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

reply to post by gortex


Thanks for clearing that out, I am not into American military sleng language. So it's bogey and not bogie or boogie, the guy that corrected me was also wrong

reply to post by JimOberg

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.

Well said, Jimmy! I also want to applaud you for even like sticking around here on Ats because God knows you get a tone of flack for absolutely nothing but high patriotism.

IMO.

reply to post by Brilliance


Oh please, Brilliance- so we should just accept everything somebody says because of some twisted idea of patriotism.

Absolute nonsense. Nobody is 'getting all over Jimmy', he has just been asked to explain a statement he made. When skeptics make a claim, they should be able to back it up, just as believers should.

yourself.

Oh, and Imtor- it can be spelt bogey or bogie. Im British so I spell it bogie, as did my father and my Uncle in their flight log books when they served in the RAF. It just definatley isnt spelt 'boogie' because that is a 1970's disco dance, and what started this s%^&storm.

reply to post by Brilliance


If being a patriot means supporting the lies, I would sell patriotism any time, I am not saying this is the case with these unexplained NASA objects, but oh gawd, I hate blind followers of official explanations. Just because they are correct about most of the things, doesn't mean they don't have their own secrets...

reply to post by Thunda

Oh please, Brilliance- so we should just accept everything somebody says because of some twisted idea of patriotism. Absolute nonsense. Nobody is 'getting all over Jimmy', he has just been asked to explain a statement he made. When skeptics make a claim, they should be able to back it up, just as believers should.

If you don't like the USA, then you can leave. If you don't live in the GREAT USA, then no wonder you are so filled with hate for us.

reply to post by Brilliance


What? Who said I 'didnt like the USA'? Dont be so ridiculous and xenophobic. Your just making yourself out to be a bigot, and I dont think most US citizens would either support your views or want you spewing your hatred on their behalf.

This is ATS. Anyone from any country is welcome here- you dont get to make the rules.

reply to post by Thunda

The door is always open for immigrants and those who need to leave. I'll hold it just for you.

reply to post by Brilliance


Hahaha- do you actually think that ATS only exist in the USA? Wow.......

Originally posted by Brilliance
If you don't like the USA, then you can leave. If you don't live in the GREAT USA, then no wonder you are so filled with hate for us.

This was the most immature and brain dead comment I have seen on the Internet ever. Period. Plus it is self conflicting in so many levels (like if it's no wonder why non-Americans hate USA it implies that USA deserve to be hated, a country which deserve to be hated means that it did something wrong which means that it is not a great country) that my head hurts trying to explain the inherent flaws in the argument. I am not into politics much and don't give rat's ass if USA is great or if it sucks but this post was so incredibly stupid that I just couldn't pass it up.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Brilliance

 

Hahaha- do you actually think that ATS only exist in the USA? Wow.......

HAHAHAHA do you not know what the term IMMIGRNT means?

reply to post by eagleeye2


Same 2 him..
i didn't see before!

reply to post by Brilliance


Man, you cant even spell it...........

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with that sort of response. How could I be an immigrant when I dont live there? You dont even make sense.

The United States, as any real US citizen can tell you, is built on immigration, from the Christian immigrants from western Eurasia at the end of the 15th Century, to African slaves and their decendants, to the Eastern Europeans, Irish and Italians and half a hundred other races and factions. You wouldnt be the country you are today without it.

Originally posted by Thunda
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.

Thunda, I don't mean to be cryptic when I tell you that you ought to learn how to seek out alternate descriptions and explanations for stories that, if true, have extraordinary significance for humanity. Don't defiantly cling to the first -- and only -- version that you read, just because it's exciting and makes you feel smarter than people who don't see it your way.

Just one trivial example of the unreal 'factoids' [something with the false appearance of a real fact] in your parroted narrative:

Gemini Control was not at Cape Kennedy. Since June 1965 it was in Houston, Texas..

But it's not just details such as this - -which indicate that the originator of that narrative was imaginatively making things up out of unfamiliarity with real spaceflight -- that matter. The bigger point is that human spaceflight really IS 'unearthly' and beyond our everyday experience, perceptual processes, and instinctive interpretive mental algorithms.

As a result, confusion is introduced whenever people try to see such events through earthside eyes.

What I've tried to do with my own writings -- see my home page -- is to provide background on the 'normal' processes for outer space and for the missions being discussed. Relative motion between space vehicles, or vehicles and stuff shed by them -- insulation flakes, water and hydrazine ice, pyrotechnic fragments, jettisoned garbage, and many other materials -- is absolutely counter-intuitive in 'ordinary' terms.

Learning about the 'new normal' in space is critical to recognizing and studying anything ABnormal there, and so far, I've come across very little evidence that the UFO world has even a clue how to do this properly.

Since I'm of the view that ABnormal stuff DOES occur on space flights and is very important to filter out from the normal, I'm frustrated by the distracting dead-ended detours that most -- if not ALL -- UFO reporting of 'strange stuff' is mired in.

To understand what was happening on Gemini-7 you need to not only learn what Borman said, more than once, after the flight, when he'd heard of the 'UFO stories' -- you need to know what was actually happening at that portion of the flight, and what was in the sky around the spacecraft and visible through its windows.

You need to back off and reduce your confidence level that you can be CERTAIN that the single-source story from a clearly-superficially-informed author is the LAST WORD on that event.

Until you're ready to even ADMIT the possibility that you were misled and MIGHT need to change your mind, further discussion seems pointless.

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, it may suprise you to learn that I have read several different descriptions and portrayals of what allegedly happened that day, and I am aware that Borman has voiced his opinion as to certain journalists in hindsight as to what he thought he was seeing. I dont just read one magazine and then take it as fact!

It maybe a problem with my character that I like people to come to the point and say what they mean rather than beat about the bush, but I dont think that warrants the phrase "You need to back off and reduce your confidence level" which comes off as extremely arrogant and below someone of your standing. I was simply asking you to say what you you meant, something you seemed to have difficulty doing.

This conversation started when I told another poster that 'bogie' meant unidentified or hostile aircraft, and that they had used the term that day because he didnt want to say 'I can see a UFO'. I think we can both agree that, whatever the in and outs of Borman and Lovells sighting on Gemini 7, we are way past any discussion on that particular quip and this conversation can end here. (as well as the fact we have hijacked Gortex's thread w some really unpleasant posts!!!)

Actually, we may have rescued it by returning it to the original purpose -- discussion of the particular TV program.

Let me post some further explanatory material on Gemini-7.

You do know that the photograph attributed to that mission of 'twin UFOs with glowing undersides' is a fraud, I presume?

This one: www.where-is-area-51.com...

Here are the charts I prepared for the 20th anniversary report, written with the collaboration of both crewmen.

They show why spacecraft-associated and spacecraft-generated 'stuff' would be in the vicinity of the vehicle at the time period of the comments -- otherwise, quite an unlikely coincidence if they were NOT associated with the vehicle, eh?

thankyou for information

Update: Here's a new article of mine assessing Season-1's use of my quotations, with links to further reading.

www.jamesoberg.com...