It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg
Persoanlly, i find him a darn sight more credible than "It's truth but not as we know it Jim Oberg"
It's a common temptation to quickly believe input that already agrees with what we believe, and we're all subject to that bias. That's why serious investigators know to make themselves check even harder stuff that they recognize as reenforcing pre-existing views.
So when you read (from Sightings TV) that "In April of 1979, Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev lifted off from Star City to dock with the Soviet Solyut 6 space station," a reasonable first step would be to verify checkable facts:
Did Afanasyev blast off in April 1979?
Do cosmonauts lift off from 'Star City'?
Did Afanasyev dock with a space station "Solyut 6" (a typo for "Salyut 6")?
You are able to perform these simple checks, I presume. Please do so and report results, and the implications of those results.
Are any of those statements true?
With those results, you may make an estimate of how much you can rely on the narrator's description of the Russian commentary from Afanasyev. You may feel it is justified to try and determine how much of the original Russian is being accurately translated. Or not -- depends on your calibration from the article's first three alleged facts.
Originally posted by inven104u2
. Why would they sate something that were not true? Anyone care to comment?
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by JimOberg
I must ask you if you have any way to back up your claims? Again I see you throwing out opinions and trying to make them sound factual. So russian ufologists have no clue as to what they are doing? Again I ask can you back that claim up with any evidence? If so please post it and if not please quit trying to demean people and acting as though they have no clue what they are talking about. I would go as far to say that there are those who know more than you do about this subject. Please just backup your claims when you make those statements about other people.
That's funny I don't see anything in that post that shows me demanding anything from you. I would suggest you get it right before putting words in my mouth.
Ask =
Demand =
So please I am asking not demanding you to get it right in the future. Thank you.edit on 5-11-2010 by tsurfer2000h because: added text
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by The Shrike
Bro, you need to clean that last post up a bit.
Edit: I meant that in a nice way.edit on 5-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by The Shrike
I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.
I don't accept his conclusions.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Aside from pop-psychoanalysis,
Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by The Shrike
Have you read Mr. Oberg's Bio? And any of his work? I think he has every reason, and then some, to take the stance he has taken. A man with his background, history, and employment record has a reputation and a career to protect. And I say that not to defend or offend him or anyone else here. He simply cannot afford to state anything other than what he has already stated. Folks with his prominence who have worked hard to carve out for themselves a niche have been canned and/or blackballed for the slightest mistakes in the past several years. The only thing I don't understand is why anyone in his position would bother going 15 rounds on a thread in a forum. It's certainly not a requirement. It almost makes me want to say: "me thinks thou dost protest too much."
But that's just me.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Members: I know that you can see the various STS-80 clips at youtube which are no longer downloadable unless you have software that allows you to do so. I have a Rapidshare account. Can any of you post a link to source that has the whole STS-80 footage that can be downloaded?
I don't know why Jim has a problem understanding that what you see in the various clips cannot be explained prosaicly because what you see in those clips have no connection to the shuttle flight that produced the images. If a camera had been orbiting above or below the shuttle it would have captured the same images even if the shuttle was on the other side of the planet! Yet Jim still persist that it has to do with the shuttle's shadow, that what we're seeing is those pesky ice particles, or some other debris associated with the shuttle's proximity.
I don't accept his conclusions.
Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan
You don't accept his conclusions because they contradict the idea that these are alien spacecraft, which is what you want to believe.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Why NASA watches out for true UFOs (2008, MSNBC): today.msnbc.msn.com...