Winged beings seen by astronauts?

I recently watched an interview with tom horn and Chris Putnam. They did extensive research on vatican prophecy & how the vaticans have a satellite named 'Lucifer' in new Mexico. It's supposedly more advanced than NASA's, and report were made that scientists/researchers saw angelic beings and UFOs in outer space with this satellite. This is a MUST see video, very interesting. If u want to skip to the part with angelic beings it's about halfway during the video.[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=EywKWiRTCaA]

reply to post by TheBlackHat


Thank you for this reminder that I have always found to be fascinating. If it wasn't for accounts such as these spread throughout the world, I do believe that the world would be shrouded deeper in darkness. It is accounts such as these that open the window to our souls in further seeking in truth.

S&F

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

mysteriousuniverse.org...

Some people say they see winged entities called "angels".

By that token, flying aliens in the vacuum of space makes perfect sense

I will start by saying that every single video from space of purported UFOs is explainable, at least the ones I can recall. There was the tether video, which was easily explained away with simple science and optics; then there was the supposed shot taken at a craft that zoomed away, which was easily explainable as well. Then there was the triangular craft in the bottom left hand corner of the video, which anyone could easily tell was a reflection; there was the blinking objects that aligned themselves in a circle, also easily explainable. And every single one of these explanations were not far fetched, but actually much more likely than anything else. I will be the first to admit when something is unexplainable, but it was not the case in those particular videos. My point is that there is not a lot of evidence from space of this nature that is still unexplained, at least that I know of.

As far as the Salyut 7 encounter, I have no real explanation. There are also a handful of terrestrial cases that I have no explanation for. I have never subscribed to the idea that aliens were visiting earth, but since there are some very well documented cases with no readily found explanation that is plausible, I do have doubts that I could be wrong. But I also dismiss a plethora of supposed evidence, much of which is often used to bolster the alien visitation argument, for various reasons, but as I said, not all evidence is so easily dismissed. I do believe there are aliens somewhere out in the depths of space, creatures that are intelligent. I am sure there is alien life much closer to home, albeit not that intelligent.

I have heard of this case in the past, but honestly I have do not remember ever looking into it very deeply, so I think that I will do this now. I am curious to know if there were any photographs taken, and if not, why weren't there?... I can understand that the majority of the time something strange occurs a person is not going to both have a camera handy, and think to get it out, and then have time to get it out and start filming. Especially in a moment of complete awe. I can personally attest to this happening to me when I have had an encounter that I highly doubted anyone would believe, so I know it is logical. But on board a space station, there must be cameras handy. In fact, I know there were. And they watched these beings for around 10 minutes, so logic dictates that pictures must have been taken by at least one of the crew members. I will look for them now. They may have been classified by the Russians though, and most likely were for some time, if they are not still classified.

Why are people contemplating the physical logic behind these 'winged-creature' sightings? From the paragraphs I read here and the follow-up reading I did it is clearly stated that both sets of Russian astronauts (the original 7 and then the astronauts who witnessed the same thing a week later) were first subjected to a bright flash of light and then saw the beings manifest from within the light!

Now I am a skeptic when it comes to everything first and foremost, until I feel I have gathered enough unbiased knowledge on the matter to derive my own explanation. There are always two ways to approach a problem like this logically, which is to both accept it is true and false independently and provide explanations for both cases - to do otherwise would be to # in the face of reason and understanding.

I believe if this case is to be true the beings were not of a physical form by ordinary definition. Therefore, making statements like 'why would they have wings in a vacuum' is a pointless question. The fact that the beings were reported to come out of a bright flash of light pretty much dismisses the possibility that these are some ancient creatures that actually are made of matter like us who travel about the universe being all large and mighty lol. Therefore, the next explanation would have to be that these were beings of another plane of existence which temporarily used our universe to communicate with us in some manner. While that sounds nuts in itself, it correlates with many ancient beliefs of 'supernatural' beings interacting with us and also is something that is experienced constantly by humans across the world naturally and also under the influence of certain substances (which are 100% natural and obviously have a higher purpose due to the fact they illicit such reactions in humans - an intricate synergy between nature and conscious observer).

So the next step in our reasoning is to ask what are these beings? I am not a Christian by any means (I am an agnostic, previously was an atheist for most my life but I blame that due to the conditioning that intelligent and academic people should automatically reject all ideas supernatural and un-worldly) therefore it is hard to say if they are actually 'angels'. There are two ways to approach this - angels are real in the sense that they have been reported by most the ancient belief systems and point to a constant entity that communicates with us, OR, that these astronauts perceived angels because the 'true beings' used this image for us to decode - whether it be to deceive or to conform to their beliefs.

