UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

AlienView
How do
I know for sure who really wrote it? And if they had an alternative agenda in writing it?

Exactly. That's the point we're trying to make. The earlier example is perfect. The quote attributed to the cosmonaut was made while he was supposedly in space in 1979, when his first space mission was actually years later.

How do you know who wrote it, and what their agenda was? That's why it's so important to verify if you want to know the truth.

reply to post by Zaphod58


How would you verify this statement?

It is time for the truth to be brought out... Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.... I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about unidentified flying objects.

Former CIA Director Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, signed statement to Congress, August 22, 1960.

Source:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Hey look I found one you can verify for yourself. I'll post the page as a quote and leave the link to visit the page
where you can actually hear the interview where the astronaut Mitchell is speaking - let me know if it passes
your smell test for truth?

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell

Edgar Mitchell stunned British radio listeners by saying that aliens have contacted Earth. What is most surprising about his revelations are his credentials. Edgar Mitchell is a former NASA scientist and astronaut.

( Listen to interview with Dr. Edgar Mitchell about contact with aliens )

Mitchell says that the aliens mean no harm and are not hostile to man's interests.

"If they were, we'd be gone by now," Dr Mitchell said. "Our technology is not nearly as sophisticated".

Later on the show, he said he was sure we had been visited, up to as many as 60 years ago.

"I've been in military and intelligence circles who know we have been visited," said Mitchell.

Edgar Mitchell was the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14. Mitchell spent 9 hours moonwalking on February 9th. 1971. NASA issued a statement saying they did not agree with Dr. Mitchell's comments.

"I've talked with people of stature-of military and government credentials and position-and heard their stories, and their desire to tell their stories openly to the public. And that got my attention very, very rapidly.... The first hand experiences of these credible witnesses that, now in advanced years are anxious to tell their story, we can't deny that, and the evidence points to the fact that Roswell was a real incident, and that indeed an alien craft did crash, and that material was recovered from that crash site." -- Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut-from a taped interview.

Source:
alieninterview.org...

reply to post by AlienView

US Constitution? I could look up dates and persons on the internet - Should I accept them as accurate? How do I know for sure who really wrote it? And if they had an alternative agenda in writing it?

well the Internet is full of false and misleading information and I am sure that you could find some site that claims it was written by hitlers great grandfather or something and that their intentions were less than noble. Or you could look at Wikipedia or something and decide for yourself.

If you want we can take this to the level of how do you know anything for certain. But I really think your problem is basic skills that you should have learned by the time you finished High School.

So I keep throwing the question back - why should I assume that quotes about 'Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents' are all, or mostly all, false? Sure some people may lie about almost anything and make up stories
about almost anything but when you start making that assumption there is no sense in discussing the issue

Because verification should be required for these stories to be taken seriously does not mean that they are assumed to be lies or false. They should be assumed to be unverified until they are verified.

reply to post by AlienView

Hey look I found one you can verify for yourself. I'll post the page as a quote and leave the link to visit the page
where you can actually hear the interview where the astronaut Mitchell is speaking - let me know if it passes
your smell test for truth?

Yes I believe Edgar Mitchell said a lot of things and has personal beliefs about a lot of things. I am certain there is an astronaut that believes in god also. Does that mean anything to you?

homepages.wmich.edu...

The Earth reminded us of a Christmas tree ornament hanging in the blackness of space.
As we got farther and farther away it diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a
marble, the most beautiful marble you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object
looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall
apart. Seeing this has to change a man, has to make a man appreciate the creation of God
and the love of God.
- James Irwin, USA

Hot damn. God is real.

AGAIN this was the title of this post:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

BUT and very effectively as is often the case, the original post has been bushwhacked so that any who were
interested have probably stopped following it and gone elsewhere - WHY? to allow for the debunkers dance so
often seen lately, where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts. -
I call this the debunkers dance - an effective way to destroy the content and meaning of any concepts or
ideas by simply attacking it. Demand proof when you know nothing can be proven on an internet forum.

reply to post by AlienView


Yes nothing can be proven on internet but your questions can be answered..After posting this topic I've seen that some of the quotes are copied from any other source in which the the author doesn't meant to say what we're understanding.

Originally posted by AlienView
AGAIN this was the title of this post:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

BUT and very effectively as is often the case, the original post has been bushwhacked so that any who were
interested have probably stopped following it and gone elsewhere - WHY? to allow for the debunkers dance so
often seen lately, where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts. -
I call this the debunkers dance - an effective way to destroy the content and meaning of any concepts or
ideas by simply attacking it. Demand proof when you know nothing can be proven on an internet forum.

Hopefully people learn something useful in the process. What you are doing is called "the whine". It's an ineffective way of debating the actual topic when it's called into question. When all else fails, whine.

where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts.

You are correct. The original post had nothing to do with being truthful or valid.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....

Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

So in your view, to 'verify' means to go through the motions of checking, but then never to actually debunk any hoax or misrepresentation? No, I must be misunderstanding you. Please clarify this LIMIT you want to apply to quotation verification research.

Obviously once a quote has been shown to be true and has been shown to originated in its full context from the primary source we then enter the next faze of actually checking the content of that quote by looking at possible natural explanations like validating weather conditions, commercial or military aircraft that corresponds to the time ,day ect of the claimed sighting in the primary quote.

There have been many claims that credible military sources have quoted things like "F16s were scrambled to engage and investigate unknowns , now are there declassified documents showing this, if there is then we enter a totally different area of perception , these are he quotes backed up by documents and witnesses that we need to pay attention to in other words when such quotes manifest and have documentation backing them up, surely these kind of quotes are saying or showing that real unknowns have and are entering various nations restricted air spaces , we even have recently the Argentine Air force taking this seriously when they are now liaising with some UFO investigators .

Yes quotes can take us down many rabbit holes but are there some that not only stand out not only due to the sources credibility and vitality but by a successful checking of the actual data contained from that quote, yes stopping at the sources credibility is not enough... the content of that quote needs investigation too

Originally posted by AlienView
While not a Cosmonaut, Astronaut, or U.S. President, the following quote seems close enough as it is from
a Major-general in the Royal Belgian Air Force. I will give the exact quote and source page. And wish to know
why I should question its accuracy???

We have, indeed, been contacted-perhaps even visited-by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.
Victor Marchetti, former Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA, in an article written by him for Second Look entitled "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon Vol 1, No 7," Washington, DC, May, 1979. In any case, the Air Force has arrived to the conclusion that a certain number of anomalous phenomena has been produced within Belgian airspace. The numerous testimonies of ground observations compiled in this [SOBEPS] book, reinforced by the reports of the night of March 30-31 [1990], have led us to face the hypothesis that a certain number of unauthorized aerial activities have taken place. Until now, not a single trace of aggressiveness has been signaled; military or civilian air traffic has not been perturbed nor threatened. We can therefore advance that the presumed activities do not constitute a direct menace.;The day will come undoubtedly when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won't leave a single doubt about its origin. This should lift a part of the veil that has covered the mystery for a long time. A mystery that continues to the present. But it exists, it is real, and that in itself is an important conclusion.

-Major-General Wilfred de Brouwer, Deputy Chief, Royal Belgian Air Force, in SOBEPS' Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un Dossier Exceptionnel, Brussels: SOBEPS, 1991.

Source:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Isn't the above an exact case in point? The first paragraph states that the extract below it talks of ET contact, yet the actual extract says nothing of the sort, it says that unexplained activity appeared to have taken place in Belgian airspace. It doesn't at any point say it was extraterrestrial, neither does it say it was unauthorised flights by actual humans in actual planes, or even that it it may have been a natural but at this point unexplained activity. But this is all ignored and the quote that would usually be used says it's ET, known about by America, who are keeping it secret from the rest of the world.

reply to post by uncommitted


Do you also believe that they're hiding some things from us?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by AlienView
AGAIN this was the title of this post:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

BUT and very effectively as is often the case, the original post has been bushwhacked so that any who were
interested have probably stopped following it and gone elsewhere - WHY? to allow for the debunkers dance so
often seen lately, where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts. -
I call this the debunkers dance - an effective way to destroy the content and meaning of any concepts or
ideas by simply attacking it. Demand proof when you know nothing can be proven on an internet forum.

Hopefully people learn something useful in the process. What you are doing is called "the whine". It's an ineffective way of debating the actual topic when it's called into question. When all else fails, whine.

where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts.

You are correct. The original post had nothing to do with being truthful or valid.

We need some transparency here are you implying, saying or suggesting or even that you believe that there is not one single credible quote that stands up to genuine authenticity and that all quotes are non check able and just cases of out of context quotes or were never said.If not and if there is a percentage of credible quotes that do stand up to a check-able reference frame work then were if any does that leave the credibility of the ET hypothesis??

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by AlienView
AGAIN this was the title of this post:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

BUT and very effectively as is often the case, the original post has been bushwhacked so that any who were
interested have probably stopped following it and gone elsewhere - WHY? to allow for the debunkers dance so
often seen lately, where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts. -
I call this the debunkers dance - an effective way to destroy the content and meaning of any concepts or
ideas by simply attacking it. Demand proof when you know nothing can be proven on an internet forum.

Hopefully people learn something useful in the process. What you are doing is called "the whine". It's an ineffective way of debating the actual topic when it's called into question. When all else fails, whine.

where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts.

You are correct. The original post had nothing to do with being truthful or valid.

We need some transparency here are you implying, saying or suggesting or even that you believe that there is not one single credible quote that stands up to genuine authenticity and that all quotes are non check able and just cases of out of context quotes or were never said.If not and if there is a percentage of credible quotes that do stand up to a check-able reference frame work then were if any does that leave the credibility of the ET hypothesis??

You just read into my post a little. The sentence I quoted meant the opposite of what he was trying to say and I was just pointing that out.
Anyway, if you are asking my Internet self what my actual take is on the subject then I think I was clearer on previous posts. So I do believe that there are some quotes that are valid although, I would be hard pressed to provide a valid one, but even so, that in itself does not lead directly to the credibility of ETH.

About the belgian 1990 ufo wave:

Do we currently have an operational craft (publicly aknowledged) capable of acelerations from 150-250Km/h to 1,200-2,000 Km/h while changing altitude abruptly (as much as 2000m at a time) as confirmed by radar data and visual from belgian F-16 pilots and ground radar?

As the pilots have said those acelerations would have killed an human pilot.
So, their were not piloted or ....

Relax, I strongly suspect that some of the photos are hoaxs and in this case (1990 Belgian UFO wave) we are talking about a "black poject" craft that made some "show of the force" over Warpac airspace in the crumbling time of Soviet block.

Would it be TR-3B (Aurora)?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by AlienView
AGAIN this was the title of this post:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

BUT and very effectively as is often the case, the original post has been bushwhacked so that any who were
interested have probably stopped following it and gone elsewhere - WHY? to allow for the debunkers dance so
often seen lately, where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts. -
I call this the debunkers dance - an effective way to destroy the content and meaning of any concepts or
ideas by simply attacking it. Demand proof when you know nothing can be proven on an internet forum.

Hopefully people learn something useful in the process. What you are doing is called "the whine". It's an ineffective way of debating the actual topic when it's called into question. When all else fails, whine.

where truth and validity can be debated instead of the original post and its concepts.

You are correct. The original post had nothing to do with being truthful or valid.

We need some transparency here are you implying, saying or suggesting or even that you believe that there is not one single credible quote that stands up to genuine authenticity and that all quotes are non check able and just cases of out of context quotes or were never said.If not and if there is a percentage of credible quotes that do stand up to a check-able reference frame work then were if any does that leave the credibility of the ET hypothesis??

You just read into my post a little. The sentence I quoted meant the opposite of what he was trying to say and I was just pointing that out.
Anyway, if you are asking my Internet self what my actual take is on the subject then I think I was clearer on previous posts. So I do believe that there are some quotes that are valid although, I would be hard pressed to provide a valid one, but even so, that in itself does not lead directly to the credibility of ETH.

As you have admitted that you think some credible quotes are valid and given the nature of not only the credibility from those sources but the subject that is possible ET origins you still think it offers nothing in the way of even a little credibility to the ET hypothesis, sorry but it is really manifesting by the nature and content of your posts that you not only want your cake but to eat it as well.

Surely there is validated credible quotes that go a very long way in boosting the credibility of the ET hypothesis, if as you say internet sources are less credible than actual credible sources then if men like Dr James E McDonald voiced in favor of the ET hypothesis then just how justifiable is it or credible that internet sources think the ET hypothesis is less credible or has no credibility since MacDonald published his conclusions???

Surely we must be MORE concerned about all those "force fitting debunking explanations" that Dr McDonald exposed in his in depth study of those cases in "Blue Book" that were deemed solved than concentrating on the non valid or check-able quotes and using that as a justification for the "move along ,nothing to see here" attitude.


Yes i agree that quotes need validated and the content of those quotes checked but to imply the ET hypothesis is less or and no more credible is not looking at the bigger picture from sources like Dr James McDonald..

