All the sources of the 12 astronauts talking about their UFO experience in one video

a reply to: alex1963

ROTFLOL

The funniest angle around here is that anybody could cite a youtube video as a 'source' of anything credible.

a reply to: JimOberg
The youtube channel for the video in the opening post is called "Reliable UFO/ET Investigations" so how could a channel with a name like that not be reliable?



I suppose it would be more reliable if it had mentioned the fishing boats theory, but the opening post says

originally posted by: Benicealways
Leroy Chiao was able to verify his strange sighting with radar data.

Even after correcting that to "radar data" to "satellite data", we are still misled by the video and the opening post into thinking that Chiao saw something flying rather than fishing boats.

In another thread I've had people direct me to youtube videos explaining how the Earth is flat, so yes I'd have to agree there are reasons to be suspicious of youtube videos. Not all are bad, for example the MIT opencourseware videos are excellent. They're MIT university lectures you can watch for free so those seem to be pretty good sources:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, you can belief they are fishing boats but I find it hard that a bunch of fishing boats on the sea make 'his hart leap into his throat' out of amazement.
Also he says that they seem to fly by and he also says 'it's clearly not a natural phenomena', but I am not sure in what context that was said because the video didn't gave any context expect that it looks like he is talking about the UFO phenomena.

originally posted by: Benicealways
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Well, you can belief they are fishing boats but I find it hard that a bunch of fishing boats on the sea make 'his hart leap into his throat' out of amazement.

Also he says that they seem to fly by and he also says 'it's clearly not a natural phenomena', but I am not sure in what context that was said because the video didn't gave any context expect that it looks like he is talking about the UFO phenomena.

Your inability to comprehend an explanation that everybody else [including the witness] is happy with is not a problem with reality, but in your own mind. You're about ten years behind the train by now:

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: JimOberg

They could be just boats, though I can find that improbable given the information I have, but where did Chiao say he was 'happy' with that explanation.

I appreciate your effort to talk about these things but it's unfortunate you use such a condescending tone.

originally posted by: Benicealways
a reply to: JimOberg

They could be just boats, though I can find that improbable given the information I have, but where did Chiao say he was 'happy' with that explanation.

I appreciate your effort to talk about these things but it's unfortunate you use such a condescending tone.

People get the tone they deserve, your project was pretty juvenile, as all of ours start out as. The people who applauded it weren't doing you any favors. The question is, where do we go from here?

ADD: If I get overwrought my excuse is twofold:

I think there ARE important reports which need immediate attention to recognize clues about vehicle malfunction.

I think there ARE reports of genuinely interesting and poorly understood phenomena that need to be more closely studied [eg Kovalyonok's report], up to and always including the possibility of evidence for ETI.

I think the current situation of garbage from Streetcrap, Mister Enema, that Taiwan-based idiot, SecureTeen, and others creates so much nonsensical noise that any useful signals are drowned out or discredited by association.

a reply to: JimOberg

That was alright, thanks. Yeah there is a lot of garbage out there and that's not what I am going for.

originally posted by: Benicealways
a reply to: JimOberg



That was alright, thanks. Yeah there is a lot of garbage out there and that's not what I am going for.

You might be surprised on where we agree -- the reports ARE worth sifting through, there could be lots of ponies there [not just pony poop]. We won't know until we look more sharply.

We also still don't understand the full range of normal human misinterpretation of visual stimuli. FEW reports represent malfunction of the recognition process, I think most are based on proper functioning of well-evolved tried-and-true mental processes under rare conditions [like fireball meteor swarms being 'seen' as a single large light-studded structure].

The existing UFO data base, assembled by the work of dedicated amateurs over the decades, is a treasure trove of as yet unrealized insights.

And private folks have a LOT to contribute. Institutional eyes DO tend to get petrified.

So please hang in there.