NASA Project Gemini UFO Sightings - Stunning Astronaut UFO Black Knight Satellite Account

It's pretty clear from the transcripts they had many sightings of unidentified objects that could not be space debris or satellites as there wasn't all that much junk up there at the time. CC asked if this "was a sighting". That's pretty suggestive of what we all think it means. The astronaut's also expressed amazement at seeing what ever it is they were seeing. Surely, if it was space junk, they wouldn't be all that amazed.

A further clue to the fact that these sightings were indeed of extraterrestrial origin is all the debunkers that rush to the scene with no real plausible explanation.

they'll get you with this type of Astronaut sighting every time.
It was debris, it was a booster 6000 miles away etc etc.
that's why I like Coopers Edwards AFB sighting.
he watched a disc land in front of him while filming it.
the film was confiscated. So Cooper is lying or he's not.
Since he wrote a long letter to the UN about it and he
doesn't strike me as the fabricating type, I believe him.
He's never once recanted.
So yeah along with debris and ice it most certainly
could have been ET craft the Gemini astronauts saw.

@2:10 the caption reads:

Aboard each Gemini capsule was a device
known as the "Voice Tape Recorder" (VTR)

in quotes and italicized. Like it was some strange, mysterious device hitherto unknown.

It kinda reminded me of Keyrock, "The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" from SNL in the mid-nineties.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nighthawk1954

I love seeing new information on the Black Knight Satellite .

Not really new information. But what makes you think any of them have something to do with the Black Knight story?

As in the Black Knight story, what makes you think all of the accounts are about the same object?

For one thing, there was not so much junk sailing around out there in those days. (Can't stand a little mystery, huh?)

Astronauts are trained flyers and test pilots. So better believe them when they say they saw something strange. If an astronaut uses the word strange. you can bet it is et origin. All earthly sats have solar panels.
Actually anyone can decipher a booster , debris or another sat of earthly origin. So sorry all naysayers and debunkers on here looks like you have lost your arguement

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So the pilot tells Huston that the bogey is numerous space debris floating, about 3-4 miles out.

No.

then hoes on yo say in the interview that "UFO freaks" assumed bogey meant UFO when it actually was referring to the booster that they were flying formation with.

Yes.

He told Huston the bogeys were many and it was likely debris about 3-4 miles out.

No.

a bogey at 10 o'clock high."

"a". One. Singular. The booster.

We have several [actual sightings], looks like debris up here.

Several bits of other debris.

Capcom: Understand you also have the booster in sight. Roger.

Spacecraft: Yeah, have a very, very many -- look like hundreds of little particles banked on the left out about 3 to 4 miles.

The booster was not the little particles.

a reply to: Aliensun

For one thing, there was not so much junk sailing around out there in those days. (Can't stand a little mystery, huh?)

Mystery is fine. But:

1) Was any particular maneuvering of any of the objects described? No? Then why think they were anything but objects in orbit?

2) True there was not so much junk. But there was junk (as well as functional equipment) up there. And each space mission produced it's own junk each time it launched into orbit. Junk that would be on a similar orbit. But even with the dearth of junk. Why would it be more likely that what was spotted was of extraterrestrial origin than terrestrial? Or are there thousands of "Black Knight" satellites? I thought there was just one.

Read further the transcript. Borman was not really impressed with the "UFO". His attitude was sort of "Yup. Stuff floating around out there. What's next on the schedule?"
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
they'll get you with this type of Astronaut sighting every time.
It was debris, it was a booster 6000 miles away etc etc.
that's why I like Coopers Edwards AFB sighting.
he watched a disc land in front of him while filming it.
the film was confiscated. So Cooper is lying or he's not.
Since he wrote a long letter to the UN about it and he
doesn't strike me as the fabricating type, I believe him.
He's never once recanted.
So yeah along with debris and ice it most certainly
could have been ET craft the Gemini astronauts saw.

Jim Oberg has commented about Gordon Cooper's claims and has essentially made him out to be either some kind of liar or just someone with bad memory. At the time, I remember having watched videos of Cooper talking about these things, so it's hard to think he's just lying or remembering wrong. However, of what I know about the saucer landing case, there's nobody else to back up Gordon's story. It's very possible he's inserted his own prejudices from day 1. In a couple cases I've read it's unlikely Cooper had enough to go on, so maybe he did insert some of his own guesswork.

Few days ago I was reading about the Kennith Arnold sighting. What's interesting is the official AFB explanation is he saw a mirage. However, Kennith supposedly had 3 sightings, so what of the other two? Well the third sighting he saw in an airplane and he saw it below him. Apparently he was able to see THROUGH it like a jellyfish. And according to his daughter, who heard this from a relative, a ball of light entered her parents hhome a shortly after his first sighting and she was told Kennith kneeled down and prayed? (something like that) In any case, Kennith apparently thought UFOs might be what we become when we die. He felt they were "alive".

I mention that because it seems a lot of people in Ufology arrive at spiritual-ish explanations. They sort of go off the deep end. I wonder if something like this happened to Gordon Cooper?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

We have several [actual sightings], looks like debris up here.

Several bits of other debris.

Capcom: Understand you also have the booster in sight. Roger.

Spacecraft: Yeah, have a very, very many -- look like hundreds of little particles banked on the left out about 3 to 4 miles.

The way I read this, he is saying, we have several actual sightings. We also have the booster in sight — so don't presume that we are confusing it with the bogeys.

To read that as the sightings = the booster, does not compute for me. I know he said as much many years later, but it does not compute.

a reply to: lindalinda

To read that as the sightings = the booster, does not compute for me. I know he said as much many years later, but it does not compute.

I agree that there is a conflict. The transcripts indicate a second object quite clearly.

