic but i always wondered 'bout lack of UFO sightings in India. I've been on ATS for sometime now, but haven't seen any 'UFO seen in India' posts. Our local media has also been silent on this topic. May be there are sightings....but not reported by mainstream media. What are your views on this. Are the ETs ignoring us....or are we ignoring them



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

K-PAX-PROT
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 ...


You don't even seem to 'get it' about what's under question, or should be. You unconsciously ASSUME that the internet quotations were actually MADE by the people named, when that is actually an unestablished assertion. Reasonable proof is required by reasonable people -- it shouldn't be assumed from the get-go.



I will ask the question again as i maybe did not make my self clear enough and i apologize if i did but i tend and try not to assume nothing as i take the ET hypothesis as ever bit as serious as the late Dr James E McDonald ,,,

Are we or are we not expected to believe or perceive that EVERY credible source be they military, intelligence or astronauts quotes on the subject of either personal observations of unknowns or their own personal views on the ET hypothesis has been nothing but quotes either taken out of context or that they never made them...

That the subject of famous UFO quotes from prominent and credible individuals has been addressed by Karl12 and i do feel there is enough or a reasonable percentage of quotes that could very well be true and that if even one quote is authenticated and has been uttered from a source of credibility then is that not a cause for a serious revision of just what is acceptable and what is not when it comes down to the credibility stamp being attributed to the ET hypothesis of the origins of some UFO cases.

Surely there must come a time when the sheer volume of "high strangeness data" contained or attributed to those UFO cases deemed "unknowns", not for the lack of data contained in them that leads to an "unknown" verdict but due to the amount of "high strangeness data" (flight characteristics, acceleration, maneuverability signs of intelligent control,ect), that leads to an "unknown verdict attributed to those particular cases has to be regarded as more that a raised eye brow or dismissed out of hand or ignored or not even brought up or raised in debates of this nature especially when authenticated quotations are attributed to those cases as well.

If all are being mis quoted , taken out of context or those claiming that those sources said such things but offer no viable source check to confirm it then surely by the law of acceptable averages there must be a percentage of those sources that have said what those claiming they have said. Now i am not saying every quote is authentic but rather that i do feel that if its a case of "where do we start" in the check-able reference validation point then it comes to a reasonable perception that surely all cannot be mis quotes or taken out of context.

I also do feel that those sources proving such claims of credible quotations from the sources they claim to have came from should also be up for scrutiny, such is the nature and sometimes complexity of the sheer mental intake of the ET hypothesis to have any kind of credibility stamp on it , it sometimes forces some people into the believe-ability mind set or forces the mental need for unchecked source quotations as a credibility stamp for the ET hypothesis.

Has there ever been check able and validated sourced confirmations of quotes from credible sources such as the military and intelligence's?? and more to the point if there has been is it a possibility that those very quotes have been diluted by out side forces or the retraction of those quotes due to pressures of job security ect...do we need a check able sourced and viable reference for that argument...





posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



law of acceptable averages


What exactly is the law of acceptable averages?


The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[citation needed]


en.wikipedia.org...

This is the foundation of your argument.
edit on 31-8-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



law of acceptable averages


What exactly is the law of acceptable averages?


The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[citation needed]


en.wikipedia.org...

This is the foundation of your argument.
edit on 31-8-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Nice try but you forget that the foundation of my argument is the sheer volume or number of credible quotes that ARE true, surely even that percentage bodes well in favor of a credibility stamp again in favor that it takes just a small percentage to be genuine in order for a serious look at why these sources said such things.

Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Nice try but you forget that the foundation of my argument is the sheer volume or number of credible quotes that ARE true, surely even that percentage bodes well in favor of a credibility stamp again in favor that it takes just a small percentage to be genuine in order for a serious look at why these sources said such things.

Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????



thanks for making that clear.

So -- since there are so MANY reports of contact with dead people, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

So -- since there are so MANY reports of human levitation, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

So -- since there are so MANY reports of mermaids, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

Why not?

By this logic, in a set of ten extraordinary claims, the more of them that are debunked, the HIGHER the odds that one or more of the remaining claims actually is authentic.

The alternate view is that the more of the ten that are debunked, the less likely any of the others are authentic.

Which corresponds to the real world?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????


No clue but you should be able to figure it out with actual statistics if you have real information. It's not about debunkers vs non debunkers, it's about doing actual stats. If you have real numbers to provide, there is not much to argue about. Making up terms like "the law of acceptable averages" doesn't help your case.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

K-PAX-PROT
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????