From this point it is hard to extract further meaning, so the rest would have to be pure speculation which isn't necessarily the best route of action to take with any conspiracy (though remember even with our beloved art of science we often have to make new assumptions to break the current paradigm and extend our knowledge). So from this POV we can conclude that the astronauts, if telling the truth, saw beings of another origin manifesting themselves in our reality as angelic beings - for whatever reason. I find many people find talking about non-physical beings off putting straight away, but when reason takes me down this route I tend to implement a further explanation of reality (NOT pure speculation mind you) that involves humans being 2-form beings. That means, just as we use a computer to access the information field known as the internet, our 'SOUL' or our 'Conscious Energy' uses our body to interact with this universe. From this point of view, our universe is just a physical subset (which has had it's harmony broken into a chain of non-stop movement we call space and time) of a much higher existence from which our 'souls' arise from. Think of it as a massive video game, and our universe is on a dedicated server but outside of that computer box is COMPLETELY incomprehensible to us as our physical forms only exist on the disc that the laser (light) reads. Therefore, it is not far-fetched from this thought experiment to suggest other beings exist outside of this dedicated server which can, just like our 'souls', interact with this universe in a manner of ways. If this is the case, then all 'interdimensional beings' (or most) would fall into this case - whether it be weird winged creatures in space, shadow people in sleepy paralysis, strange entities observed under shamanic substances or even certain types of 'aliens'.

The other case is of course that the astronauts are all lying either actively or inactively. Either they had a massive group hallucination (twice!) of which there isn't much if any supporting scientific evidence for OR they are all lying for a cause we can't understand from the information handed to us. Though this raises the question of why the astronauts would risk jeopardizing their integrity by making such claims. Perhaps it was an attempt to scare the USA in some way?

Only the people on board will ever know the answer to that.

Everybody can be happy with their own unverified memories and dreams, but it's clear by now that on this thread, nobody even admits the need to provide checkable evidence. So enjoy....

reply to post by TheBlackHat


Now that is interesting you posted this. I was just searching for the same thing. A prior article and vid.

Astronauts (not sure if the same group) caught them on camera through the port hole. It was leaked to the public. Saw it months ago, and now cant find it at all.

These are the Bird Tribes. Enemy combatants in the 'War in Heaven' they guard this p.o.w. camp.
One of "Enlil's" names was Hebrew 'Ba-El, King of Hell' and the Romans deified him as "Jupiter". He was promoted by the Papal and his name changed to "St. Peter". The same thing was done for his nephew "Marduke" who the hebrew coven named "Azazel" - became "Arch Ang-el Micha-el" of the (El/greys) council of 9.

Originally posted by Jaellma

While on a mission in April 1979, Afanasyev left Star City, the USSR’s equivalent of NASA, to dock with the Salyut 6 space station. While the trip was underway, a metallic object turned towards them and followed them closely.

Afanasyev was able to get several pictures of it and estimated that the craft was 26-28 meters away. While he still had it within visual range, he continually communicated with the surface about what he was seeing.

When he returned from the mission, his film and cameras were confiscated. Finally, he was sworn to secrecy. It was only after the Soviet Union fell that he felt safe enough to share

I am sure you have seen this video numerous times

I haven't seen this video before.

And it pissed me off to no end that I couldn't hear a single word Afanasyev was actually saying. (as I can understand Russian and would have been able to understand what he really says). But the voice of the english speaker in obnoxiously loud while Afanasyev's voice is turned down in volume.

That's ... suspicious, to say the least. Normally you can make out what the original speaker says despite of the translator's voice.

While on a mission in April 1979, Afanasyev left Star City, the USSR’s equivalent of NASA, to dock with the Salyut 6 space station.

Bogus date.

Bogus launch site.

Bogus destination.

But for those who believe against all evidence, reality holds no debunkery.

Consider this: the reason there are so many shows like this, full of so much nonsense, is that advertisers love to gear their commercial messages to clueless gapers who will believe anything they see on TV. Such shows attract such viewers.

What other explanation could there be?

reply to post by JimOberg


Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?
I posted this on page 3 of this thread, and it's on YouTube thanks to ATS member easynow.
It's not in space but a sighting described by a highly respected U.S. astronaut. What possible fault can be found with this?

reply to post by Xenoglossy


They were on a space station, there likely would have been a portion of the space station in view from where they were looking out. I'd say that would be good enough to guess the approximate size of something.

reply to post by TheBlackHat


Could it be this thing? This looks a little fake to me. Your description sounded similar though


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?

Just to summarize before moving on -- you concede all the other claims as counterfeit and bogus, right? Including Cooper's tales from the 1950s, too? Otherwise we can play the but-what-about-this-OTHER-one- game indefinitely.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?

Just to summarize before moving on -- you concede all the other claims as counterfeit and bogus, right? Including Cooper's tales from the 1950s, too? Otherwise we can play the but-what-about-this-OTHER-one- game indefinitely.

Jim, your skepticism knows no bounds! You are the antithesis of the naive believer. You discount EVERYTHING as either fabricated, or otherwise false testimony.

I for one WILL NOT discount what Cooper has said. I will more likely discount what conclusions you have reached with your obviously biased approach.

Accuse me of being in an intellectual ghetto if you want. I don't care. But, I wonder what motivates you to denounce every account and make a mockery of every piece of testimony. I cannot consider you credible any longer. You are as credible as those channeling "messages from ET". Actually probably less so.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?

Just to summarize before moving on -- you concede all the other claims as counterfeit and bogus, right? Including Cooper's tales from the 1950s, too? Otherwise we can play the but-what-about-this-OTHER-one- game indefinitely.

Well, let's just say I've got a sore butt from being a fence sitter. A guy in USAF uniform told me privately that he had been scrambled to chase a UFO and that the other pilot crashed into a mountain. I didn't know whether to believe him or not. For all I know he had killed a pilot and stolen his uniform. However you slice it, it's quite a stretch to think a man dressed as a U.S. Air Force pilot is lying about what he said, even though believing him is far from easy, even though he seemed sincerely upset about it.

I can see that most of the so-called NASA sightings in space are highly unconvincing, like the tether thing. But I'm not prepared to call any U.S. astronaut a liar, although I know Gordon Cooper's character has been called into question and that there is a lack of corroborating testimony from the photographers involved in the 1957 event at Edwards AFB.

And if I were into giving pro-UFO lectures, I would want to avoid using any case as evidence that has had reasonable doubt cast upon it. Even though a good debater or lawyer is supposed to be able to argue either side of a case, why not stick with cases that have stumped the debunkers if trying to show that there is a phenomenon worth further study? And if you know of some weakness in a case, why not be honest and point that out? It's a search for truth, not for who is the better debater.

Overall, it seems to me, the evidence strongly suggests that aside from all the misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. there does appear to be some phenomenon that gives the appearance of discs that can hover and jump from one location to another as if inertia were not an issue, and I don't mean searchlight beams on clouds. That doesn't mean they're alien in origin. There are all sorts of weird possibilities.

That's why I'm building a tracking system that aims and zooms two cameras when a sizable hovering object is detected in the sky. It takes zoomed 3-D video with tracking data stamped on each frame, to provide a good look at whatever it is, and if it catches something truly mysterious, requests will be filed for U.S. Weather Bureau and FAA radar data. Some say it's an unknown natural phenomenon, and some who have witnessed the things say, "Yeah, I saw it, but that doesn't mean it was piloted by aliens." Several ATS members say they've clearly seen the things but doubt they are of alien origin. But let's try to find out. We have to do a better job of investigating.

Anyway, I checked the section on your Web site about astronauts and UFOs and saw no mention of Deke Slayton. In the video he doesn't mention aliens. But you want to be able to say that all astronaut UFO sightings are bogus. And this is one that I would just admit I couldn't burn down if I were a debunker and couldn't find evidence that it was an April Fool gag, an imposter, or something like that, since admitting inability to debunk a particular case doesn't equal admitting that people of nearby star systems are better at observing us than we are of them.

So what's the story on the Deke Slayton sighting?

Originally posted by Jchristopher5

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?

Just to summarize before moving on -- you concede all the other claims as counterfeit and bogus, right? Including Cooper's tales from the 1950s, too? Otherwise we can play the but-what-about-this-OTHER-one- game indefinitely.

Jim, your skepticism knows no bounds! You are the antithesis of the naive believer. You discount EVERYTHING as either fabricated, or otherwise false testimony.

I for one WILL NOT discount what Cooper has said. I will more likely discount what conclusions you have reached with your obviously biased approach.

Accuse me of being in an intellectual ghetto if you want. I don't care. But, I wonder what motivates you to denounce every account and make a mockery of every piece of testimony. I cannot consider you credible any longer. You are as credible as those channeling "messages from ET". Actually probably less so.

edit on 5-4-2013 by Jchristopher5 because: Minor corrections

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you actually spoken with Gordon Cooper... or any other astronaut, for that matter?

