1528 replies to this topic

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

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.

Man, you're fiercely competing for the T-shirt saying "I don't KNOW stuff and that makes me SURE" , aren't you?

Just joking.

But you really are trying to say you haven't read the accounts by Robert Jacobs commander at 'Big Sur'?

Eyes closed, mind closed, and proud OF it, is that your mantra?

And back off -- right NOW -- from accusing me of accusing any astronaut of LYING. That's a vicious misrepresentation and it destroys any chance of a rational discussion.

Now, read
McDonald's
1968
congressional
testimony
about the
may 1957
Edwards AFB
incident, and
compare to
Cooper's version.

Scared to?

Edited by JimOberg, 26 October 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[JimOberg]

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.

So you're not going to actually give any evidence -- you're just demanding we take YOUR word on it?

[TheMacGuffin]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

So you're not going to actually give any evidence -- you're just demanding we take YOUR word on it?

I posted the videos and anyone is free to watch them, but I would strongly recommend that they bypass your interpretations of anything.

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 26 October 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

I posted the videos and anyone is free to watch them, but I would strongly recommend that they bypass your interpretations of anything.

Wouldn't it be better to bravely (and perhaps even .. knowledgeably) refute his interpretations?

I for one, can't wait to see that..

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Man, you're fiercely competing for the T-shirt saying "I don't KNOW stuff and that makes me SURE" , aren't you?

Just joking.

But you really are trying to say you haven't read the accounts by Robert Jacobs commander at 'Big Sur'?

Eyes closed, mind closed, and proud OF it, is that your mantra?

And back off -- right NOW -- from accusing me of accusing any astronaut of LYING. That's a vicious misrepresentation and it destroys any chance of a rational discussion.

Now, read
McDonald's
1968
congressional
testimony
about the
may 1957
Edwards AFB
incident, and
compare to
Cooper's version.

Scared to?

Gordon Cooper's testimony is absolutely genuine; God only knows how many times he has recounted this story to the media.  Well done Cooper and well done Robert Jacobs for their excellent testimonies.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 27 October 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Gordon Cooper's testimony is absolutely genuine; God only knows how many times he has recounted this story to the media.  Well done Cooper and well done Robert Jacobs for their excellent testimonies.

If by 'sincere', I have no reason to argue.

If by infallably accurate, how about you compare Cooper's versions over the years to EACH OTHER?

And does your faith extend to EVERY story told by Cooper, or just the Edwards case?

Because if you trust ALL of his stories, how about the one in his own autobiography about how he saved the shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning to NASA from space aliens?

Do you uttery believe that story is true?

Or do you just wish to pretend he never told the story, because you won't read his book?

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

link to Afanasyev interview on 'Sightings'

It has been suggested here that the narrator's English verson of the cosmonaut's comments is bogus -- that the Russian's real story was about a 40-centimeter sheet of something observed coming off during thruster firings for a supply drone docking.

Zoser, you sponsored the link on this thread. Do you still believe the program's 'giant UFO' version, or the cosmonaut's original non-UFO  story?

In other words, do you admit you were mistaken in  posting this as evidence for a space UFO sighting?

Edited by JimOberg, 27 October 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 27 October 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

It has been suggested here that the narrator's English verson of the cosmonaut's comments is bogus -- that the Russian's real story was about a 40-centimeter sheet of something observed coming off during thruster firings for a supply drone docking.

Zoser, you sponsored the link on this thread. Do you still believe the program's 'giant UFO' version, or the cosmonaut's original non-UFO  story?

In other words, do you admit you were mistaken in  posting this as evidence for a space UFO sighting?

James McDivitt's testimony begins on this clip at 53 minutes as he retells his experiences aboard Gemini 4.

Edited by zoser, 27 October 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 27 October 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

James McDivitt's testimony begins on this clip at 53 minutes as he retells his experiences aboard Gemini 4.

So the battle cry of the self-described 'Warrior of Truth' is

Run Away!

Run Away!


Why should anyone be surprised?

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 27 October 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

So the battle cry of the self-described 'Warrior of Truth' is

Run Away!

Run Away!


Why should anyone be surprised?

No ones running away Jim; I'm just rejecting totally your attempt at character assassination in an attempt to debunk Cooper's and others testimonies.

I refute it totally.  In the meantime, have a paddle if you will in the cool refreshing pool of these tantalising testimonies.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 27 October 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

I refute it totally.  

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 27 October 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

There are many ways to refute things.  My way is to point to the plethora of cases reported by folk from all walks of life through the last 70 years from all corners of the planet.

Far more powerful than debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.  In other words getting into finer and finer detail  until no one really knows what the truth is.

Let the multitude of cases speak for themselves.

So if you manage to prove that one witness is incredible. I'll find you ten more.  Then another ten,  and another until you start to think for a minute where these testimonies actually come from and why are they occurring.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 27 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

There are many ways to refute things.  My way is to point to the plethora of cases reported by folk from all walks of life through the last 70 years from all corners of the planet.

Far more powerful than debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.  In other words getting into finer and finer detail  until no one really knows what the truth is.

Let the multitude of cases speak for themselves.

So if you manage to prove that one witness is incredible. I'll find you ten more.  Then another ten,  and another until you start to think for a minute where these testimonies actually come from and why are they occurring.

What you don't seem to understand here zoser is that the veracity of each claim must be tested before it can be given any weight.  You can't just throw a thousand questionable accounts at the problem and victoriously proclaim that it is solved simply because you have that many accounts.  If you can't verify even one of them, they each just become another unsubstantiated story.

This is why your method will never succeed in uncovering the truth of the matter.

Could some of these 'tantalizing testimonies' be representative of the truth?  Sure, I suppose it is possible, but it isn't iron clad proof of anything without substantial backing and confirmation.  A story alone is not enough, and neither are a hundred or a thousand stories.

You've been shown cases which demonstrate what a flagrant fallacy it is to rely solely on testimony.  You've been shown hoaxes that had the witnesses fully convinced that they were seeing something otherworldly.  In light of such demonstrations it is downright preposterous that you continue to cling to testimonies as if they are the Holy Grail.

[JimOberg]

zoser, on 27 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

So if you manage to prove that one witness is incredible. I'll find you ten more.  Then another ten,  and another until you start to think for a minute where these testimonies actually come from and why are they occurring.

Fine. Let's start the process by you admitting that I've managed to disprove the Afanasyev story.

Will you do that?

[zoser]

JimOberg, on 27 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Fine. Let's start the process by you admitting that I've managed to disprove the Afanasyev story.

Will you do that?

It's pretty clear what he saw:

"It followed us during half of our orbit. We observed it on the light side. When we entered the shadow side, it disappeared completely. It was an engineered structure, made from some type of metal approximately 40 meters long with inner hulls. The object was narrow here and wider here. And inside there were openings. Some places had projections like small wings. The object stayed very close to us. We photographed it, and our photos showed it to be 23-to-28 meters away."

http://www.alien-new...confirming.html

Unfortunately the only testimony from the man himself is not in English.  The above looks like a segment of the transcript.  Here is what he saw in 1979: