1528 replies to this topic

[JimOberg]

synchronomy, on 26 October 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

I can't believe you are referencing Blue Book.  ...Blue Book credibility = ZERO

The English of which is no, you're not going to bother your pretty head with reading it.

Deliberately keeping yourself in ignorance of ALL angles on an event is no path to insight and wisdom.

Would you like to hear from the AF officer who did the initial investigation? He's still alive. But no, it might be dangerous to your delusions to actually get close to an original story. Better just to trust the Internet and Youtube.

[JimOberg]

synchronomy, on 26 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Popovich was well aquainted with aerial phenomena.
He wasn't some janitor emptying ashtrays at Star City.

The English of whbich is, no, you don't know the time/date/location of the sighting and nobody else does.

But you're saying that some people's stories don't NEED to be verified or checked -- in fact, it's far better NOT to check and risk losing a valuable propaganda asset.

I take it, then, that you have no problem believing Jim Irwin's accounts of discovering proof of Noah's Ark? Or Gordon Cooper's story that he saved the space shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens?

[synchronomy]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

The English of which is no, you're not going to bother your pretty head with reading it.

Deliberately keeping yourself in ignorance of ALL angles on an event is no path to insight and wisdom.

Would you like to hear from the AF officer who did the initial investigation? He's still alive. But no, it might be dangerous to your delusions to actually get close to an original story. Better just to trust the Internet and Youtube.

I've been researching this subject for 35 years.  I was aquainted with Blue Book long before the internet or Youtube were ever thought of.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

The English of whbich is, no, you don't know the time/date/location of the sighting and nobody else does.

But you're saying that some people's stories don't NEED to be verified or checked -- in fact, it's far better NOT to check and risk losing a valuable propaganda asset.o an i

I take it, then, that you have no problem believing Jim Irwin's accounts of discovering proof of Noah's Ark? Or Gordon Cooper's story that he saved the space shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens?

JIm there are simply too many of them.  Do an in depth investigation into any one of you wish and try to find a rational explanation. Then there are 50 more.  Then another 50.

Good luck.

[JimOberg]

synchronomy, on 26 October 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I've been researching this subject for 35 years.  I was aquainted with Blue Book long before the internet or Youtube were ever thought of.

If you still haven't seen any other reports on the so-called "Cooper Edwards incident", I'd advise not to brag about how long you've been researching the phenomenon fruitlessly. Go look in McDonald's 1968 congressional testimony. He describes the incident there.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

JIm there are simply too many of them.  Do an in depth investigation into any one of you wish and try to find a rational explanation. Then there are 50 more.  Then another 50. Good luck.

That's a common fallacy. No single case has to be any good at all -- just pile up bad cases and you get a good conclusion.

Enough fairy and leprechaun stories, and the critters must be real? Human levitation? Messages from dead people? Mass quantity substitutes for quality?

Are you too intransigent to even admit ANY case is 'less than good'? That's sad.

Open your mind a little.

[synchronomy]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

If you still haven't seen any other reports on the so-called "Cooper Edwards incident", I'd advise not to brag about how long you've been researching the phenomenon fruitlessly. Go look in McDonald's 1968 congressional testimony. He describes the incident there.

I can assure you my search has not been "fruitless"

[synchronomy]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Enough fairy and leprechaun stories, and the critters must be real? Human levitation? Messages from dead people? Mass quantity substitutes for quality?

You are making a sweeping generalization that the ETH belongs is the same category as the nonsense you have listed there.
That's a whole different ballgame and I don't play it.

[JimOberg]

Read McDonald's 1968 report and compare it to the story Cooper later was telling. Report back.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

That's a common fallacy. No single case has to be any good at all -- just pile up bad cases and you get a good conclusion.

Enough fairy and leprechaun stories, and the critters must be real? Human levitation? Messages from dead people? Mass quantity substitutes for quality?

Are you too intransigent to even admit ANY case is 'less than good'? That's sad.

Open your mind a little.

I just listen to what the thousands and thousands of people are telling me.  As Stan Friedman says he knows that there are loads of isotopes which are non-fissionable.  These are not interesting.  It's the ones that are fissionable that he's interested in.

In other words even if 90% of the tens of thousands are hoaxes or misidentifications that still leaves a lot at are not.

But let's not kid ourselves; this is not Mr and Mrs Brown telling stories; it's trained astronauts.  Think about that.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Read McDonald's 1968 report and compare it to the story Cooper later was telling. Report back.

Coopers lying?  Really?  Why?  What happened to the footage?  Why was it never offered to debunk Cooper's story?  Would have been an easy thing to do surely?  Same with Robert Jacob's story.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

JIm there are simply too many of them.[...]

Too many of whoom? S#!t makers like "Sightings"?

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

[...]  Do an in depth investigation into any one of you wish and try to find a rational explanation.[...]

Have you done any of in depth investigation? You simply put whatever crap you find on the net... Yeah, thats investigation nowadays... Spare me...

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

[...]  Then there are 50 more.  Then another 50.
[...]

And another 50, and another 50, and another 50000. Can you bring list of all those 50 and another 50, plus another 50000 you may come up with?

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

"Self-luminous" is YOUR guess, and would require you to show tghey were NOT illuminated by the sun. That would require you to determine the lighting conditions of the time of the sighting, as well as where in the field of view the shuttle's own shadow is lying out, leaving nearby objects dark.

I don't think you've EVER done that for a single case [counter-example welcome] . You're just guessing, guided by the answer you WANT to get. Hopeless.

Ditto your assertion the dots are moving "at a much faster velocity relative to the space station or the shuttles" -- when all you can actually measure is the angular velocity, and for objects close to the camera -- a few meters or so -- even small absolute drift creates a high relative angle rate. Without knowing the actual range to an object you are not justified in claiming an absolute velocity for it -- but that hasn't stopped you, either.

Step back and consider: your 'assumptions' already contain the conclusions you THINK you are 'proving' with real evidence.

As we'd say in Mission Control, a classic 'self-eating watermelon' [Chuck Shaw's phrase].

Like I would ever take your word for anything.

You've spent years doing hatchet jobs on people, including Robert Emenegger and just today on Gordon Cooper.  Those are just the ones that I have called you out on, but I will give you credit for persistence.

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 26 October 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Like I would ever take your word for anything.

You've spent years doing hatchet jobs on people, including Robert Emenegger and just today on Gordon Cooper.  Those are just the ones that I have called you out on, but I will give you credit for persistence.

Made me chuckle... Please, proceed...

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

But let's not kid ourselves; this is not Mr and Mrs Brown telling stories; it's trained astronauts.  Think about that.

How many of the alleged 'astronaut stories' do you think could be outright hoaxes by writers?

How many are typical pilot stories?

How many - if any  - are real SPACE events?

I've worked with astronauts for 35 years so hero-worship isn't a viable mindset -- professional respect and admiration will do fine.

But just which stories impress you most?