When did it become "Us against them" and not about finding out the truth? Finding the truth starts with finding if a quote is correct or not. It's like the game of Telephone I used to play as a kid. We'd have 10 people in a line, and it would start as something like "The orange is round", and by the 10th it was "white is the new black". Now you're looking at quotes that have gone through possibly a few hundred people minimum. Don't you think finding out if the quote is even correct is a good place to start?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Nice try but you forget that the foundation of my argument is the sheer volume or number of credible quotes that ARE true, surely even that percentage bodes well in favor of a credibility stamp again in favor that it takes just a small percentage to be genuine in order for a serious look at why these sources said such things.

Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????



thanks for making that clear.

So -- since there are so MANY reports of contact with dead people, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

So -- since there are so MANY reports of human levitation, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

So -- since there are so MANY reports of mermaids, SOME of the reports MUST be true?

Why not?

By this logic, in a set of ten extraordinary claims, the more of them that are debunked, the HIGHER the odds that one or more of the remaining claims actually is authentic.

The alternate view is that the more of the ten that are debunked, the less likely any of the others are authentic.

Which corresponds to the real world?



Just cannot see why a simple question like are we to perceive that everyone on these quotes is or was taken out of context or never said by these sources, if so then its a very high percentage set of extraordinary claims that have been never been quoted in the first place or that most were taken out of context.Why is that so hard to differentiate, they either said it or they did not or in the context it was meant. So which is it , endless pontificating about percentages or actual sourced confirmations of those quotes. One valid credible quote from a credible source and to me its a different ball game in the credibility stakes for the ET hypothesis, simple..



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

K-PAX-PROT
they either said it or they did not or in the context it was meant. So which is it


Not so simple there.

"I saw the cover from the hatch that was floating away. It looked like a UFO."

Can quite easily become:

"I saw the UFO" with the deletion of a few words. Don't you think you should check to see if they said it really was a UFO?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

K-PAX-PROT
Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????


When did it become "Us against them" and not about finding out the truth? Finding the truth starts with finding if a quote is correct or not. It's like the game of Telephone I used to play as a kid. We'd have 10 people in a line, and it would start as something like "The orange is round", and by the 10th it was "white is the new black". Now you're looking at quotes that have gone through possibly a few hundred people minimum. Don't you think finding out if the quote is even correct is a good place to start?



Of course it is but its not me trying my hardest to implant that all quotes ever made on observations of "high strangeness" made by credible sources are all just out of context or never existed... If we cannot check the validity of these quotes then we are left with three options , they did say it , did not or it was taken out of context
I take it you have looked at the thread by KARL12 in which he provided a very impressive collection of quotes from prominent individuals were some of these quotes have been verified as being true...

Dont you think that thread deserves pointing out and a good place to start.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


And the point that was being made, and which is still true, is that instead of saying "Well this person is an astronaut so it must be true", is to verify verify verify. You can say law of averages all you want, or that debunkers have to be right ALL the time, but without verifying, as someone else said, this just becomes a movement, and not about finding the truth anymore.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



Debunkers have to be right ALL the time where as it takes one or a small percentage of non debunkers to be right, what average is that????


No clue but you should be able to figure it out with actual statistics if you have real information. It's not about debunkers vs non debunkers, it's about doing actual stats. If you have real numbers to provide, there is not much to argue about. Making up terms like "the law of acceptable averages" doesn't help your case.


Real information can only come from examining and validating EVERY data point.

NOT from admitting in advance that SOME will be bogus but it doesn't matter.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

K-PAX-PROT
they either said it or they did not or in the context it was meant. So which is it


Not so simple there.

"I saw the cover from the hatch that was floating away. It looked like a UFO."

Can quite easily become:

"I saw the UFO" with the deletion of a few words. Don't you think you should check to see if they said it really was a UFO?


Its simple , why, because your example is a classic case of a primary original quote taken out of context as i have said its either on of the three possibilities i gave...



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


And it's why we need to verify verify verify. If you don't verify every single quote, and source, and just go with "law of averages", then what's the point?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


And the point that was being made, and which is still true, is that instead of saying "Well this person is an astronaut so it must be true", is to verify verify verify. You can say law of averages all you want, or that debunkers have to be right ALL the time, but without verifying, as someone else said, this just becomes a movement, and not about finding the truth anymore.



I never said just because someone is in a credible position that someone claiming they said such i thing must be true because they are in a credible position. The point i am making is WHAT they have said and if true then were does that leave the credibility of the ET hypothesis..if credibility of that source is making such claims. Is it not the case that out of ALL these quotes from those in prominent positions there is a percentage of actual true quotations, again were does that leave us..???

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....





top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum