Star Trek movie heavies challenge NASA astronauts over space UFOs on live telecast

i'm surprised this hasn';t already been posted.

During last week's teleconference between Star Trek actors and astronauts on Earth and in orbit, at 3:00 into the tape, the movie director J.J. Abrams states that he was told by an astronaut that he has seen something on a space mission that made him believe in extraterrestrial life. Watch it and astronaut Mike Fincke's answer here.

www.youtube.com...

Alice Eve has been doing the talk shows elaborating on this theme, that NASA's answer was "practiced" and hence obviously fake.

www.educatinghumanity.com...

I'm curious about what might be behind the initial question by the producer.

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, I have to agree that the answer seemed pretty canned to me; in fact it gives credence to the punning acronym NASA: Never A Straight Answer.

Personally I have given up beating my head against it, but do they actually mean to provide material for conspiracy theorists and the woo crowd by saying crap like, (I paraphrase) "On my mission I was only 240 miles out. But we (we?) think that when we get further out there we might find something."

Further? Like, the moon further?

Ah, man, anyway, Jim, what did you mean by 'what's behind the producer's initial question'? He asks about an ammonia leak, I think, did you mean Abrams' question?

reply to post by JimOberg


I would guess curiosity was behind his question. If I had an opportunity to talk to an astronaut I would certainly ask the same thing.

Originally posted by Bybyots

Ah, man, anyway, Jim, what did you mean by 'what's behind the producer's initial question'? He asks about an ammonia leak, I think, did you mean Abrams' question?

You're right, it's the director's question I referred to.

Here's the link to Eve on the Jimmy Kimmel show:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


Would be nice if there was a transcript of the important Q&A...the video is too long.

I'm interested to see those "rehearsed answers"...

Originally posted by JimOberg
I'm curious about what might be behind the initial question by the producer.

To me it was uninteresting that "an astronaut" told him he saw something.

It would be interesting if he said who the astronaut was.

For the same reason, I find Edgar Mitchell's stories about unnamed people telling him about what they saw uninteresting.

If he could name the people who told him things, his statements would also be more interesting.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Would be nice if there was a transcript of the important Q&A...the video is too long.

I'm interested to see those "rehearsed answers"...

The OP gave you the time index. Just watch for 1-2 minutes starting at 3 minutes.

Originally posted by Bybyots
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Well, I have to agree that the answer seemed pretty canned to me; in fact it gives credence to the punning acronym NASA: Never A Straight Answer.

How so?

"I've never seen anything" seems pretty straight to me. Had he said "yes I have" would it have seemed less "canned" to you?

It wasn't an alien craft, it was Timmys science project he had been working on all year, once it was aloft a nor'easter wind pick it up high into the sky and caused a prismatic occulation reflection which caused the Nasa astronauts to see a shape reflected off their inner space craft window.

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
It wasn't an alien craft, it was Timmys science project he had been working on all year, once it was aloft a nor'easter wind pick it up high into the sky and caused a prismatic occulation reflection which caused the Nasa astronauts to see a shape reflected off their inner space craft window.

Funny thing is, some of the strangest on-orbit reported sights DO appear to have been serendipitous observations of human aerial activities, such as missiles. These strike me as the kind of genuine pearls that can be extracted from the overwhelming masses of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and hoaxes that overwhelm THIS subset of 'UFO reports'. As for other subsets, I'm not able or willing to judge.

reply to post by JimOberg


So Jim, what is NASA's response? The real response? Are they willing to release information all the people know NASA has?

You need to get with your buddies over there at NASA and get some UFO pictures for us.....Come on Jim we know you have them....

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by JimOberg

 

So Jim, what is NASA's response? The real response? Are they willing to release information all the people know NASA has?

You need to get with your buddies over there at NASA and get some UFO pictures for us.....Come on Jim we know you have them....

NASA's response is pretty fatalistic, they figure the nuts would never believe them anyway.

I have argued and argued and argued with them that most people interested in the question are sincere, serious people with reasonable questions.

NASA does respond to FOIAs and specific inquiries, especially those relayed by constituants via their congressfolks.

But here's the rub: NASA provided a full explanation of the STS-48 zig-zag UFO video from twenty years ago. Can you even FIND their answer on the UFO sites? There apparently are a number of such responses that, when disappointed 'UFO researchers' receive them, they just throw away and don't pass on to the community.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So you find it uninteresting because you are, presumably, prepared to believe that Edgar Mitchell was lying when he said that people in NASA had told him about the evidence for ETs that they had seen in space?

That demonstrates to me the absurd, irrational degree of scepticism disbelievers in UFOs exhibit when they are willing to call American heros who walked on the Moon "liers" simply because these men flatly contradict their pet beliefs about UFOs and ETs.

