New Book by Timothy Good comes out in November 2013.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
JimOberg:

For reality-free dreamers, maybe so.

Why do you think you are qualified to dictate to others through snide ridicule what reality is or isn't? You know no more the facticity and veracity of Armstrong's comment than you do of next weeks lottery numbers. All you are doing is giving an opinion, as everyone is entitled to do. .

No way. I'm citing the checkable evidence for my interpretation, and Good is providing hearsay from anonymous sources, at best.

And no, I don't play the lottery. It's against my religion.

I was raised and trained as a mathematician.

reply to post by Auricom


You might like Good's book "Need To Know", as it is a very good listing of UFO encounters.
Some of those saucer jockys are basically thrill seekers, testing human reaction times to air to air collisions.

www.amazon.com...

ps:I have found that speaking the truth on ATS comes second to political correctness.
SO which Good speech was that?

“Nope, the 'UFO conversation' is an assertion of fact that can be shown to be false by the overwelming evidence in its favor and the absence of any evidence to the contrary.”

You have failed to establish that as a “fact” as people are still talking about it all these years later. In fact anything you say cannot be taken as a fact.

It is not by chance that Philip Klass rhymes with _ _ _.
You compromised your hull when you associated yourself with him. This means if any of the Apollo 11 crew told you that they had seen UFO’s you are not going to tell us. It also means they may have not told you.

If NASA has a non-public communication channel to talk to their crews in space, are you going to tell us that? Why would any NASA employee who wanted to keep their job divulge any communications they heard which were meant to be secret?

We know how a cover-up works.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
“Nope, the 'UFO conversation' is an assertion of fact that can be shown to be false by the overwelming evidence in its favor and the absence of any evidence to the contrary.”

You have failed to establish that as a “fact” as people are still talking about it all these years later. In fact anything you say cannot be taken as a fact.

It is not by chance that Philip Klass rhymes with _ _ _.
You compromised your hull when you associated yourself with him. This means if any of the Apollo 11 crew told you that they had seen UFO’s you are not going to tell us. It also means they may have not told you.

If NASA has a non-public communication channel to talk to their crews in space, are you going to tell us that? Why would any NASA employee who wanted to keep their job divulge any communications they heard which were meant to be secret?

We know how a cover-up works.

And we know how a conspiracy theory works.

1. Make an assertion based on fringe hearsay, and justify the lack of supporting evidence by claiming a coverup.

2. Shift the burden of proof to the "skeptics" by demanding to be debunked.

3. Claim any lack of response as proof positive of the assertion, or

4. Once debunked cry "disinfo agent!" and reset the standards of evidence to exclude mainstream or reputable sources, unless they happen to support the assertion [ex: "NASA is covering up proof of ET life, and as evidence I submit these NASA photos I found on the internet"].


Just because your parents tell you there aren't any monsters under your bed doesn't mean that there are.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
If NASA has a non-public communication channel to talk to their crews in space, are you going to tell us that? Why would any NASA employee who wanted to keep their job divulge any communications they heard which were meant to be secret? We know how a cover-up works.

I've suggested again and again and again that in order to have an adequate factual basis for speculating on interpreting stories of space UFO sightings, people ought to read over my "101 FAQs on 'space ufos'" essay on my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html. That you have steadfastly refused to do this -- preferring to remain blissfully ignorant of fundamental features of human spaceflight operations -- is not my fault, nor is your consequent demands for answers that were provided there already. Providing one-on-one remedial tutorials isn't in my job description.

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
Why would any NASA employee who wanted to keep their job divulge any communications they heard which were meant to be secret? We know how a cover-up works.

We know how conspiracy nuts cheat, too.

"There's no evidence for 'X'..."

"That PROVES 'X' is true and the government is covering it up."

Jeez, you're not even original.

How about the radio amateurs who DID hear the Apollo-11 transmissions. How come you cover up the fact that they verified the released air-to-ground was what they were hearing, too?

So are we to believe that every one of Goods sources in ALL of his books are non credible or at best non checkable and were never in the positions of know how and "privy" they or Good claimed they where.Pity that Good cannot defend himself on here , has anyone actually challenged him, demanding he cite or provide legitimate checkable sources that prove his sources ARE what he or they say they are.

Lord Hilton Norton ,one of his friends' has always stood by Good and has never had a problem with him, that in its self is a very credible sign of Goods information he cites in his books.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect

If NASA has a non-public communication channel to talk to their crews in space, are you going to tell us that?

I think the evidence is that they did and in all likelihood still do have a private loop to the astronauts , here's a mention of it from a transcript of an Apollo mission conversation .


Don't want the good people of Earth hearing ALL the conversations do we

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
So are we to believe that every one of Goods sources in ALL of his books are non credible or at best non checkable and were never in the positions of know how and "privy" they or Good claimed they where.Pity that Good cannot defend himself on here , has anyone actually challenged him, demanding he cite or provide legitimate checkable sources that prove his sources ARE what he or they say they are...

This is the typical response when one item is challenged -- "How about all the others?"

Notice that it's a blank check -- one size fits all put-down -- it's the same trick no matter WHICH item you start with.

Good has been challenged for years, he shrugs it off. Even astronauts he's fabricated phony rumors about have challenged him, he's reported it in subsequent books while 'standing by my story'. [EG Carpenter].

reply to post by JimOberg


Not at all , i was asking if ALL the sources he provided in ALL of his books are non credible, if so then those that are claiming it as so must produce the evidence that proves ALL of his sources are no credible in ALL of his books.

