Famed NASA Astronaut almost, kind of, (not really) says Extraterrestrials are here!

reply to post by Beast Of Gevaudan


suppose I should mention that what I had seen was identifiable at least in specific details of my experience but became even more interesting after researching the scriptures many years later and seems this was what at least a few Israelites must have witnessed judging by the arc of the Testimony or even what the two Mary's had seen at the cave, and the voice is precisely what Paul and a few others said they'd heard, also both of these occured before knowing any scriptures which I had actually been making fun of or anything remotely associated to previously and was'nt raised religious either

I really love it when astronauts come out and speak about their experinces, now if we could get a confrence with all these astronauts, compiling the different dates, times, positions in the sky that they were at when said activity was taking place , what a confrence!!! I like the disclosure project and all but the guy that coordinated and handled the ufo/ nuke confrence was more sincere about the top he wasnt all smiles like steven greer. This is a big event thats going on and should be taken seriously in my opininon.

Nice find OP. Its allways nice to see someone like this talk about the ufos they have seen on missions.

By the way, as anyone ever put a thread together of every astronaut and air force pilot that as come out and talked about ufos?

It would be nice to see all the statments together in one place.

Thanks

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan

Oh oh! This guy's on to us!

OK I'll come clean, we're paid disinfo agents. We're here to play down this topic to prevent people from seeking the truth.

Seriously though, skeptics/non-believers can still find this subject interesting even though they're unimpressed with what's been presented so far. The idea of ET visiting from another world is a plausible and fascinating one, that's why so many of us "others" visit these threads.

But in order to get to the bottom of this subject we need to look at every case objectively, instead of simply accepting the dubious material that permeates the UFO community. If everyone followed the evidence rather than trying to find material that supports a belief, ufology wouldn't be in the mess that it's in today.

The desire to believe should take a back seat to the desire to get to the truth, no matter how disappointing or mundane that truth may be

.


Stop making us giggle for the love of God with your amateur sweet and innocent speech that is full of Swamp Gas in order to try and make it float.

We have astronauts coming forward now and admitting that they are seeing things that conform to the regular reports of UFO descriptions.

The best you debunker kids have given to rebut this has been:
1. Space Debris... Although the height at which it was observed was well below the altitude in which that could have been a factor.
2. Space Ice.... Even though it was observed coming up through the clouds (defying anything that space ice can do to begin with) and was 50-150 in diameter, shaped like a disc.
3. Crazy Astronaut... Even though the astronaut who makes this claim had to pass a battery of psychological tests in order to get the job in the first place and has not been called a liar by his colleagues who were present during the incident in question.

You give yourself and your fellow skeptic members way too much credit to even earn disinfo agent status because your explanations are so juvenile that they don't even warrant the respect to be of that caliber to begin with.

Offer us some real unrefutable evidence and we'll stop laughing at you guys.

Until then, you haven't done anything in this thread besides embarrass yourselves. Let alone plausibly debunk this.

Originally posted by warequalsmurder

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan

Oh oh! This guy's on to us!

OK I'll come clean, we're paid disinfo agents. We're here to play down this topic to prevent people from seeking the truth.

Seriously though, skeptics/non-believers can still find this subject interesting even though they're unimpressed with what's been presented so far. The idea of ET visiting from another world is a plausible and fascinating one, that's why so many of us "others" visit these threads.

But in order to get to the bottom of this subject we need to look at every case objectively, instead of simply accepting the dubious material that permeates the UFO community. If everyone followed the evidence rather than trying to find material that supports a belief, ufology wouldn't be in the mess that it's in today.

The desire to believe should take a back seat to the desire to get to the truth, no matter how disappointing or mundane that truth may be

.


Stop making us giggle for the love of God with your amateur sweet and innocent speech that is full of Swamp Gas in order to try and make it float.

We have astronauts coming forward now and admitting that they are seeing things that conform to the regular reports of UFO descriptions.

The best you debunker kids have given to rebut this has been:
1. Space Debris... Although the height at which it was observed was well below the altitude in which that could have been a factor.
2. Space Ice.... Even though it was observed coming up through the clouds (defying anything that space ice can do to begin with) and was 50-150 in diameter, shaped like a disc.
3. Crazy Astronaut... Even though the astronaut who makes this claim had to pass a battery of psychological tests in order to get the job in the first place and has not been called a liar by his colleagues who were present during the incident in question.

You give yourself and your fellow skeptic members way too much credit to even earn disinfo agent status because your explanations are so juvenile that they don't even warrant the respect to be of that caliber to begin with.

Offer us some real unrefutable evidence and we'll stop laughing at you guys.

Until then, you haven't done anything in this thread besides embarrass yourselves. Let alone plausibly debunk this.

edit on 31-10-2010 by warequalsmurder because: (no reason given)

Wow you sound bright! No seriously you do.

I use a little common sense in my post and yet you still can't resist the urge to act like a complete tool. You're doing wonders for your credibility.

I find it amusing that you use the words "juvenile", "kids" and "amateur" when I'm not the one throwing a tantrum. I use common sense that should be obvious, but hey, if you'd prefer to make a fool of yourself and indulge in fantasy then be my guest.

These Astronauts need to confront NASA, Congress and get all the dirty out on the table. Or we stop funding NASA completely. As for the post above i think Springer made a thread recently about manners and decorum and this is exactly not to to make a point here. Calling names does not make you brighter than the next guy. Save the drivel and lashing out for another web site. Agree to disagree fine but who cares what I or you and what someone else thinks or believes.

thanks

Oh nasa i have learned to dislike NASA.


Never
A
Straight
Answer

Just got this note with permission to share:

From: Story Musgrave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: New crazy claims about your STS-80 'UFO encounter' and meeting a giant space alien in the PLB


Can't get involved, but you can pass it on, There is life every where out there, on trillions of planets, some of it doing interstellar travel, but I have no evidence that we have been visited here.

story

The reason I included the nine-foot alien in the message topic to Story
is that McClelland claims MUSGRAVE was one of the witnesses.

Even though in his primary description of the story
www.stargate-chronicles.com...
he claims he refuses to identify the astronauts to 'protect them'
(idiotic idea -- as if there were lots of visits by nine foot aliens)
in his list of people he claims he knows
www.stargate-chronicles.com...
scroll down to find Musgrave's name and the parenthetical note
"Dr. Story Musgrave, STS-6, 51F, 33, STS- 44 (Giant in payload bay), 61(Hubble ST repair mission), 80"

So McClelland claims Musgrave witnessed -- even met with -- the nine foot alien.

Did anyone notice the absurd comment that the alien had to bend over because
the ceiling of the middeck was too low? Why, in zero gravity, would an entity try to
'stand up' and have to maintain an uncomfortable posture, when it much more
conveniently could have stood on the WALL and extended its posture completely,
with the other wall comfortably far away above its head? The description sounds like
it came from somebody whose spatial concepts are trapped in the familiar
up-down orientation of earth surface gravity.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thanx for that.... Now i think it would be really interesting to know, in your opinion, what the object in the STS88 photos is ?

Very interesting photos. With all the junk floating around our planet, could it be just junk?

reply to post by Beast Of Gevaudan

But in order to get to the bottom of this subject we need to look at every case objectively, instead of simply accepting the dubious material that permeates the UFO community.

Thoughtful reply.
Thanks for coming clean.

Now show me the cases, which in your opinion, pass muster and could be considered credible.

reply to post by warequalsmurder

The best you debunker kids have given to rebut this has been:
1. Space Debris... Although the height at which it was observed was well below the altitude in which that could have been a factor.
2. Space Ice.... Even though it was observed coming up through the clouds (defying anything that space ice can do to begin with) and was 50-150 in diameter, shaped like a disc.
3. Crazy Astronaut... Even though the astronaut who makes this claim had to pass a battery of psychological tests in order to get the job in the first place and has not been called a liar by his colleagues who were present during the incident in question.

Love this! So true.

reply to post by Jay-morris


I would have thought that, if this was just 'junk', then there would have been a bit of an issue with it being so close to the shuttle? Possible danger of collision?

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

I would have thought that, if this was just 'junk', then there would have been a bit of an issue with it being so close to the shuttle? Possible danger of collision?

That is very true. I would like to hear what Oberg thinks about these objects.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by warequalsmurder

 

The best you debunker kids have given to rebut this has been:
1. Space Debris... Although the height at which it was observed was well below the altitude in which that could have been a factor.
2. Space Ice.... Even though it was observed coming up through the clouds (defying anything that space ice can do to begin with) and was 50-150 in diameter, shaped like a disc.
3. Crazy Astronaut... Even though the astronaut who makes this claim had to pass a battery of psychological tests in order to get the job in the first place and has not been called a liar by his colleagues who were present during the incident in question.

Love this! So true.

Not true at all. Here's a summary of the points/counterpoints:

Space debris -- There are plenty of pieces of space debris whose orbits pass in whole or in part below the space shuttle, as the heavens-above link easily demonstrates. But in this case as in so many other space videos, the dots aren't even proposed as this kind of debris from OTHER satellites, they are proposed to be stuff coming off the shuttle itself -- which happens often, no dispute that it does.


Space ice 'observed to be coming through the clouds' -- not so, some pieces were observed to appear against the cloud background and that theory states that this was because self-luminous objects were masked by clouds until they got high enough. The counter-theory is that the dots are sunlit small objects floating near the shuttle and some of them appear when they drift out of the shuttle's shadow. The geometry of this orientation and shadow zone and the rationale for pointing cameras in that direction have been explained as routine spaceflight procedures. The timing of this video is precisely in a small interval of sun illumination that makes such tiny nearby objects visible. Any random patterns those objects drift into or out of are as significant as the random patterns of stars, called 'constellations'.

Space ice -- "Even though it ...was 50-150 in diameter, shaped like a disc," is a description attributed by author Clark McClelland to Story Musgrave, one of the crewmembers. This attribution is suggested to be bogus since, a) Musgrave has endorsed the small nearby particle theory, along with another STS-80 astronaut, and b) Musgrave has explicitly denied seeing any evidence of alien visits during any of his space flights, and c) McClelland has a track record of bizarre claims including that Musgrave also encountered a nine-foot-tall space alien on another of his shuttle missions. Other claims of 'secret conversations; by McClelland appear to be cases where he lifted quotes out of UFO books and described them as personal conversations he had with experts, now conveniently dead and unable to confirm them.

"Crazy Astronaut... Even though the astronaut who makes this claim had to pass a battery of psychological tests in order to get the job in the first place and has not been called a liar by his colleagues who were present during the incident in question." There has been no claim that the astronaut was 'crazy', this is a bogus counter-argument never actually made by any skeptic. The statement also contains the assumption that the quotation alleged by McClelland is authentic, when that is actually what is under dispute.

So this attempt at eager-believer defense of the original story is illogical and invalid, and the avalanche of sincere testimonials from folks on this thread that they all strongly believe the story to be true (and have the emotional attitudes to 'prove' it) represent wish-fulfillment rather than rational judgment.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got this note with permission to share:

From: Story Musgrave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: New crazy claims about your STS-80 'UFO encounter' and meeting a giant space alien in the PLB


Can't get involved, but you can pass it on, There is life every where out there, on trillions of planets, some of it doing interstellar travel, but I have no evidence that we have been visited here.

story

Thanks Jimbo. I screencapped that.

You are the coolest NASA man on ATS.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg
Just got this note with permission to share:

From: Story Musgrave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: New crazy claims about your STS-80 'UFO encounter' and meeting a giant space alien in the PLB


Can't get involved, but you can pass it on, There is life every where out there, on trillions of planets, some of it doing interstellar travel, but I have no evidence that we have been visited here.

story

Thanks Jimbo. I screencapped that.

You are the coolest NASA man on ATS.

Thanks -- Musgrave's belief in an active galactic interstellar alien traffic flow is far-out, for sure, but I figured it would interest ATSers. He's not even saying they haven't visited Earth, he's merely repeating that HE has never seen any evidence of it.

I have no grounds to argue against his viewpoint on this.

reply to post by JimOberg


Oh.

Well thanks Jim.

I guess we can all go home now.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Thanks -- Musgrave's belief in an active galactic interstellar alien traffic flow is far-out, for sure, but I figured it would interest ATSers. He's not even saying they haven't visited Earth, he's merely repeating that HE has never seen any evidence of it.

I know I'm not the only one who appreciates you sharing that with us.

Check it out though Jim; if there was evidence of alien visitation they probably would let you retired space guys take it home right?

....So when Dr Musgrave says "I have no evidence that we have been visited here." he isn't saying he hasn't seen the evidence - merely that he does not possess it.

Which leads me to ask you: In that email you sent him, were you asking him to pony up his alien evidence Jimbo?


....And that's why he's all like 'I have no evidence.... but know about interstellar travel and life out there' -

He just happens to know this stuff.

You guys are great.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Oh. Well thanks Jim. I guess we can all go home now.

By no means.

With fewer distractions we can concentrate on the really interesting stuff that could well be lurking, disguised behind the fluff and noise.

My suspicion is there's really interesting and important stuff that to date we've been unable to recognize and research.

Some of that stuff probably involves human activities whose authors remain delighted with public confusion and media misdirection.

Other 'stuff' could be -- darn near ANYTHING.

That possibility has always demanded higher, tighter standards, and those standards have been resisted most strongly not by the skeptics/debunkers but by the eager-believers and fauxFO experiencers.

It's worth the effort, whatever is found. BELIEVING it's worth the effort keeps our minds open, supple,and just barely functional.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JimOberg

,snip. ....So when Dr Musgrave says "I have no evidence that we have been visited here." he isn't saying he hasn't seen the evidence - merely that he does not possess it.

Which leads me to ask you: In that email you sent him, were you asking him to pony up his alien evidence Jimbo?

...And that's why he's all like 'I have no evidence.... but know about interstellar travel and life out there' -

He just happens to know this stuff.

I specifically asked about the STS-80 claims. I've known for a long time that Story believed in 'brothers in intelligence' beyond Earth, and never felt arguing about it. Heck, I believe in God, which in the end may be much the same thing.

But I wouldn't overinterpret the word 'have'. If you've seen evidence, or been told it, you HAVE it in your head -- physical possession is a minor angle.

Yet it might be worth asking him directly at some future point.