NASA Astronaut Camarda Denies Bogus 'UFO Quotation"

Originally posted by xpoq47
Once again, here's the story of Deke Slayton's sighting, straight from the man himself, in a video provided by ATS member easynow, leaving no doubt about what he said or that he said it.

Thanks for the genuine report, with the level of documentation that should have been -- but apparently wasn't in the Camarda case -- required to make it credible. What was the Blue Book results for this report?

Does it have any bearing on the Camarda faux-quote, except to show how foolish folks were to give any credibility to the latter based merely on the anonymous-sourced Internet UFO echo chamber?

And does it help serious researchers track back the source of the bogus Camarda quote to its origin, to identify the party directly responsible for planting it into the UFO literature. That might be interesting and useful.

You can also link to the Kovalyonok descriptions and sketches of what he saw over the South African secret missile testing range, as a highly interesting 'UFO report' deserving of serious attention. And others, also worthy of closer looks.

I'm sure glad when space station cameras, a few weeks ago, detected dots moving past the external structure, that Mission Control didn't shrug it off as more silly UFOs. As you can check up, they quickly were identified as leaking freon snowflakes from a coolant pump that required an emergency spacewalk to replace.

So NASA -- and helpers on Earth who monitor the live video releases -- must keep watch for signs of trouble, as well as for anomalies potentially of genuinely unexplainable phenomena, without being distracted or overwhelmed by noise and garble and distractions.

reply to post by JimOberg

From: Camarda, Charles J. (JSC-KA000)
To: jameseoberg@xxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: verification of quote attributed to you


Jim,

I can assure that quote did not come from my lips. I tried playing the bogus video which supposedly has this quote by me and surprise, surprise, the video was terminated?

If you ever find the supposed video or the perpetrator of such nonsense please send him/her my way!

I have seen allot of strange things in my life, especially growing up in NYC, some of which could be classified as alien, but extraterresterial, no!

Now when you are ready to write a book about dysfunctional culture, I am in!

Charlie

Would you agree this kind of information should be vetted or independently verified before being accepted ?

I'm not defending the alleged bogus ufo quotation but how is the information your posting here checkable ?

Originally posted by easynow

Would you agree this kind of information should be vetted or independently verified before being accepted ?

I'm not defending the alleged bogus ufo quotation but how is the information your posting here checkable ?

An excellent and entirely justified question.

Camarda can be reached by mail at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058.

I encourage you to apply such practices to this claim and to all the other pro-UFO claims you have accepted, perhaps carelessly or too trustingly, in the past.

An additional point worth making: you and I know there is a swarm of fanatics out there who would LOVE to catch me at a misrepresentation or fabrication, and it's reasonable that they try often to check up on everything I assert, in the hopes of doing exactly that.

The fact that they remain silent might allow you to infer that they so far have failed to catch me misbehaving with data.

You don't ever expect them to publish confirmatory results of their checking, do you?

They HAVE caught mistakes in some of my articles, the movie camera issue on Gemini-4, for example. Jack Kasher made a sound argument that the Apollo-16 crescent could not have been Earth based on the line of sight from the Moon, but for his own part, he's been silent on the subsequent positive ID of the 'crescent' as the boom-mounted floodlight reflector. And I've had to accept the Sparks/Maccabee arguments on the Gemini-11 object NOT being the Proton satellite, based on sound mathematical analysis [fortunately, Sparks seems also to have hit upon an even more plausible manmade object the crew probably saw]. So I welcome verification efforts and corrections.

reply to post by JimOberg

An excellent and entirely justified question.

Good I'm glad you agree the information should be independently verified before it can be accepted.

all the other pro-UFO claims you have accepted, perhaps carelessly or too trustingly, in the past.

That is spin-zone disinfo and is one of the reasons I can't stand talking to you about this subject.

But hey congratulations, you've succeeded in ruling me out as a candidate to be part of any objective vetting process ... so what are you going to do now ?

Who are you going to get to do the work to verify the info so it's believable ?

reply to post by easynow


So, you don't want to contact the person Jim told you to for verification, or you don't want to hear verification that what Jim says is true?

Those are 2 entirely different issues my friend.

He gave you the address, now vett away and let us all know what you hear.

Dorian Soran

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
I am curious though as to what he means as looking like alien but is not ET?

Lmao, that is really funny!
I'm sorry to see some other posters didn't seem to get your sarcasm.

reply to post by DorianSoran

He gave you the address, now vett away and let us all know what you hear.