Why did a man of Lord Hilton Norton stature and prominence back Goods claims , why did he risk his reputation,why ??

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by spiritualarchitect

 

If NASA has a non-public communication channel to talk to their crews in space, are you going to tell us that?

I think the evidence is that they did and in all likelihood still do have a private loop to the astronauts , here's a mention of it from a transcript of an Apollo mission conversation .

Don't want the good people of Earth hearing ALL the conversations do we

edit on 16-5-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)

so no rebuttals or responses from the naysayers on that transcript you posted, strange that those so vocal about the non existence of a non-public communication channel are prepared to let your post go unchallenged, humans are a fickle bunch eh.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
So are we to believe that every one of Goods sources in ALL of his books are non credible or at best non checkable and were never in the positions of know how and "privy" they or Good claimed they where.Pity that Good cannot defend himself on here , has anyone actually challenged him, demanding he cite or provide legitimate checkable sources that prove his sources ARE what he or they say they are.

Lord Hilton Norton ,one of his friends' has always stood by Good and has never had a problem with him, that in its self is a very credible sign of Goods information he cites in his books.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is "Lord Hilton Norton"?

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
so no rebuttals or responses from the naysayers on that transcript you posted, strange that those so vocal about the non existence of a non-public communication channel are prepared to let your post go unchallenged, humans are a fickle bunch eh.

Uh, could it be that it is already explicately addressed in the "99 FAQs" you refuse to read, so you can trumpet some sort of bogus 'scoop'? If you are determined to remain in ignorance of basic knowledge of a subject, and ignore basic explanations posted by people you want to look smarter than, it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you're the top expert.

reply to post by draknoir2

Forgive my ignorance, but who is "Lord Hilton Norton"?

Maybe I can help here .
Admiral Hill-Norton "we have been visited for many years

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Forgive my ignorance, but who is "Lord Hilton Norton"?

Maybe I can help here .
Admiral Hill-Norton "we have been visited for many years

Thanks. That explains why nothing was coming up under "Hilton-Norton".

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
so no rebuttals or responses from the naysayers on that transcript you posted, strange that those so vocal about the non existence of a non-public communication channel are prepared to let your post go unchallenged, humans are a fickle bunch eh.

Uh, could it be that it is already explicately addressed in the "99 FAQs" you refuse to read, so you can trumpet some sort of bogus 'scoop'? If you are determined to remain in ignorance of basic knowledge of a subject, and ignore basic explanations posted by people you want to look smarter than, it's easy to delude yourself into thinking you're the top expert.

Uh ,refuse to read, nope i never gave you or anyone else the impression that i would refrain from reading the 99 FAQs, show me were on this thread i stated this.

Show me were i gave you or anyone else the impression that i am or consider myself a "top expert".

What basic explanations did i ignore and can you prove or show i ignored these deliberately?

Some sort of basic scoop, what i am some sort of egoistical journalist, or a ATS member who is simply like many others on here searching for some truth.
.

I asked as you well know if ALL of Goods sources in ALL of his books were ALL non credible and asked if any clear evidence could be provided from those claiming they are ALL non credible if that evidence is contained in the 99 FAQ"s then a simple answer pointing that out would have sufficed rather than your rather "hot" under the collar reply.

Do you think Lord Hilton Norton is a credible source for his contributions he has made in Goods books or rather that a man of his distinction and prominence and position of "privy" in his previous employment in NATO would risk his reputation if he had any discrepancies of Goods sources. Why would a man of such a prestigious background allow himself to be credited to the very nature of such claims in ALL of Goods books???

Are you always this abrupt with those who are not as such an expert as you.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
so no rebuttals or responses from the naysayers on that transcript you posted, strange that those so vocal about the non existence of a non-public communication channel are prepared to let your post go unchallenged, humans are a fickle bunch eh.

The existence of such channels is directly addressed in the 99 FAQs, and your claim the issue is being evaded is proof you never read them.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Not at all , i was asking if ALL the sources he provided in ALL of his books are non credible, if so then those that are claiming it as so must produce the evidence that proves ALL of his sources are no credible in ALL of his books.

About as reasonable as demanding that you prove ALL his sources in ALL his books are credible [actually it's less reasonable, as the claimant has the burden of proof].


There is nothing wrong with the vetting and qualification of sources - in fact, it should be standard procedure, and the rejection of one does not require or represent the disqualification of all.

reply to post by draknoir2




Maybe the sources in Goods book need checking for actual verification that they are who they say they are, has there not been some credible military sources in Goods book, is he that stupid that he would provided non credible or non checkable sources considering the nature of the claims by his sources?? What about the civilian witness and sources are they ALL lying or made up, the burden of proof also lies with those claiming ALL of his sources are NON CREDIBLE too. Good has on occasion with held from actually naming some of his sources due to the nature of their information and who can blame him or his sources for that. It takes only one credible and checkable credible source for Goods data and content in his books for it to gain some foothold.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
so no rebuttals or responses from the naysayers on that transcript you posted, strange that those so vocal about the non existence of a non-public communication channel are prepared to let your post go unchallenged, humans are a fickle bunch eh.

The existence of such channels is directly addressed in the 99 FAQs, and your claim the issue is being evaded is proof you never read them.

Again where have i ever stated that i would NOT read that content in the 99 FAQs, your assumption that everyone one on here has read the 99 FAQs and that is why that document is not being challenged is a fickle one too.

So such channels exist , is that not reason enough for reserving judgement alone on a possible stealth public relations channel that filters out the rather juicy bits of certain sensitive data?? That was and is my primary concern and interest not what the 99 FAQs was providing as gospel truth.