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

As you have admitted that you think some credible quotes are valid and given the nature of not only the credibility from those sources but the subject that is possible ET origins you still think it offers nothing in the way of even a little credibility to the ET hypothesis, sorry but it is really manifesting by the nature and content of your posts that you not only want your cake but to eat it as well.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. If there are quotes from people that are verified. That's what you have. People do believe things and people do say things but that doesn't make what they believe or say the absolute end of the story. What it offers is subjective information on what someone saw. If you want to imagine what they saw was ET, that's fine but there is no way to get to an absolute ETH based on this kind of data. If there is please enlighten me.

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

 

As you have admitted that you think some credible quotes are valid and given the nature of not only the credibility from those sources but the subject that is possible ET origins you still think it offers nothing in the way of even a little credibility to the ET hypothesis, sorry but it is really manifesting by the nature and content of your posts that you not only want your cake but to eat it as well.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. If there are quotes from people that are verified. That's what you have. People do believe things and people do say things but that doesn't make what they believe or say the absolute end of the story. What it offers is subjective information on what someone saw. If you want to imagine what they saw was ET, that's fine but there is no way to get to an absolute ETH based on this kind of data. If there is please enlighten me.

Sorry but i have real trouble in perceiving that you are in any position to refute or dismiss those who are in much more credible positions than yourself. Remember its not me its up for scrutiny its the very sources that have quoted such things, its them that are adding fuel to the credibility of the ET hypothesis.

Take this below ...

Many of the statements have been substantiated in books, interviews, articles, letters, magazines, scientific reviews or open congressional hearings:

So now its all about "people no matter their credibility see all manor of things", you have asked for validation even admitted that there is a percentage of genuine quotes and when it looks like there are such quotes the argument is turned around to now suggest these credible individuals are seeing anything but possible ET technologies..

Why is it not possible for the ET hypothesis not having any credibility in those cases deemed unsolvable to any known natural or man made origins after investigation??? When you have the nature of quotes ect like the ones in the book "Generals ect come forward by Leslie Kean then when is the time to pay attention to these kind of sources, is this the level of cross reference checking that we dismiss, ignore or play down these quotes in Keans book??, You may be hapy to do so but i take the view that those in better and more credible positions cannot all by misunderstanding of what they have witnessed or more importantly what they have been privy to in the form of classified information regarding the UFO situation..

I take it you have also included all those unsolved UFO cases that have involved quotes and references from credible military witness who have came forward with their testimonies over the years , a look at the historical case histories that are available, some with matching declassified documentation showing that the the ET hypothesis is any thing but redundant fir those cases deemed unknowns not for the lack of data they contain in order for any conclusive origins to be made on then but rather the amount or percentage of the "high strangeness data" they contain that deems them unsolvable or unknowns.

What constitutes as plausible and credible information that increases or levitates the credibility of the ET hypothesis, is it known credible sources, witnesses, high strangeness data ,(flight characteristics , acceleration capabilities from a stationary position ect), backed up declassified documentation or the opinions and speculations from a non credible, non privy to sensitive data internet individual.??

Sorry but no disrespect intended i know were my attention to detail and perceptions are directed, you can dismiss all the above that your right to suggest credible quotes when they are emanating from credible sources and the data contained in those quotes are deemed to show unknown objects performing technological abilities that indicate advancements or superior flight characteristics there is no real contest in the credibility ratings for the ET hypotheses as a very plausible explanation for even a small number of cases..

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Sorry but i have real trouble in perceiving that you are in any position to refute or dismiss those who are in much more credible positions than yourself

Sorry, I have real trouble perceiving that you are in any interest in discussing anything. I am an a position where I can form my own opinion about any given subject. That is because I am a person who is capable of accepting or rejecting the credibility of any source of information for myself regardless of those kinds of statements.

The question I asked you was how do you get from someone's subjective observation of something to the ETH is credible? My opinion is that it doesn't add very much if anything. My opinion is based on credible information that people can and do misperceive things and since these statements come from people, I assume that they too are capable of of misperceiving. Is there any evidence that these people are less likely to misperceive?

So now its all about "people no matter their credibility see all manor of things", you have asked for validation even admitted that there is a percentage of genuine quotes and when it looks like there are such quotes the argument is turned around to now suggest these credible individuals are seeing anything but possible ET technologies..