To conclude the second object was not associated with the booster is not entirely reasonable. Stage separations involve debris of various shapes and sizes. Debris which would remain on more or less the same orbit. Borman did not apparently see anything particularly interesting about it aside from the fact that it was, apparently, there.

a reply to: Phage

thats clearly a contradiction to the transcript

Houston , these particles are in addition to the booster and the bogey?

gemini: Roger

So by this admission the pilot was referring to the booster as a separate entity from the particles and bogey

Then goes on to say

"your reading our conversation on the ground "

Houston: "Yes we are following your conversation "

Pilot" Dont forget to censor them before you release them "!


seems pretty suspect to me

He also stated that the flashing lights which were flying in formation then moved to polar orbit

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Waiting for Jim...surely...he ought to explain away. It's satelites...the end.

Sorry to disappoint. Not the end at all.

It's critical to detect and report all outside anomalies because on occasion they can be critical clues to hazardous vehicle malfunctions. And maybe someday, something more.

The normal stuff, I describe here: www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, and I'm happy to address follow-up questions.

originally posted by: wildespace
My money is on some experimental Soviet satellites or scientific probes, perhaps launched into a wrong orbit, or which broke down very soon.

That was a favorite explanation for a long time, by me as well, but the more I thought about it, the more the problem of humongous crossing speeds fanned my doubts. Something close enough to show shape would be flashing by in an eyeblink, wouldn't even register on optical systems.

Stuff associated with the vehicle itself, in a near-parallel orbit, seems much more plausible. And folks get surprised by how MUCH such stuff was out there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So the pilot tells Huston that the bogey is numerous space debris floating, about 3-4 miles out.

No.

then hoes on yo say in the interview that "UFO freaks" assumed bogey meant UFO when it actually was referring to the booster that they were flying formation with.

Yes.

He told Huston the bogeys were many and it was likely debris about 3-4 miles out.

No.

a bogey at 10 o'clock high."

"a". One. Singular. The booster.

We have several [actual sightings], looks like debris up here.

Several bits of other debris.

Capcom: Understand you also have the booster in sight. Roger.

Spacecraft: Yeah, have a very, very many -- look like hundreds of little particles banked on the left out about 3 to 4 miles.

The booster was not the little particles.

The pilot's objective was a bogey? The pilot was quite aware what the booster was so I am not sure why thay would be a "bogey" which would refer to unidentified or hostile.

Thanks for the reply. Even though it was useless and a waste of both our time.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Astronauts are trained flyers and test pilots. So better believe them when they say they saw something strange. If an astronaut uses the word strange. you can bet it is et origin. All earthly sats have solar panels.
Actually anyone can decipher a booster , debris or another sat of earthly origin. So sorry all naysayers and debunkers on here looks like you have lost your arguement

Seems like you haven't even READ those arguments, just superficial satires of them.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
they'll get you with this type of Astronaut sighting every time.
It was debris, it was a booster 6000 miles away etc etc.
that's why I like Coopers Edwards AFB sighting.
he watched a disc land in front of him while filming it.
the film was confiscated. So Cooper is lying or he's not.
Since he wrote a long letter to the UN about it and he
doesn't strike me as the fabricating type, I believe him.
He's never once recanted.
So yeah along with debris and ice it most certainly
could have been ET craft the Gemini astronauts saw.

James McDonald, the most respected pro-UFO scientist of the 1960s, investigated the Edwards case and reported on it to a congressional committee in 1968. I'd be interested in your assessment of why McDonald's version differs so substantially from Cooper's, try it, please.

Here's more on what Borman says about the story,

www.jamesoberg.com...

Interview with CBC News space reporter Bill Harwood:
HARWOOD : Were there any other things from your Gemini mission that—
and they specifically want you to tell, maybe things that weren’t in your
book Countdown? Any stories that you’ve—?
BORMAN : No. I—the interesting thing—one of the interesting things was
flying formation with the second stage that put us into orbit and using an
infrared sensor to track that. We referred to it as a “bogey” all the time,
which was natural, normal parlance for it. And when we got back, True
magazine wrote a big story about how we’d been tracking a UFO and all that
nonsense. So I’ve been plagued with that ever since. People say, “Well,”—if
you run into UFO circles today, they’ll still tell you, well, we saw a UFO.
Which is just foolish

originally posted by: jonnywhite

Jim Oberg has commented about Gordon Cooper's claims and has essentially made him out to be either some kind of liar or just someone with bad memory.

Well, we do need an explanation of McDonald's very different version.

James McDonald, the most respected pro-UFO scientist of the 1960s, investigated the Edwards case and reported on it to a congressional committee in 1968. I'd be interested in your assessment of why McDonald's version differs so substantially from Cooper's, try it, please.

The witnesses, and two AF officers who wrote up the report for Blue Book [where it can be found to this day], also report that Cooper wasn't involved, they didn't even know he'd been on base then, they realized after he was selected by NASA.

I'd be interested in explanations for this.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA...


Thanks for the reply. Even though it was useless and a waste of both our time.

Are you deliberately showing off how open-minded you are?

Come on, these stories really are weird and mysterious, anybody 100% sure of ANY explanation is self-delusional [me included].

ADD: Here's the historical reconstruction of this part of GT-7 I did for NASA when I wrote the book for them on the history of orbital rendezvous twenty years ago. It is critical context for anybody who really wants to understand what happened.

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Astronauts are trained flyers and test pilots. So better believe them when they say they saw something strange. If an astronaut uses the word strange. you can bet it is et origin. All earthly sats have solar panels.
Actually anyone can decipher a booster , debris or another sat of earthly origin. So sorry all naysayers and debunkers on here looks like you have lost your arguement

Seems like you haven't even READ those arguments, just superficial satires of them.

FAWLTY DEDUCTION