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So you find it uninteresting because you are, presumably, prepared to believe that Edgar Mitchell was lying when he said that people in NASA had told him about the evidence for ETs that they had seen in space?

That demonstrates to me the absurd, irrational degree of scepticism disbelievers in UFOs exhibit when they are willing to call American heros who walked on the Moon "liers" simply because these men flatly contradict their pet beliefs about UFOs and ETs.

Should I assume that YOU are lying when you claim that "Edgar Mitchell ... said that people in NASA had told him about the evidence for ETs that they had seen in space"?

No, my assumption is that you are a very confused and mnemonically challenged UFO buff.

Mitchell has patiently stated again and again that he personally never had any UFO experiences in space and neither had anybody he knew at NASA. For Mitchell, that included experiences anywhere -- I'm still curious about what Gordon Cooper told him about his own pre-NASA experiences, when they trained together on the same flight crew, in Apollo-10 backup, in 1968-9.

Again and again and again that has been his consistent testimony.

How did that message fail to get through to you?

ADD: Once you get clued in, you are welcome to eat those words in the second paragraph, which should embarrass you immensely. But that's how we learn, no big deal.

reply to post by JimOberg


You evaded one of chrisfishenstein's questions, Jim.
He asked for pics YOU have. Haha

I am curious as to which subsets of UFOlogy you are unwilling to judge. Can you elaborate a little?

Thanks for the thread. Bookmarking for later.

reply to post by JimOberg

You're right, it's the director's question I referred to.

What's behind his question?

What's behind your question, Jim?

You assume much, Oberg; you can count on me having fun with that.

I don't watch Jimmy Kimmel. I don't have a connection to pay television. If I'm awake, I am studying or distracting myself from studying, as students do, with ATS, usually during coffee. I don't know nor do I care whom "Eve" is. I don't go to JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, either.

I think that member CirqueDeTruth was right on my thread. There is some network of economies that is fed by this #. Even you waited to post your stuff until your 'paying customers' got theirs first. Not sayin' it should not be that way; just saying that the model is all pervasive.

That could be the only thing 'behind' JJ Abrams' question. Canned question, canned answer. The thing had Captain Fakey's Fake Sauce all over it.

Now, what I am interested in are the freaks driving this three-ring-circus. My interest does not lie in 'Aliens' or 'Spaceships' but the people that manufacture the narrative, and those that contribute to it. That's an awful lot of material to keep track of, someone's going to drop the ball, especially in this era of laziness and Google. I plan on being there when they do. I've a feeling that Vallee will drop it first.

Only a matter of time.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

You evaded one of chrisfishenstein's questions, Jim.

He asked for pics YOU have. Haha

I thought it was 'buddies' he said he thought -- correctly -- that I have, not 'pictures'. That's where the STS-66 ice-on-the-roof stuff just came from.

But I'm not the gatekeeper, there are plenty of approaches others can take. Please try to learn how.

Originally posted by Bybyots
... Only a matter of time.

Well, I don't see how my particular skills can help you, so have a nice trip. Enjoyed working the Chile fireball swarm with you.

reply to post by JimOberg


I know, man. I'm just having a little fun. You not wanna clarify your remarks about other subsets of UFOlogy?

I assume you mean contactee and abductee phenomenon?
If so you are missing out on some of the most intriguing aspects of UFOlogy. At least in my eyes.

reply to post by JimOberg


This Daily Telegraph article proves you wrong:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Try backing up your assertions with FACTS, then perhaps you will acquire some credibility instead of being known as a UFO debunker who continually gets things wrong.

BTW, I am a former university physics lecturer who has collaborated with Nobel Prize winners. So your condescension is inappropriate.

reply to post by JimOberg


Your kidding,

You are the only real resource connected to the other resources that we have; and there you are right there (touches avatar).

You are the guy that straightened out Vallee. You've been here for the whole thing, Jim.

Argh, too short a morning to get this all out. I just want to say that, sour or sweet, you are a treasure. As the dust settles post 2012 someone that has a grasp on the whole tale such as you have is a priceless commodity.

I don't mind swapping mantles to inflate certain UFO ideas so that they can be analyzed. For instance, I could really care less about the Star Trek thing; but you have to admit that the first astronauts response is truly a classic, "I have only been in LEO, but when 'we' get out there...".

Jesus, they need new script writers. C'mon, don't you think it sounded canned, Jim?

Finally, what's with the Edgar Mitchell thing? I could swear he has been going on about Aliens and Spaceships for years. Did I read that wrong? If so, I am sincerely eager and excited to straighten that out.

Thanks in advance.



P.S. Just to be clear, I don't think that the argument needs to be whether or not the Astronaut was 'lying' about Aliens. It may be that the whole idea or narrative concerning such things is being driven forward; keeping the situation perpetually in a state of being unresolved. The tension created must be valuable somewhere to someone.