Don't make me the gatekeeper, Jim should have thought about this before posting.

And what's up with this ...

Now when you are ready to write a book about dysfunctional culture, I am in!

Charlie

Charlie is ready to devote a large amount of time to co-write a book but he won't take ten minutes of his day to sign on to ATS and tell everyone for himself and set the record straight ?

There's something seriously wrong with that picture

Originally posted by WilliamOckham
No proof, though. That's not to say alien life ain't possible....math says otherwise. However, no proof of their visitation to earth though.

From around 5:20 into above CNN Larry King Live Roswell incident unmasked, Pt. 2:

Larry King: >>And back at New Mexico Building 84 Roswell, Frankie Rowe, her father was a fireman in Roswell and he went out in a fire call in 1947, returned home, and reported to his family that in addition to a crashed saucer, he saw two full body bags, and one living "little person" about the size of a small 10 year old. Essentially Frankie, your father was telling you he saw an alien, right?>Yes. That's correct.>What did he say? What did he make of it?>He said that they tried to help it, and that the "little person" 'told' them that there was nothing that they could do to help him.>He spoke in English?>He did not talk to them in words. He 'talked' to them in their head. But they all understood and 'heard' the same thing at the same time>Didn't he... did he go a little berserk over this? Did he try to tell other officials? Did he try to go to the press?>No. He didn't do anything other than he was out there to do his job. And that was all. And before they could actually do anything there at the crash site itself, the military came and escorted them off of the location.>Aryans by birth. They are also there with other Extraterrestrials, between the Moon and our Earth there are 18000 Greys here. There are only apparently 2000 real Greys left, all the rest are clones, they are "robots", they are organic robots, and micro pr... are grown in their head, they are controlled by some kind of radio frequency.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Camarda can be reached by mail at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058.

By physical mail and sent it physically to that adress, or do NASA Johnson Space Center have an e-mail adress?

I googled the adress you just mentioned, and i found this www.nasa.gov... but i don't see any e-mail adress mentioned on that Page itself...

Then i clicked "Contact NASA" (at the buttom of the page) and then this www.nasa.gov... shows up, showing this:
---------------------------
Contact NASA
Ask NASA
Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-000
(202) 358-0000 (Office)
(202) 358-4338 (Fax)
+ Ask NASA
Please allow 10-15 business days for processing. For email inquiries, be sure to include a subject and do not include any attachments.
---------------------------------------

And then i clicked on the "+ Ask NASA" line, and then pumps up a little window showing what seems to be an opportunity to fill out what you have to say there and then send it to this e-mail adress [email protected]

Is this [email protected] the e-mail adress to use when try writing to Charlie J. Camarda ?

Smirnov, if you don't want to follow the clear directions I already provided you, then you're on your own. Please report back your results, and I'm glad you're doing it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here is his reply:

From: Camarda, Charles J. (JSC-KA000)
To: jameseoberg@xxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: verification of quote attributed to you


Jim,

I can assure that quote did not come from my lips. I tried playing the bogus video which supposedly has this quote by me and surprise, surprise, the video was terminated?

If you ever find the supposed video or the perpetrator of such nonsense please send him/her my way!

I have seen allot of strange things in my life, especially growing up in NYC, some of which could be classified as alien, but extraterresterial, no!

Now when you are ready to write a book about dysfunctional culture, I am in!

Charlie

Why is Charles J. Camarda's e-mail adress not mentioned there? If you do have his e-mail adress, then why are you afraid to share his e-mail adress right here on your thread?
Did Camarda really said to you >>I can assure that quote did not come from my lips.

Originally posted by Smirnov

Originally posted by JimOberg
Here is his reply: [snip]

Why is Charles J. Camarda's e-mail adress not mentioned there? If you do have his e-mail adress, then why are you afraid to share his e-mail adress right here on your thread?

Me being afraid of you is a real laugh. Aren't you just squirming to find some excuse for you failing to carry out the confirmation check that you promised to do? Misdirection and evasion are no way to establish solid reality of UFO data.

Next thing we know, are you going to find some way to blame George Bush or the Tea Party?

Do the verification you promised. and how about doing it for OTHER quoatations you've automatically trusted over the years?

Seriously -- it's a good policy, and it's not my fault you are looking for excuses to get out of doing it.