No, the argument isn't turned around. Once you dig through the mountain of misquotes, lies and garbage that spin the story to begin with, you take a look at what's left and reevaluate. And, yes, the next natural question is "what did they actually see?" And then "is it possible that what they saw was not an actual alien spaceship?" The answer to that is "yes".

The point being is that your alien story is comprised of a lot of bad data to begin with which still seems to fuel the next part. Eventually you come to a road block in which you don't have any real data to get to ETH. Again, you can only imagine or speculate that which is fun to do but nothing really beyond that.

Why is it not possible for the ET hypothesis not having any credibility in those cases deemed unsolvable to any known natural or man made origins after investigation??? When you have the nature of quotes ect like the ones in the book "Generals ect come forward by Leslie Kean then when is the time to pay attention to these kind of sources, is this the level of cross reference checking that we dismiss, ignore or play down these quotes in Keans book??, You may be hapy to do so but i take the view that those in better and more credible positions cannot all by misunderstanding of what they have witnessed or more importantly what they have been privy to in the form of classified information regarding the UFO situation..

I have and read the Kean book which I thought was very good. I also read Jim Oberg's critique of it which I thought was also very good but which also made me think about what I was reading. Personally, I think it's good to look at things from all sides and angles and to make up your own mind and that's what I have done.


Tachypsychia is associated with rushes of adrenaline. When that occurs:

The most common experience during tachypsychia is the feeling that time has either increased or slowed down, brought on by the increased brain activity cause by epinephrine, or the severe decrease in brain activity caused by the "catecholamine washout" occurring after the event.
It is common for an individual experiencing tachypsychia to have serious misinterpretations of their surroundings during the events, through a combination of their altered perception of time, as well as transient partial color blindness and tunnel vision. After the irregularly high levels of adrenaline consumed during sympathetic nervous system activation, an individual may display signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is common for the person to display extreme emotional lability and fatigue, regardless of their actual physical exertion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would pilots be immune to this type of thing?

Originally posted by HiddenSecrets
reply to post by uncommitted

 

Do you also believe that they're hiding some things from us?

This is a conspiracy site, but on this evidence why would you? The extract provided gives no proof that anyone is hiding anything and more to the point, if unauthorised activity - those are the words used (assuming the actual extract is even real) was really ET, and occurred over Belgian airspace, then why would the CIA be in a position to hide it?

This is just pulling at the gullibility of some people to think that it must be true if it says the CIA are involved....... you wouldn't be that gullible would you? You wouldn't take a link from a site that is adamant that ET visitations have taken place and treat that as fact without checking out to see what supporting evidence exists - or would you?

I've been neglecting the worthy investigations and discussions here for other pursuits, my apologies.

The Mitchell quotes can be considered legit because he's been consistent over the years in many different interviews. He is, of course, only passing on hearsay about events he did not see directly, eg Roswell, but it's his belief such stories are credible.

There ARE bogus Mitchell quotes, making their way around the net, for example that HE encountered UFOs or alien structures on the Moon on Apollo-14, or that he has said that OTHER astronauts told him about UFOs they have seen in space. He denies this 'quotes' quite explicitly, and makes it clear that to the best of his knowledge during the Gemini and Apollo program, NOBODY encountered UFOs on space flights. Now THAT'S a quotation I'd like to see more openly posted on the UFO forums, but for some reason, its existence is usually covered up.

The Gordon Cooper quotes are mostly clearly his, on tape and in interviews and at the UN. The one exception is the 'Ferrando transcript' about him witnessing a UFO landing in Florida. So far I have been able to trace it back to a still-unfound FRENCH article about 1973, quoting a taped interview at a UFO convention in NYC. That original interview, of course, was in English, and his words were then edited and translated into French, and then translated BACK into English -- so it may be useful for an ambitious researcher to look in clippings files for reports of a NYC 1973 UFO convention where Cooper spoke, and see what was reported that he said. I'm also still trying to find the French article. Any help will be appreciated. I'm also on the trail of Ferrando's sound man, who made the tape, and now lives somewhere north of NYC. Cooper also makes it clear that the claim he saw a UFO on his Mercury-9 flight is bogus.

NONE of the other circulated quotes about astronauts seeing UFOs on space missions appear authentic. HOWEVER: The Kovalyonok story of the exploding dumbbell DOES appear completely legit and is of HIGH interest to me.

Sweeping away the noise and the garbage DOES leave a residue of interesting events well worth looking into.

So there's