Very telling that you would consider the lunatic fringe as or more credible than someone with actual credentials in the field of discussion. You don't let inconvenient facts cloud your beliefs.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Jchristopher5

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Okay, but what about the sighting described by Deke Slayton?

Just to summarize before moving on -- you concede all the other claims as counterfeit and bogus, right? Including Cooper's tales from the 1950s, too? Otherwise we can play the but-what-about-this-OTHER-one- game indefinitely.

Jim, your skepticism knows no bounds! You are the antithesis of the naive believer. You discount EVERYTHING as either fabricated, or otherwise false testimony.

I for one WILL NOT discount what Cooper has said. I will more likely discount what conclusions you have reached with your obviously biased approach.

Accuse me of being in an intellectual ghetto if you want. I don't care. But, I wonder what motivates you to denounce every account and make a mockery of every piece of testimony. I cannot consider you credible any longer. You are as credible as those channeling "messages from ET". Actually probably less so.

edit on 5-4-2013 by Jchristopher5 because: Minor corrections

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you actually spoken with Gordon Cooper... or any other astronaut, for that matter?

Very telling that you would consider the lunatic fringe as or more credible than someone with actual credentials in the field of discussion. You don't let inconvenient facts cloud your beliefs.

I did not talk to Cooper when he was with us, or have I talked to any astronaut. But, I have seen Cooper's testimony and I believe him. He had no reason to lie or mislead, in fact he had every reason to keep his mouth shut.

I equated Jim Oberg to the lunatic fringe, as the antithesis, because he obviously goes into this to disprove or invalidate testimony, not with an open approach.

If I am wrong then I will apologize to Jim. But. I don't think I am. I think he is a skeptic's skeptic, and works to find any detail to invalidate testimony, rather than looking at the bigger picture.

If you look at the balance of the testimony, from numerous astronauts, cosmonauts, and other NASA officials, I' don't know how you come away with idea there is not something alien being observed by these men.

Originally posted by Jchristopher5
I did not talk to Cooper when he was with us, or have I talked to any astronaut.

I met him once, briefly, and years later we exchanged letters on the subject at hand. I've met probably 200 astronauts and cosmonauts, worked professionally over long periods with dozens of them, and discussed this subject with dozens more. I think that gives me an edge in understanding their experiences and views.

But, I have seen Cooper's testimony ...

No, you haven't. You've seen maybe -- what? - ten minutes of his comments, usually edited by producers who want to make their own points. Have you read his autobiography end-to-end? Serious question -- have you?

... and I believe him. He had no reason to lie or mislead, in fact he had every reason to keep his mouth shut.

You are certainly free to believe him, but without telepathic powers or access to secret memoirs, you have NO right to claim knowledge you do NOT have, to wit, awareness of his motivations or intentions. By claiming to know this you tell more about your motives than Cooper's.

I equated Jim Oberg to the lunatic fringe, as the antithesis, because he obviously goes into this to disprove or invalidate testimony, not with an open approach. If I am wrong then I will apologize to Jim. But. I don't think I am. I think he is a skeptic's skeptic, and works to find any detail to invalidate testimony, rather than looking at the bigger picture.

1. Have you read James McDonald's report on the Edwards case and explained the glaring discrepancies from Cooper's version? Please explain why you prefer Cooper's version over McDonald''s.

page 75 at www.project1947.com...

2. Do you believe Cooper's story of the shuttle flaw telepathic warning from aliens? Or do you prefer to avoid it?

3. Do you believe Cooper's claim of having a magic hand-held camera on Gemini-5 that could take photos showing license plates on Earth and saw them with his own eyes?



Defend your utter belief in everything Cooper has ever said, please, with logic.

Originally posted by Jchristopher5
If you look at the balance of the testimony, from numerous astronauts, cosmonauts, and other NASA officials, I' don't know how you come away with idea there is not something alien being observed by these men.

I believe you.

You really do not know.

What have you done to widen your knowledge of this subject before swallowing every fable on the UFO sections of the internet?

What do you think, for example, of my 30 year old report on the Cooper UFO stories? Is there any raw evidence in it that you admit may be authentic?

Originally posted by DazDaKing


The other case is of course that the astronauts are all lying either actively or inactively. Either they had a massive group hallucination (twice!) of which there isn't much if any supporting scientific evidence for OR they are all lying for a cause we can't understand from the information handed to us. Though this raises the question of why the astronauts would risk jeopardizing their integrity by making such claims. Perhaps it was an attempt to scare the USA in some way?

Or maybe it just didn't happen and a "newspaper" was using the astronauts' names to sell a story.