Jim, isn't your entire thesis a case of the False Dilemma fallacy. Specifically 'falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus' which means 'false in one thing, false in everything':

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Jim, isn't your entire thesis a case of the False Dilemma fallacy. Specifically 'falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus' which means 'false in one thing, false in everything':

en.wikipedia.org...

By no means. The logical fallacy I'm most interested in is the treatment of the onus probandi for establishing a new theory of reality.

The burden is on the claimant's side, it's not a level playing field.

You see the fallacy expressed even on this thread: there are a thousand great cases and we only need to be right once.

That's just wrong.

The claimant needs to prove there is no other rational explanation for a phenomenon, except his particular theory.

As support of this, in a roster of evidence, the claim is that there is no other explanation, except the [insert favorite here] theory.

This assumes that each item of evidence has been thoroughly investigated and shown to have no 'earthly' explanation.

The opposing theory is that the evidence could be in error, mainly in not adequately eliminating ALL potential prosaic explanations, including human error or fraud.

One one after the other evidence items are examined and found to HAVE plausible non-extraordinary explanations -- such as the bogus Camarda quote, which had until this week [and probably for years to come, alas] ben treated as a solid data point -- there is a point at which the necessity of the extraordinary stimulus evaporates. The evidence offered isn't a 'beyond reasonable doubt' clincher.

This does not disprove the hypothesis, it just renders a provisional verdict of 'not proven' until the evidence base quality improves.

I'd like to see the evidence quality improve. Proponents see it as already good enough. That may explain a lot of evasion and hostility you've read on this thread on my own special investigations of the 'jewel in the crown' of UFO evidence, the 'NASA space cases'. The lamentable lack of familiarity of the proponents with fundamental spaceflight operations principles, and their passion for guesses and imaginary factoids in place of reality, might lead an observer to conclude they are at present incapable of mustering an iron-clad case for their theory [whatever it is, and they are often contradictory].

But it does not disprove the theory. However, it does show they fail the burden of proof to prove it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The fact that they remain silent might allow you to infer that they so far have failed to catch me misbehaving with data.

Are you sure about that? You have been caught with your "misbehaving data" for example here www.abovetopsecret.com... were you failed in your attempt to debunk Astronauts' UFO sighting on the Moon, and then on this www.abovetopsecret.com... page you "stepped on a banana and fell" when you said >>Now explain to me how it accounts for the absence of a single example of any ground photo with sharp enough resolution to see a tree's shadow, from any aerial source, at NASA?

reply to post by Smirnov


Stop being dense.. Someone cannot hand out another's email without their consent. I for one would not give out my email...especially on this site.

So J.O. has every right to withhold the email address. You think by employing kindergarten tactics...saying if you don't give into what you want..then you won't believe..na na na na...he should give in...

You take the word of someone with a wild insane story (D.H.) over someone with a rather ordinary one(J.O.)?

This is not the only time I have seen the UFO community lie when it comes to quotes or stories. So I would take J.O. word over those people any day.

Never a straight answer.. So true. Believe nothin NASA says

Originally posted by Smirnov
I wasn't asking if you are afraid of me, i asked you why you are afraid to share Camarda's e-mail adress right here on your thread. What holds you back? Why do you refuse to show Camarda's e-mail adress for all to see? Is it because you really don't have his e-mail adress and made up that socalled "Oberg's e-mail conversations with the famous Camarda" story?

How about just a respect for his privacy, to prevent him from being overwhelmed by harrassing emails from people?

reply to post by HawkeyeNation


That's a great commercial.

2nd line.

reply to post by JimOberg


Are you like one of those Sheldon Cooper characters who acts like an arse without realizing you are doing so?
I am asking seriously here, because you generalize about people and condescend to them in like half of your posts here.
Things like this:

such as the bogus Camarda quote, which had until this week [and probably for years to come, alas] ben treated as a solid data point

Who in their right mind treats a quote like the one you wrote this thread about as a "solid data point?" Believe it or not, Jim, there ARE loads of serious researchers on this site. There are also loads of blind believers. Earlier in the thread you asked a serious question about UFO culture and how to fix it.

What is needed is something akin to an official procedure guideline. We need a consensus view that is accepted by everyone interested in the phenomenon to accept and reject certain aspects of the field (ie, an official list of charlatans to be dismissed). Of course though, that will never happen. So for now we just get to argue amongst ourselves until that smoking gun becomes available.


ETA: There is nothing wrong with Sheldon Cooper by the way. I love the guy.